What? No. In fact, even if we could demonstrate that they were fine tuned it could be possible for everything other than those constants to have a naturalistic explanation.

you could only demonstrate a portion of the chain of events was "natural". If you include the entire chain of events you end up back at those pesky constants.

How do you make an apple pie from scratch? Step one is to create the universe.

No no no first you have to begin with the creator of the creator! Come on Stu, you not only have had to reduce your argument to an absurd statement ITT but now are struggling to turn the conversation into a game of semantics. Don't you think it is about time you cede you lost this one?

Creator always existed and is the ultimate reality. What we observe as the universe is a result of that creator or ultimate realty. The point of contention is not so much that our universe was created but rather was that creation directed by an intelligence. Well the fine tuning of certain constants seem to suggest that it was. To dismiss it atheists have to appeal to some fanciful, unobserved, completely made up naturalistic processes to explain that fine tunning. They might as well be talking about pink elephants, bigfoot, or invisable dragons...actually those might be better choices since you can find some people to attest they have observed those.

My point? rejecting the existence of God requires its own element of faith.

No, and you do not really think this either. You already had to back down from this position once ITT because you could not support it, remember?

yeah, but who created the ultimate reality?

your insistence on asking for an origin of every minutiae should also applu to your Creator. it is so frustrating that you want to explain all the complexity of the universe, not with simplicity, but rather with more complexity. and how do you explain away your complex origins? by assigning it properties such as "ultimate reality", and "eternal" without any regards to the rigor.

Constants might not be tunable at all. Claiming that they are appeals to some process that has never been observed and cannot even be checked in a mathematical framework.

Classic theist mistake of posing a problem that can only be stated based on rampant speculation but somehow demand that possible solutions must have evidence. Might as well ask for a proof in Peno arithmetic that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

There is no reason to think they are not tuneable. Claiming that they are appeals to some process that has never been observed and cannot even be checked in a mathematical framework.

Saying the value of those constants are what they are because they had to be that way doesn't help the atheistic case that much. Its saying the universe has to be conducive toward the rise of intellect. It gives a sense of purpose to the universe which implies an intelligence behind it.

Ultimate reality is simply that which has eternally existed. It might be God... it might be rules which allowed the universe to spring from nothingness.

nope...I don't remember. Maybe you can point out the inconsistency instead of just claiming one exists.

SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THEM EITHER WAY IS ******ED BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS SIHT ABOUT IT AT THIS POINT IN TIME THANKS AND PLEASE JUST STFU ABOUT THIS.

WHY DOESN'T HE JUST BANG HIS HEAD AGAINST A WALL FOR A FEW MINUTES IT WOULD BE MORE PRODUCTIVE HYCHAHCHAHCAHCHA

We know enough about them that any person who serously thinks about the matter isn't in a position where he can credibly reject the existence of God.

you can't prove there is no God blablabla

This statement is just ages old, i understand, because it's the only evidence you have you guys need to say it over and over. But quite frankly this is getting old

Lol, yes. That is the whole point. Both sides have only "some fanciful, unobserved, completely made up" processes to even ask the question, much less try to explain it.

I love this "we" here. You have not managed to say anything remotely correct about anything ITT, I don't think you should really be telling the rest of us what can't and can be done.

A serious person also cannot claim that anything about the existence of the universe requires a god. Stupid Assos are of course still allowed to claim whatever they want.

No...its more like this. Atheist says, "show me evidence of God." You point to the fined tune cosmological constant that even Susskind agrees could not occur as a matter of happenstance.....then watch the likes of Max and Deourum doing intellectual summersaults to try to explain that appearance away so they can continue to reject the existence of God.

And they are all plausible explainations. The difference between me and you is I don't reject one explaination simply because is goes against my preconcieved worldveiw. Until you drop this arrogance you have Max, you'll be a mediocre physicist at best.

Sure I did. You dimiss them as incorrect on the face....even when I parrot Susskind and Rees you dimiss them on the face until someone points out that yeah those guys really said those things.....then your back pedalling begins.

If anyone has lost credibility in this thread it is you Max.

Jesus, so much ******ation.

1. Quoting Susskind as the only authority here is misleading. Nobel Prize winner David Gross thinks that Susskind is doing outright pseudoscience and thinks he is totally wrong just based on physics.

2. The cosmological constant is not fine tuned for life. It could be anything less than it is down to zero and life would still exist. It could be up to around 5X bigger also. I guess saying stuff that is not totally wrong is an "intellectual summersault" to you.

Where did I backpedal? What Reese said was totally wrong the way you and I interpreted it.

I haven't rejected anything. I think the constants could possibly be fine tuned or they could not be fine tuned. We could live in something like a multiverse, we might not. You are the only one making idiotic claims like one side has no evidence, when neither side has any evidence and in fact the conversation cannot even take place if we just restrict ourselves to statements which have evidence.

No matter what you do, you will be an awful poster.

A bigger and probably more pivotal issue for me is volition. If everything points to the idea that multiple universes with a different mix of laws and attributes could have and should have manifested and did not manifest, then for me at least, that would imply selection or an act of volition.

Can you provide a source for this claim?

I am talking about your jumping back and forth between 'the universe is fine tuned' and 'a fine tuned universe could look like this one.'

This is right.
Obviously the down to zero is right, everyone thought that was the case until recently.
It can obviously be somewhat larger too.