but he is RGT's teat of wisdom

I don't see it as an argument that needs a great deal of explanation.

1. If our solar system was the only known or knowable solar system in existence, then either (a) we're really lucky or (b) there's an element of design. Most would grant (b) as more probable, if our solar system was the only known or knowable solar system in existence.
2. If we hypothesize a great number of solar systems in existence, then either (a) we're really lucky or (b) there's an element of design. Most would grant (a) as more probable, if there were a great number of solar systems in existence.
3. If we observe a great number of solar systems in existence, then either (a) we're really lucky or (b) there's an element of design. Most would grant (a) as more probable, if we observe a great number of solar systems in existence.

In regard to the tuning problem and analogous to the above, you seem to claim (2). That's fine but the burden of proof is on you because we don't know of other universes, we haven't observed other universes, and more important, other universes are probably unknowable. At this stage, string theory is an unverified theory and whatever it currently predicts is not relevant evidence but only a hypothetical to establish the hypothetical (2). Hence, based on what we do know, what is observable and what is knowable, (b) is more probable and the default position.

Maybe the circumstantial evidence will become more compelling and maybe we'll be able to answer some questions in the future we can't now. Until then it's your burden to establish (a) not on the IDers to defend (b), because (b) is the default position based on what we do know, what is observable and what is knowable.

That isn't correct. There is no burden of proof on me because nobody has shown that the constants could have any different values so the Higgs mass (i just chose a random parameter) could require no more design than the square root of 2.

I always thought that was a cop out argument because there is no reason to think the constants could not have been different.

I find it puzzling that this is anything but news. I always thought his name was part of the joke. His posts here (and on politics) have always simply lead to half the forum getting into fights because they think he's being stupid on purpose. After years of this I thought it was like splendour... everyone knows what they're going to get but some post to because it can be funny.

personally, I think splenda leads to a lot of unintentional humor. Stu was one of my early ignores list additions. Makes things much better.

If that's the case, then there's really no argument. Theists aren't claiming God could do the impossible, so if that's the only possibility…

The Right Teat of Wisdom....I think we need to hold an election to determine the left teat. I'll nominate AIF.

Without denigrating All-In Flynn in any way, I think Original Position should at least get a mention.

I know that YOU cant think of any reasons but that doesn't mean much to the rest of us. There was a good, obvious reason in the 80s to think that they couldn't be different, namely that that is what Witten and most other experts thought. Now Susskind is on one extreme saying string theory in its present form is basically correct and the landscape/multi verse is real as there is decent theoretical evidence that our universe is quite small compared to the bulk because this is what is needed for inflation scenarios to work. Witten/Gross still think it is possible that our vacum is unique and there are few if any changable parameters and we just don't understand string theory well enough to see that. Ironically, this view has lost favor because of the exact same things that seem to make design less likely: High degrees of arbitrary fine tunings. Either way I expect atleast some things to be unchangable like maybe electron muon mass ratio among others.

The key point is that no side really has a burden of proof on it because we can't even prove that the question we are asking makes sense. If you assume the question is valid you have to assume the multiverse is possible and maybe even likely.

imo

Fair enough, but let me ask a question. Why is it okay for you (or any theorist) to jump down a rabbit hole and pursue something that as of yet there's no proof exists while it's not okay for the religiously inclined to do the same? I'm sure you don't quite term what you're doing a belief, in the same manner as used with religion, but nonetheless, you still live your life, expend your mental energies and make decisions that effect your personal destiny based on the hope what you're doing is correct. So, fundamentally, how is what you are doing any different than what they (the religious) are doing?

Sorry, I'm already the gonad of curiosity.

Whoever said this has lost his brain. If he ever had one that is.

I really don't care what religious people do. I personally think string theory is fare more valuable than any work in theology because even if string theory is completely wrong physically it has produced excellent mathematics. Ask Yau, Atiyah or Jacob Lurie about string theory and they will tell you that it has had a tremendous positive influence on math. If people were thinking about religion and winning Fields Medals it would have value even if god didn't exist.

I think you're right, but this doesn't mean that "most people" are correct in their thinking or that they've thought the situation through.

Whether we know about other (I assume you mean universes and not solar systems, since we DO know of other solar systems), or not, the fact is, our universe exists and it is the way it is. This does not in any way mean it was designed.

My aunt dealt one hand of bridge in her entire life. You wouldn't believe how the cards came out! The odds were truly astronomical that they would fall in the exact order they did. Yet, the deal wasn't designed. Go figure.

why do you never reply to this stu?

Bacteria or life are simply just cogs in the process....just steps in the transformation of the universe toward greater intellect, consciousness, and complexity.

OK? So how does it make sense that bacteria would exist orders of magnitude larger than "intellect and consciousness" when you claim the universe was "perfectly suited for the existence intellect and consciousness"? If the universe is "perfectly suited for the existence intellect and consciousness" then why does the universe appear to be full of so many other things that aren't conscious or intellectual?

You mean things like this?

You just admitted you lost the argument.

/thread

I was just making a joke thats all.

Our bodies are composed of cells that aren't conscious so there's quite a few more cells than people. If the conditions weren't such for cellular life to exist, then how could there be human life?

I took out the picture of Rize because I do not want any of the pictures that people posted in the "Faces" thread to be used in any sort of negative way. That was a positive thread that was intended for us to get to know each other better not so we can make fun of people. and the people that were kind/bold enough to post a picture should not be punished for their contribution.

/dad voice

Cellular life is required for human life, yes. How does this help your argument?

If the universe were setup for the great expansion and growth of intellect and conscious beings, it would make absolutely no sense to see single-celled life existing on orders of magnitude larger than "intellect and consciousness". Yet that is exactly what we see. This is a direct strike against Stu's view.