11 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you'd look again, you'd see that this is a non-sequitur and not an answer to my question.
Many parts of Old Testament scripture written in a prophetic manner are not
meant to be all fulfilled at one time as Jesus has indicated. This is one of
the misunderstandings of the Jews and why they do not accept Jesus as their
promised Messiah. He only fulfilled half on His first coming.
11 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI asked for scripture and you provided it. Thanks. But you have carefully sidestepped the questions I have been asking you. Maybe tomorrow.
You will have to make do with that for i am going to bed shortly and don't have
all night to keep looking up scripture. It is after midnight here.
11 Mar 12
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment,
and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected
Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how
much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Hebrews 10:26-31 NKJV)
Speaking as a neutral, it's striking how much of the ugly parts of the Bible come across much like the ugly parts of the Koran.
11 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas“...i.e., your contention that the universe is the way it is because it couldn't have been otherwise. ...”
[b]don't follow your reasoning here: where you say “...the existence of "necessity" either? “ at the end of that above statement, which type of “necessity” are you referring to?
I'm referring to the necessity you've been arguing for, i.e., your contention that the universe is the way it is because it couldn't have been otherwise.
Remembe verse theories, are meant to explain the fine-tuning that we do observe.[/b]
I never said that it was. Note the operative words “..for all we know, ...” in my original post.
“...Remember, the standard you have set for deeming fine-tuning reasonable ("...there is no... reason to believe in 'fine-tuning'." ) is nothing less than the observation of another universe with different constants ("short of actually finding another universe with different constants..." ). It follows, then, that neither is there reason to believe in necessity (i.e., "cosmological constants are what they are... due to merely the limits of what is possible." ) since we have never observed another universe with the exact same cosmological constants as our own. ...”
Correct. So? I never contradicted this.
I am NOT claiming and have NEVER claimed that "cosmological constants are what they are... due to merely the limits of what is possible."
again; note the operative words “..for all we know, ...” in my original post.
“...It renders your argument moot. ...”
But that is NOT the premise of my argument! Isn't it! And my argument doesn't depend on that premice.
again; note the operative words “..for all we know, ...” in my original post.
Reminder:
“...so, therefore, FOR ALL WE KNOW, it could be inevitable that cosmological constants are what they are ...”(my comment and my original post)
And none of this would make any difference to the conclusion that we cannot say anything about the probabilities of the physical constants being different to what they are and, therefore, by implication, we can say nothing about the probability of there being “fine-tuning”.
“..
BTW, fine-tuning doesn't imply 'design'.Fine-tuning is what physicists observe about the universe we know; a neutral distinction based on the precision of the cosmological constants and physical laws necessary for our universe to be as it is. Fine-tuning is a fact. ...”
I don't see how: doesn't the words “fine-tuning” clearly imply there is some “tuning”? There is absolutely no evidence to date of any kind of 'tuning' i.e. that the constants could be 'tuned'.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
11 Mar 12
Originally posted by epiphinehas"Certainly it is possible that the cosmological constants are as they are due to necessity. So? Following your expert opinion (above), shouldn't we conclude that since there is no evidence of any other universes besides our own displaying the exact same constants as our own, then there is no evidence nor reason to believe in the existence of "necessity" either? "
[b]Since we do not know that it is possible (let alone probable) to have a universe with cosmological constants being different from what they are in our universe, we cannot deduce anything whatsoever about the probability of the cosmological constants being different (let alone significantly different) from what they are.
Why is it necessa ...[text shortened]... to believe in the existence of 'fine-tuning'.[/b]
Nor the other alternatives, it seems.[/b]
Stimulating thoughts. For simplicity's sake let us say that a universe can be specified by the value of 5 constants.
Let us say that that when the value of each of these constants lies within certain limits, the universe will develop and support life forms that advance sufficiently to reflect on and discuss their origins. If any of the values lies outside its "life limits" there will be no such life in that universe. Ever. Anywhere.
What do we know about the limitations, if any, on what these values can be?
What do we know about the limits of the values which will support life?
What do we know about the probability distribution of any of the values?
One thing we can speculate: In any universe where the values all lie within the life limits, at least some of the residents will eventually, leap to marvel at the fine tuning of that universe, even though to their knowledge, such life in that universe exists only in a thin film, on one planet, for a relatively short time. At least, we have one example of that leap being made.
Fine tuning. Harumph!
11 Mar 12
Originally posted by JS357In a multi-universe, life might be just a matter of luck. Say trillions of universes are out there and only one in a billion has just the right specs for life. There doesn't have to be a god in a system like that. Or it could be the other way round, trillions of universes, and only one in a billion can't support life. Of course this is pure speculation but that is how sciences start. You have to ask the questions and pose the speculations.
"Certainly it is possible that the cosmological constants are as they are due to necessity. So? Following your expert opinion (above), shouldn't we conclude that since there is no evidence of any other universes besides our own displaying the exact same constants as our own, then there is no evidence nor reason to believe in the existence of "necessity" either ...[text shortened]... rt time. At least, we have one example of that leap being made.
Fine tuning. Harumph!
11 Mar 12
Originally posted by sonhouseSounds like science fiction to me.
In a multi-universe, life might be just a matter of luck. Say trillions of universes are out there and only one in a billion has just the right specs for life. There doesn't have to be a god in a system like that. Or it could be the other way round, trillions of universes, and only one in a billion can't support life. Of course this is pure speculation but that is how sciences start. You have to ask the questions and pose the speculations.
11 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357“...What do we know about the probability distribution of any of the values? ..”
"Certainly it is possible that the cosmological constants are as they are due to necessity. So? Following your expert opinion (above), shouldn't we conclude that since there is no evidence of any other universes besides our own displaying the exact same constants as our own, then there is no evidence nor reason to believe in the existence of "necessity" either rt time. At least, we have one example of that leap being made.
Fine tuning. Harumph!
That is the critical rhetorical question. But for the benefit of those that don't know the answer, the answer is “nothing”.
That was the point I was arguing for in my previous posts ( but with my statements being constantly misinterpreted by over zealous fast-readers) ; we cannot rationally with confidence say anything about the probabilities of the constants being different from what they are. We cannot call it a massive 'coincidence' that they were not different any more than we can say it is 'inevitable' that they were not different.
11 Mar 12
Originally posted by humyOnly God knows. HalleluYah !!!
“...What do we know about the probability distribution of any of the values? ..”
That is the critical rhetorical question. But for the benefit of those that don't know the answer, the answer is “nothing”.
That was the point I was arguing for in my previous posts ( but with my statements being constantly misinterpreted by over zealous fast-readers) ; we cann ...[text shortened]... ere not different any more than we can say it is 'inevitable' that they were not different.
11 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou say that as if it were a fact. In fact that is your opinion. Based on what other people actually think. You didn't think about that on your own. You just parrot what other people wrote.
Yes, "speculation" is all evolution and old ages are for everything in the universe, including mankind.
But of course, that is the only thing right wing christians can do.