How is the balance between boys and girls maintained?

[Kidlicious]

Lorizel,

How is the Law of Large Numbers not an example of fine tuning?

And it's easy to cpme up with SOME explaination for anything. But we happen to live on THIS planet in THIS universe. Not an infinite number of theoretical universes that may or may not exist. Again and you've already answered no. You don't assume, when you see a building that it wasn't built, that it is a natural result.

[Lorizael]

How is the Law of Large Numbers not an example of fine tuning?

Because it is mathematically true. It arises from the logic of our math the same way that 2+2=4 does. While it's quite possible that God "fine-tuned" the Law of Large Numbers, that argument is not necessary because math is all that is required.

And it's easy to cpme up with SOME explaination for anything. But we happen to live on THIS planet in THIS universe. Not an infinite number of theoretical universes that may or may not exist.

I'm not talking about what might be. I'm giving you answers that are just as consistent with the universe we live in as God is.

Again and you've already answered no. You don't assume, when you see a building that it wasn't built, that it is a natural result.

Actually, I do assume that buildings are natural. They are a natural product of tool-using animals, which are a natural product of evolution. Again, I would suggest that you either seriously study biology and understand the conclusions it comes to, or ignore the subject entirely and simply rely on your faith.

[N35t0r]

How is the Law of Large Numbers not an example of fine tuning?

So if I toss a coin a very large number of times, and eventually the odds of it coming heads tends to 50%, its an example that there must be a god?

[Kidlicious]

Lori, thanx for posting. Science is not my strength. My faith doesn't depend on evidence.

I won't have time to respond like I want to until after work but I have some questions. One is dont those who believe tthe universe wasnt fine tuned believe in an infinite number of universe?

[Lorizael]

One is dont those who believe tthe universe wasnt fine tuned believe in an infinite number of universe?

Not necessarily. However, it's important to draw a distinction between those who believe the universe was fine-tuned but don't believe God is the reason why, and those who don't believe the universe is fine-tuned at all.

For example, simulations have been run which seem to indicate that the universe is not, in fact, fine-tuned. That is to say, you might be able to change some of the fundamental constants of nature by large-ish margins and still have universes that could produce life, even universes that might be more life-friendly than ours.

For those that believe the universe is fine-tuned, there are natural explanations that don't involve multiple universes - depending on how you define the word universe. For example, early cosmology is described by the theory of inflation. Inflation allows for pockets of space-time that used to be close but are now separated causally. (Don't hit me, KH.) It's distinctly possible that these different pockets could have different fundamental constants or different initial conditions. If that's the case, then it's only our slice of the universe which appears fine-tuned for life - and of course it does - because we exist.

[MikeH]

There is a difference in 'believing' a scientific theory to be the best model we have and 'believing' in God.

Generally if/when convincing evidence comes out that one theory is wrong/incomplete people will eventually accept that and move onto the next best theory. Believing in a scientific theory, regardless of any contradictory evidence is not scientific.

[Kidlicious]

Lori,

First thing is you should know is that a lot of christians have mixed feelings about proofs. Historically some churches have emphasized proofs but reading the Bible will discourage people from it. However Jesus did say that if you can't believe on faith at least believe the miracles. I myself am a christian existentialist and believe only subjectively. But I happen to be familiar with the idea of a fine tuned universe.

Because it is mathematically true. It arises from the logic of our math the same way that 2+2=4 does. While it's quite possible that God "fine-tuned" the Law of Large Numbers, that argument is not necessary because math is all that is required.

I don't understand why you can't have different logic and different math in other universes if you can have different physical laws.

I'm not talking about what might be. I'm giving you answers that are just as consistent with the universe we live in as God is.

Yeah I know but my point is why should a person believe theories that people didn't come up with independently but came up with because they didn't like the theory that naturally firsts comes to mind. People have been aware of the idea that the universe is fine tuned and naturally everyone has assumed that that implies a creator. But now people has come up with the multiverse because they don't want to believe what comes natural.

Actually, I do assume that buildings are natural. They are a natural product of tool-using animals, which are a natural product of evolution. Again, I would suggest that you either seriously study biology and understand the conclusions it comes to, or ignore the subject entirely and simply rely on your faith.

Well you've messed up my analogy but would you still care to address my point? Naturally men assume a creator when they see order such as when we see something that was built by men. That is why most people believe that if the univrtse is fine tuned it means there is a creator. Even if there are other universes. It doesn't change the significance of one fine tuned universe.

[Kidlicious]

There is a difference in 'believing' a scientific theory to be the best model we have and 'believing' in God.

Generally if/when convincing evidence comes out that one theory is wrong/incomplete people will eventually accept that and move onto the next best theory. Believing in a scientific theory, regardless of any contradictory evidence is not scientific.

Well it would be nice for science if you could keep the two seperated. But the fact is that in cases where there is no objective proof human being rely on their subjectivity. Anyone who believes subjectively that God exists will be skeptical of the multiverse theory, and anyone who believes subjectively that God doesn't exist will be skeptical of the universe theory.

[loinburger]

Yeah I know but my point is why should a person believe theories that people didn't come up with independently but came up with because they didn't like the theory that naturally firsts comes to mind.

Yeah, because all of those naturally occurring theories like a flat earth and geocentrism have worked out so well. Basically, you're just incredibly lazy.

[Kidlicious]

Not necessarily. However, it's important to draw a distinction between those who believe the universe was fine-tuned but don't believe God is the reason why, and those who don't believe the universe is fine-tuned at all.

For example, simulations have been run which seem to indicate that the universe is not, in fact, fine-tuned. That is to say, you might be able to change some of the fundamental constants of nature by large-ish margins and still have universes that could produce life, even universes that might be more life-friendly than ours.

For those that believe the universe is fine-tuned, there are natural explanations that don't involve multiple universes - depending on how you define the word universe. For example, early cosmology is described by the theory of inflation. Inflation allows for pockets of space-time that used to be close but are now separated causally. (Don't hit me, KH.) It's distinctly possible that these different pockets could have different fundamental constants or different initial conditions. If that's the case, then it's only our slice of the universe which appears fine-tuned for life - and of course it does - because we exist.

Well it would be nice if we could all assume that if the universe is fine tuned and there are no other universe that there was a creator.

That said I don't see how significant it is if the universe isn't perfectly fine tuned. It's still highly unlilely that the order could happen without a creator. Similarly, if there aren't a very large number of universes then it doesn't really mean that it's less significant that the universe is fine tuned. For example if there's just one other universe that's not at all important.

[giblets]

The current order could be highly unlikely to happen with a creator too. Maybe a god would have no interest in creating a universe that allows life. You're insane if you think you can estimate and compare the probabilities of the universe existing the way it is with or without a creator.

[Lorizael]

I don't understand why you can't have different logic and different math in other universes if you can have different physical laws.

Uh, that's entirely possible?

Yeah I know but my point is why should a person believe theories that people didn't come up with independently but came up with because they didn't like the theory that naturally firsts comes to mind. People have been aware of the idea that the universe is fine tuned and naturally everyone has assumed that that implies a creator. But now people has come up with the multiverse because they don't want to believe what comes natural.

The problem here is that these theories were definitely not invented after the fact to explain away fine-tuning. Inflation helps explain why the universe looks the same at scales greater than 200 million light years (along with a lot of other things). The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is an answer to the apparent insufficiency of the Copenhagen interpretation. The fact that these theories can explain multiple phenomena and are consistent with the universe as we understand it actually makes them good theories.

Well you've messed up my analogy but would you still care to address my point? Naturally men assume a creator when they see order such as when we see something that was built by men. That is why most people believe that if the univrtse is fine tuned it means there is a creator. Even if there are other universes. It doesn't change the significance of one fine tuned universe.

I didn't mess up your analogy. I'm saying that there's a basic flaw in your analogy, which is your assumption that order necessitates intelligence. Order, as it is known to physics, has been decreasing steadily since the big bang. This would seem to suggest that God has lost interest in the universe? Or perhaps it doesn't suggest anything at all, because order is just a way in which we categorize the current condition of matter.

[Lorizael]

That said I don't see how significant it is if the universe isn't perfectly fine tuned.

It's significant if you're attempting to explain the universe's fine-tuning as a result of God's work. If the universe were incredibly hostile to life (which much of it is), what would that say about God's involvement? If the universe were biophillic, and there were life everywhere, what would that say? And what about the fact that God expelled mankind from the perfect Eden into an imperfect world where we are meant to suffer? Does that put an upper bound on how fine-tuned the universe must be?

[Kidlicious]

Uh, that's entirely possible?

Honestly I don't know how it's possible to have different universes with different physical laws. I just figured that if you could have different logic. My view of logic is something created by God.

The problem here is that these theories were definitely not invented after the fact to explain away fine-tuning. Inflation helps explain why the universe looks the same at scales greater than 200 million light years (along with a lot of other things). The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is an answer to the apparent insufficiency of the Copenhagen interpretation. The fact that these theories can explain multiple phenomena and are consistent with the universe as we understand it actually makes them good theories.



I didn't mess up your analogy. I'm saying that there's a basic flaw in your analogy, which is your assumption that order necessitates intelligence. Order, as it is known to physics, has been decreasing steadily since the big bang. This would seem to suggest that God has lost interest in the universe? Or perhaps it doesn't suggest anything at all, because order is just a way in which we categorize the current condition of matter.

Hmmm... but when we see order don't we all believe in an intelligent creator? get you that it's possible for there to be order without a creator but it's just not nearly as likely.

[Elok]

Still waiting for the verdict on Brother Legree...