Why do atheist's fear God?

that is a great series jimmie I have posted and cited to some of those videos man times.

as for the rest of the recent posts... look a troll explosion.
 
I used "appears" ... for many years... now I also use "is" when speaking of the fined tuned constants in our unverse.

Fine tuning is now a well defined part of the scientific nomenclature.
only science deny morons deny that.
you can see many scientists and academics use it in the video series jimmie barton just cited.


Ricter said:
Doesn't this argument really boil down to the difference between "appears" and "is" fine-tuned?

I don't follow every punch and counter-punch. : )
More...
 
jem said:
I used "appears" ... for many years... now I also use "is" when speaking of the fined tuned constants in our unverse.

Fine tuning is now a well defined part of the scientific nomenclature.
only science deny morons deny that.
you can see many scientists and academics use it in the video series jimmie barton just cited.
More...
Still, until a tuner is actually observed the correct position can be no more than "appears fine-tuned".

No "is" until there IS a tuner.

Bigger telescopes!
(And more guns.)
 
there is a difference what a layman might think fine tuning connotes and what a scientist thinks.

A scientist would say the constants of the standard model are finely tuned because they are so precise. A scientist of today might say that without necessarily implying a Tuner did it.

Speaking in terms of science... although I don't think when exactly the precision becomes fine tuning is well defined, I would think any precision in the constants that seems un natural would be considered fine tuning. (natural here is used in the scientific definition of the term)





Ricter said:
Still, until a tuner is actually observed the correct position can be no more than "appears fine-tuned".

No "is" until there IS a tuner.

Bigger telescopes!
(And more guns.)
More...
 
Last edited:
jem said:
I used "appears" ... for many years... now I also use "is" when speaking of the fined tuned constants in our unverse.

Fine tuning is now a well defined part of the scientific nomenclature.
only science deny morons deny that.
you can see many scientists and academics use it in the video series jimmie barton just cited.
More...

Nobody...scientists, academics or the man in the moon, has any science to show that either the universe or what you call constants IS or ARE fine tuned. period.

jem said:
there is a difference what a layman might think fine tuning connotes and what a scientist thinks.

A scientist would say the constants of the standard model are finely tuned because they are so precise. A scientist of today might say that without necessarily implying a Tuner did it.

Speaking in terms of science... although I don't think when exactly the precision becomes fine tuning is well defined, I would think any precision in the constants that seems un natural would be considered fine tuning. (natural here is used in the scientific definition of the term)
More...

The biggest single currently unsolved question in physics and cosmology, is how the fundamental physical constants get to be the values they are observed to be.

No matter how hard you try and finesse it, without that science to explain them, no one can state in scientific terms that either the Universe, or the fundamental physical constants of the universe, or the cosmological constant itself ..... ARE fine tuned. Or that any single one of them IS fine tuned.

Discovering their values to be the inevitable outcome of their own natural properties alone, would be enough to dismiss all notions of fine tuning. Having no scientific or rational reason to assume it will be otherwise, is enough to reject religious God of the Gaps fine tuning.

That's really all there is to it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top