The Fallacy of Fine Tuning, CARM 6/18/11
only about five out of 4o were actual arguments. most of those were up (like 34) before the other five were up. So most of the thread was atheist homing and hawing and Mat Hunter going "I am a scientist so I know more than yu do, so you have to be wrong." That's all, he didn't make a single argument. This is totally absurd. The amaing and laughable thing is that after 40 posts they are not even embarrassed. they are saying things like "you are complaining." Insread of making arguments!
They had a link form Stingers website, but I wont put it up here because ever time I get in it my computer frezes up. I'm sure that's nothing they meant to do.
I offered counter evidence by quoting Andre Linde form my Doxa site where I have my own fine tuning argument. Linde is a major phsycist he was one of the inventors of inflationary theroy.
Adrei Linde,Scientific American. Oct 97Every single atheist repose for 40 posts was nothing. some examples:
[explaining problems with the BB for which the new inflationary model is propossed. The first problem listed above--that the universe pops into exitence out of nothing] I don't think the link there works anymore, the original article as in:
Scientific American oct 97
a) something from nothing
b) Flatness of Universe
"A second trouble spot is the flatness of space. General relativity suggests that space may be very curved, with a typical radius on the order of the Planck length, or 10^-33 centimeter. We see however, that our universe is just about flat on a scale of 10^28 centimeters, the radius of the observable part of the universe. This result of our observation differs from theoretical expectations by more than 60 orders of magnitude."
c) Size of Universe--Plank Density
"A similar discrepancy between theory and observations concerns the size of the universe. Cosmological examinations show that our part of the universe contains at least IO^88 elementary particles. But why is the universe so big? If one takes a universe of a typical initial size given by the Planck length and a typical initial density equal to the Planck density, then, using the standard big bang theory, one can calculate how many elementary particles such a universe might encompass. The answer is rather unexpected: the entire universe should only be large enough to accommodate just one elementary particle or at most 10 of them. it would be unable to house even a single reader of Scientiftc American, who consists of about 10^29 elementary particles. Obviously something is wrong with this theory."
d) Timing of expansion
"The fourth problem deals with the timing of the expansion. In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. But how could all the different parts of the universe synchromize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command?
e)Distribution of matter in the universe
"Fifth, there is the question about the distribution of matter in the universe. on the very large scale, matter has spread out with remarkable uniformity. Across more than 10 billion light-years, its distribution departs from perfect homogeneity by less than one part in 10,000..... One of the cornerstones of the standard cosmology was the 'cosmological principle," which asserts that the universe must be homogeneous. This assumption. however, does not help much, because the universe incorporates important deviations from homogeneity, namely. stars, galaxies and other agglomerations of matter. Tence, we must explain why the universe is so uniform on large scales and at the same time suggest some mechanism that produces galaxies."
f) The "Uniqueness Problem"
"Finally, there is what I call the uniqueness problem. AIbert Einstein captured its essence when he said: "What really interests ine is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world." Indeed, slight changes in the physical constants of nature could have made the universe unfold in a completeIy, different manner. ..... In some theories, compactilication can occur in billions of different ways. A few years ago it would have seemed rather meaningless to ask why space-time has four dimensions, why the gravitational constant is so small or why the proton is almost 2,000 times heavier than the electron. New developments in elementary particle physics make answering these questions crucial to understanding the construction of our world."
Now Linde is confident that the new inflationary theires will explain all of this, and indeed states that their purpose is to revolve the ambiguity with which cosmologists are forced to cope. The Scalar field is suppossed to explain all of this; but these inflationary models are still on the drawing board. Moreover, he never says where scalar fields come from, what makes them, and indeed never illustrates how they solve the initial problem of where it all came form in the first palce. Finally, it seems that scalar fields would be a design feature that should troulbe Linde as much as the initial problems, since he compares them the circuit breaker of a house which keeps the uiverse from heating up too fast before it can expand. Moreover, they might be argitrary necessiteis (see argument I).
Linde agreed that fine tuning is true but he didn't want to believe in God. he proposed in that article that it could be explained by skylar fields. He didn't really explain it he gave us another puzzle to work on.
The great scientist posting at CARM Hunt:
To be honest meta, your physics isn't that hot, and your understanding of it is even worse, let this one lie."I know more than you do leave me alone." that' the most he said on the whole thread. He made several other posts to me and never said anything else. This is a real post he did:
none of this post may be used without the authors permission.
Leave science to the scientists meta...
that's the whole post. never made a single argument, never talked about a single scientific fact.
I said:Originally Posted by Metacrock Catbarf says:
Do you REALLY want me to start pasting in all the many, many, many, many times you call atheists stupid, or unable to think, or brainwashed, or dogmatic, or ideological, or Orwellian, or uneducated? Do you really need that to recognize your own ridiculous, blatant hypocrisy?
What does one have to do with the ohter? I make a post saying "you are not arguing arguments you are just saying little quips so he says a quip, and threats to talk about stuff I've done he doesn't' like. Is that supposed to prove something?
Originally Posted by Metacrock
Consider the stupidity of this. I'm making an ad hom becaus I say they haven't made an argument? I swear amost every popst to that point was like the one by catbarf. Only one post, a single link had any content that was the Original post. Yes some how that makes my recogizing their poor arguemnt ad hom. why? obviosuly the don't know what the words means. They think it's any time you talk about them. Then he says there are the reasons they don't like me what does that mean? Does it mean because I point out how bereft of logic their arguments are, becasue I insult them (where was I insulting them to point out the they weren't arguing?) or because he's claiming my stuff is content less as I accused theirs of being: to that Isay merel read my website and my blog and my boards and tell you think that. Absoltuey assigning. You're basically pointing out all of the reasons that people dismiss you.
No one has an argument but you? I think you've just reduced yourself to troll status.
I said:Originally Posted by Metacrock where is the arguent sonny child. where is it? where?
go down the row post by post. every single one of them in htis thread they are all name calling and dmeanding hat "we must be right" not a one o hem makes a single argument.he says: CaptianObvoius
Unfortunately, I have looked at your posts Meta.what does that mean?
It goes n this way for 40 posts. finally Fireproof Ashes cam along and we a nice little argument, no insults, it didn't last long. The only other content in it Gary Harris arguing about argument from analogy, and someone else arguing over mislabeling "fine tuning." really no substance at all.
What was this about? I know what it was. it was an attempt to set up what I call a "ridicule gauntlet. That's a whole bunch of atheist go one after another mocking and ridiculing a Christian This one never got off the ground. Even though they had a of contentless crap in the thread they never really that insulting because I made such a stink about how they wree just giving a content less posts. the few attempts such Harris's analogy I shot down fast so nothing ever got going and they couldn't really cut lose without
Atheism is not for thinking people. they are not in it to learn things or find turth. They are in it to take revenge for their poor self esteem. They want to get even they want to feel powerful, some are just plain trolls. They are not thinkers and they are not interested in what's true.