Does anyone actually believe in God or are they just afraid...

[jem]

by the way this is the way the debate should be had.... the author mentions the critiques right up front on page 3-4... and some he admits are potential stumbling blocks...

here is a sample...

"In this paper I shall examine a particular variant of the fourth view, that the
fraction of baryons that develops into living organisms is maximized by the observed
constants of physics. This hypothesis is in principle falsifiable, and I shall argue
that considerations of hypothetical variations of the cosmological constant give a
very preliminary inconclusive hint that it may become falsified, since the fraction
of baryons that condense into galaxies that in turn form living organisms would be
higher if the cosmological constant were lower. This result thus gives a preliminary
suggestion that there might eventually be evidence against optimal fine tuning for
3life (or at least for maximizing the fraction of baryons that become living organisms)
by such a biophilic principle.
However, email comments by Robert Mann [11], Michael Salem [12], and Martin
Rees [13] have shown me that it is not at all clear that the very small increase in the
fraction of baryons that would condense into galaxies if the cosmological constant
were zero instead of its tiny observed positive value would also lead to an increase in
the fraction of baryons that would go into life, since conceivably the small differences
in the galaxies produced by lowering the cosmological constant to zero might also
affect the fraction of baryons within galaxies that become life in a way that would
overcompensate for the higher fraction of baryons condensing into galaxies."

 

[stu]

Excellent way to generate Stu's interest in your reply!

Indeed. But I'll give it a shot
But then the title of the thread makes one wonder why Jem is constantly trying to force a deity into science and pitting religion against science for years, if not in fear of it .
Him being as ignominious as ever, it could be anything, like all his chairs are not at home perhaps.

 

[stu]

Pretty much confirming what I have been saying is the state of science for the last 5-10 years here on ET.

Lol! The kind of religioscience you must be sucking up from staring at the same couple of vids as you post here a million times is what you must presume the "state of science" to be. But as you can't differentiate between that and what the actual state of it is, you wouldn't recognize science if it smacked you in the face. Misunderstanding purposefully and from ignorance is what you have done for the last 5-10 years. Snipping selected lumps of text to paste and curve fit your pre-concluded God into.

Here is a quote from Stu's paper.

The point is......the value of the cosmological constant is not "settled science". Yet you're the one, the theist, treating it like it is, screaming and throwing insult at anyone who points out your mistake.

The paper suggests an in principle falsifiable hypothesis that a zero or negative cosmological constant would be more conducive to forming galaxies and life.

However, the cosmological constant still only appears to be what it is. Science has not yet fixed it.

It's value is a matter of science. What you presume its value means non-scientifically is philosophical (supernatural mumbo jumbo in your case) .

If you presume zero would be a natural value , but an infinitesimally tiny value above zero is the work of a Cosmic Conjuring Creator, then it is equally valid to propose that considering everything appears natural should you care to look , a tiny positive value suggests, rather than any so called "fine-tuning" speculation, the great sky god fucked up aiming at zero.
Or, it is infinitely more likely the result of the imprecision of naturalness.

Whatever, religious based guessing about Creator and fine-tunings has no part in it . You don't use screwdrivers to hammer home nails. Especially imaginary make-believe screwdrivers made from pixie dust.

 

[Trader666]

... a Cosmic Conjuring Creator... the great sky god fucked up aiming at zero...You don't use screwdrivers to hammer home nails. Especially imaginary make-believe screwdrivers made from pixie dust.

And yet you believe the universe simply conjured itself into existence from absolutely nothing, just because your "god" said so

 

[WaveStrider]

Frankly, I have no use for "Book Thumpers", unless they are thumping it on their own head. Belief (or not) is personal.

But the demand of Atheists (so-called) are no less annoying. Why?

Because the demand of Atheists (and it IS a DEMAND, even though never explicitly stated as such), is that ALL OF EXISTENCE MUST FALL WITHIN THE 5 SENSES OF HUMAN PERCEPTION.

And when I say "5 senses", we all know it really means for the most part ONE sense - Sight.

So the demand is everything MUST be within purview of a single human sensory organ.

And it has to be observable NOW - on THEIR timetable.

Because we all know that many things that in the past were unobservable/unprovable in their time are now provable - but if living in the past, such things would never exist to them because...they say so.

The Multiverse is unprovable. Now. To adamantly say it doesn't exist would require...Faith - and a claim to clairvoyance of future time.

Such is the logic and religion of Atheism and it's Pope, Richard Dawkins.

Seems more like a scam.

 

[jem]

hey stu, nice strawman you troll, you are the only lugnut who would argue science is settled.


See that first sentenced... it means.... it has long been recognized that jem has been correct and Stu is a troll moron because jem was telling the truth when he said many top scientists say the constants of our universe appear fine tuned for life.

Here is a quote from Stu's paper. Pretty much confirming what I have been saying is the state of science for the last 5-10 years here on ET.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.2444v2.pdf

1 Introduction
It has long been recognized that many of the apparent constants of physics are
observed to take values that are much more biophilic (in the sense of being conducive
to life and observership) than values significantly different are believed to be [1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. For example, the cosmological constant (or dark energy density)
that quantifies the gravitational repulsion of empty space is roughly 122 orders
of magnitude smaller than the Planck value, but if it were just a few orders of
magnitude larger than its tiny positive observed value [8, 9], with the other constants
of physics kept the same, life as we know it would appear to be very difficult.
A partial explanation for this apparent fine tuning is the anthropic principle
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], that as observers we can observe only conditions (including the
constants of physics) that permit our existence. However, it has been controversial
what the deeper implications of this are.
One view is it is purely an accident or coincidence that the constants of physics
have biophilic values, and that there is no deeper explanation. However, the fact
that the cosmological constant is roughly 122 orders of magnitude smaller than the
apparently simplest natural nonzero value for it (the Planck value) cries out for
an explanation beyond pure coincidence, since the probability of such a remarkable
coincidence from a random selection of the cosmological constant with a measure
uniformly distributed over a range roughly the Planck value is extremely low, much
less than the probability of having a monkey randomly type on a simple typewriter
in one go,
The cosmological constant is 10^(-122) in Planck units
====

by the way... the next section should disabuse Stu of more of his 7 years of bullshit..

 

[stu]

See that first sentenced... it means.... it has long been recognized that jem has been correct and Stu is a troll moron because jem was telling the truth when he said many top scientists say the constants of our universe appear fine tuned for life.

Oh dear. Thought you were using your sockpuppet again did you .....or have you finally gone completely total, talking in the third person.


You've just acknowledged a paper explaining why a zero or slightly negative value of the cosmological constant would be expected to maximize galaxy and star formation and therefore life also. The exact opposite of this...

Regarding your discussion about the cosmological constant being small but not zero. Your argument is absurd.

If the constant were different say zero... the universe would crush. Your argument about it not be zero is ignorant.
a cosmological constant of zero would be a disaster.

This advice would be good for you.....

To be that certain about something so obviously unknowable at this time is the definition of no humility.

The fine tuning argument from religion is in any event baseless.
If the constants of the Universe have to be fine tuned, it merely suggests any presumed tuner has very limited choices.
Poof goes the idea of an all-powerful almighty God when it is possible only to select from a specific set of values to successfully magic a universe.

 

[jem]

you lie about science again troll.
let me correct your troll misrepresentation.

The paper stated (as I have stated and you have lied about) that it is accepted science that our universe appears finely tuned.
However --- the paper suggests there is a ------------------
Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life
--

It should now be clear to everyone here but troll like stu that the fine tuning of our universe is science based not religion based.
The science has does no deal with whether the Tuner is all powerful or more limited.
Only scared old 1950s thinking atheists bring up that stuff in response to the science.
Your argument is silly. The objection is sometimes posed in interviews to the top scientists about the Theory of Everything and they acknowledge that even it the TOE is found...a TOE does not rule in our out a Tuner. A Tuner could make the TOE.


So you have come a long way in your science Stu... you now cite papers which acknowledge the fine tunings of our universe.
Something you lied about for 5-7 years.

Now the next thing you have to understand is that the tunings are evidence of a Tuner... but even if turns out there is a multiverse.. that does not rule out a Creator.
In short Stu... science has made 1950s thinkings atheists like you you look ignorant for many years. Its nice you finally updated your worldview.

Oh dear. Thought you were using your sockpuppet again did you .....or have you finally gone completely total, talking in the third person.


You've just acknowledged a paper explaining why a zero or slightly negative value of the cosmological constant would be expected to maximize galaxy and star formation and therefore life also. The exact opposite of this...



This advice would be good for you.....




The fine tuning argument from religion is in any event baseless.
If the constants of the Universe have to be fine tuned, it merely suggests any presumed tuner has very limited choices.
Poof goes the idea of an all-powerful almighty God when it is possible only to select from a specific set of values to successfully magic a universe.

 

[jem]

Here is the link to the cornell library to the paper your article cited....
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444


Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life

Don N. Page
(Submitted on 12 Jan 2011 (v1), last revised 28 Jan 2011 (this version, v2))
The effective coupling `constants' of physics, especially the cosmological constant, are observed to have highly biophilic values. If this is not a hugely improbable accident, or a consequence of some mysterious logical necessity or of some simple principle of physics, it might be explained as a consequence either of an observership selection principle within a multiverse of many sets of effective coupling constants, or else of some biophilic principle that fine tunes the constants of physics to optimize life. Here a very preliminary inconclusive hint of evidence is presented against the hypothesis of optimal fine tuning of the cosmological constant by a biophilic principle that would maximize the fraction of baryons that form living organisms or observers.[/QUOTE]

 

[stu]

I am just stating facts.
The universe we live in is extremely fine tuned according to most of today's top scientists.

Quote from Jem: lying about what Jem said...

....... jem was telling the truth when he said many top scientists say the constants of our universe appear fine tuned for life.