not this nonsense again... NONE OF the constants coming together in specific way are actually the evidence for INTELLIGENT DESIGN... It's as much of intelligently designed as these circumstances ... http://youtu.be/K8Ft7aub3ZI


this is so wrong... just because something seems "fine-tuned" does not mean it is designed by someone.... btw, math does not support intelligent design, all it might support is that the constants are set up in a way that the universe and life in it were able to come to it's existence in these circumstances... you're taking a giant leap of faith and jumping into conclusions that something intelligent (in your case CHRISTIAN GOD) must have tweaked the constants, something which is not backed up by any math or other evidence...

There used to be five "independent" string theories and then one day Ed Witten figured out they were all just re-statements of the same theory.

How do you know that string theory isn't just making the same semi-classical calculations just in a different format? Doesn't string theory make use of a lot of the same physics as those classical theories? For instance could you even have a string theory without General Relativity? I think not.

You come on here and mislead people into thinking that string theory is some completely independent theory that just happens to come up with the same answers as previous theories....thats just not true. String theory incorporates and is built on those classical theories so it is not much of a surprise it comes up with many of the same answers.

Not according to me but according to people in the world of cosmology....who have actually accomplished something....saying that if these values were not "tuned" to what they are then we would have a sterile universe.

Did you watch the Wienberg video? Even he suggests it.

It is widely believed that the Vafa/Strominger calculations are an independent check, in the sense that the results could have disagreed with the semi-classical calculation and were not "put in by hand" into string theory. This contrasts to loop quantum gravity, where you have to essentially assume the correct answer to derive it. It's possible string theory is also assuming the answer from the start, but there is no evidence of that at all.

Lol, of course you would. String theory didn't even start out as a theory that had anything to do with gravity. General relativity is unavoidable in string theory. If general relativity had never been discovered, string theory would have predicted it. All other quantum theories tell us gravity is impossible and one just happens to actually predict it. It is a pretty good argument that string theory is on the right track.

Lolz... you seem totally fine with appealing to Susskind's authority when says stuff that the vast majority of experts disagree with. Why not appeal to Witten/Gross/Susskind/Vafa etc when they say totally noncontroversial things?

See http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/k...ten/oh/06.html

So it is pointless to try to convince you that the universe does not exhibit high degrees of fine tuning because you don't know what fine tuning means and you are only (poorly) trying to parrot others who are experts?

I may not know as much about physics as you, but I know your opinion that there is no appearance of fine tuning is inconsistent with mainstream cosmology. I like cosmology and have watched hours of college lectures on it as well as anything else I can get my hands on(like closertotruth videos or books like the Fabric of the Cosmos). Most cosmologist admit the universe appears fine tuned but argue that such appearance isn't evidence that it is indeed fine tuned. There are other reasonable explaination.

I would accuse you of lying though gross ignorance is obv more likely...but this is a close to completely false. There is decent evidence no "knife edge" like this exists for 20 constants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

Then you should let them make the case for you. I said early on that I could make the case for fine tuning much, much better than you are. But I would have to add in alot more loopholes based upon how well we really understand the naturalness of the Higgs scale etc. And all of this stuff that you don't mention and people don't really understand could easily destroy any apparent fine tunings.

Do you disagree? If so, why?

No I do not disagree.

My issue with people who claim there is nothing(or practically nothing) about the universe which suggests the possibility of a creator. The nature of the universe is highly suggestive of the existence of a creator. It is also highly suggestive of the existence of a multiverse too. I have to consider both possibilities.

That being said even if it was shown that there is a multiverse, that doesn't put an end to the fine tuning argument. For there to be a multiverse there has to be a universe generator which is also likely to have its own fine tunings.

It's as suggestive as the claims about the internet poker "it's rigged!!"

well, but ITT you used fine tuning as god evidence, did you not?

If general relativitiy is unavoidable isn't that saying its necessary for string theory? Where does GR come from? It comes from Special Relativty. Can you build string theory without SR? Is SR a prediciton of string theory? Can you write a string theory without any classical underpinnings?

Yes....but only to make a point that in order to reject it as such one must accept the existence of something else. One must accept the extra ordinary claim that a multiverse exists if they are going to reject theism and if they are going to do that, then they need to provide exta ordinary evidence for that claim.

Please remember that this thread and my OP began as response in a very different thread. I was making the comment that all the things the folks like Dawkins or Hitchens criticize theism for could be applied to them as well.

I just do see how one can have a reasonable understanding of the universe(as I presume Dawkins does)....see an apparent fine tuning that cries for an explaination(which I have seen cosmologist after cosmologist say exist) .....and reject a fine tuner on the basis a diety is an extra ordinary claim that requires extra ordinary evidence while maintaining a multiverse is some how not an extraordinary claim.

I just don't see how a rationale person can look at the world and claim they are 99% sure God does not exist....yet this forum crawls with people like that.

That VeeDzz guy is right in that at best all you can really be is an agnostic.

I don't see how these two things follow. You say in order to reject it you must accept something else, and then immedeatly imply that the only thing that could fill this gap is a multiverse... What if there is a better explanation out there we just haven't found yet? If we have two possibilities that don't seem likely at all, who says we have to subscribe to one or the other?

That VeeDzz guy is right in that at best all you can really be is an agnostic.

Well, I obviously don't think this is true

I think you are misrepresenting what we actually claim...

Many of us when we claim 99% we do so in regards to the GODS of the holy texts and other religions. The Deistic type of GOD or some type of higher intelligence (we are a simulation) none of us can ascribe a number to because it's just an unfalsifiable claim. What we do say is that we reject these claims on the basis of the lack of evidence in support of such claims( we are a simulation, intelligent design, etc).

And here you are confusing Agnosticism (knowing) , atheism( belief)... HOW MANY MORE TIMES? I , and I'm sure many others are just tired of repeating to you the differences of those two...

A better explaination that we haven't found is really no explaination at all. Or if you count it as an explaination and then subscribe to it over the other two....well then the burden of proof is on you to show that this nebulous explaination actually exists(just that we don't know what it is). If you are going to reject the multiverse because it is an extra ordinary claim of which there is no extra ordinary evidence....If you are going to reject the existence of God because it is an extra ordinary claim lacking extra ordinary evidence.....how then can you credibly accept the nebulous explaination with out any extra ordinary evidence to support its existence?

That is the hypocrisy of the Dawkins and Hitchens position I was trying to point out in VeeDzz's thread.

What hypocrisy? All I said was that I am waiting for something with some compelling evidence. I dont see why I should be forced to choose one or the other with two things that aren't substantiated. (I don't know much about multi-verse, So saying whether it is substantiated at all would be a complete guess on my part)

If I could turn it back on you, I think this is a major problem with the theist position. You must have an answer, and you must have it now? But why, perhaps we just don't know yet... why is that so unbearable to you?

But it is silly to only reject the Gods of the Holy texts. If you posit that it is possible we are a simulation then it is equally possible we are being simulated under the rules of the Christian God or Hindu gods or whatever god.

Maybe the God of the old testament is simply taking a nap while his simulation runs. When he wakes up he will start making manna fall from heaven again.

Its one thing not to choose, but what atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens have done is hold one explaination to higher standarded then the others.

Why does God require extra ordinary evidence but the nebulous and multiverse explainations do not?

If you want to turn it on me as a theist I would be forced to admit there is a very good chance that God does not exist.

Maybe this maybe that, maybe a goat *****ted out the entire universe after eating tainted cabbage ? Until any of these highly unlikely supernatural claims are validated I can just simply dismiss them. And that's what we do.

Well, I'll take your word on that. I haven't done so, because, quite frankly, I don't know much about the multi-verse hypotheis and couldnt possibly speak on this with any confidence.

If you think there is a very good chance god doesn't exist, why do you argue on here that he does?

Science tries to uncover the grand scheme of things and it does a pretty good job.

I am a theist because I have a hard accepting the notion that intellect and consciousness are simply artifacts in the scheme of things. It seems to me these things are either the end product or impetus(or both).

So basically your belief is based on nothing else but wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking supported soundly by the argument from ignorance.