I still disagree. Picking the successes is fine, but physicists also expected Michelson to measure the velocity of earth through the luminiferous aether. When the anticipated effect did not occur physics was forced to head in an unexpected direction. Theoretical arguments are not evidence.

I never said to ignore theoretical predictions. They are critical for guiding the design of experiments that unveil the hidden truths of the universe. Just do not mistake them for evidence.

Check out what David Copperfield is doing, and you will find the turning water into wine thing being labeled "a miracle" laughable.

Besides, don't you get the circularity? The only proof of those miracles you have IS the Bible!

Theories predict outcomes.
Experiments report a specific result ( within various theories). You'll have to use a theory(s) to make a prediction from that specific result.
You're trying to separate the inseparable.

copperfield is an agent of satan. satan uses deception to trick ppl. And i have living proof that Jesus still heals today.

Ur obv an atheist so what proof do u have of God NOT existing? Its a big gamble and in ur eyes if ur right....u then just get buried and that is it. If your wrong...u go to hell. Atheism seems to be lose/lose, with the only benefit being self pride when u make ppl feel they arent smart if they have a religous belief.

Looool, you have got to be sh*tting me!

Btw, please educate yourself and read a little discussions about Pascal's wager to see the huge problems associated with the second paragraph of your post.

Frankly, after your post, I can't waste any of my time explaining to you the flaws of it.

Truth is Truth. U can believe whatever u want but it doesnt matter if it isnt Truth. And i dont think david copperfield healed my dad from prostate cancer b/c we prayed to Jesus!

k pzz

Odd example since Einstein was not even aware of the results when he came up with a very clean theoretical model that would get the correct results that MM measured

The point is that it is silly to bring it up in this thread. If you allow people to claim that certain parameters are fine tuned (which has no experimental justification) you are forced to deal with the fact that the multiverse picture could be an accurate description. If you only want to talk about experimentally verified results that is fine, but people are going to speculate and there is nothing wrong right that as long as it is labeled as such.

I'm struggling to understand fine tuning (both the religious version and the physics version)

Both seem to relate to the magnitude of deviation that it still compatible with some observation, like biological life. Apparently the argument is that if a tiny deviation would have ruled out life (only a very narrow range of values is compatible with what we observe), we have reason to the believe that the parameter is fine tuned. Roughly correct?

What exactly does fine tuned mean?
Some posters pointed out that the range of values compatible with the observation is linked to the unit of the constant. Is there a unit-invariant way of defining this?? If there isn't, the claim that something is fine tuned seems arbitrary to me.
Do we need to interpret the constant as a random variable (the observed value is a realization) and assume a certain probability distribution for the argument to work?

Most of this argument is beyond my knowledge, but something like this bolded part seems true to me. It may turn out that the constants we observe are necessarily as we see them (or that there are a very small number of possible values anyhow). Until we know whether there's a reason such things take the values they do I don't think the argument is very compelling.

Ignoring your completely absurd first paragraph, what is the point of believing if your only reason for doing so is an artificial desire to avoid hell? If you believe in God simply because you fear the alternative does that not remove all meaningful elements of one's relationship with God, for you do not actually believe the teachings/importance of the ideas of the religion, but are rather just motivated by fear of the alternative?

How Stu is using it is pretty much nonsensical as far as I can tell. What it means in physics, has to do with what you are saying, essentially coming up with a unit invariant expression. What it really means, is that it is not clear what the "natural" scale for a parameter should be. Like in my distance from the Earth to the sun example, using cosmological parameters makes it look fine tuned, but if you use reasonable length scales for solar systems it goes away. With the cosmological constant, the energy scales from quantum field theory are way out of wack to what is measured. There are a few ways in which this could be solved, but nobody knows exactly how it is going to play out.

This is a little misleading. Einstein was certainly aware of the concept that the speed of light appeared to be invariant. The MM experiment was one of the first of several that failed to find evidence of variation of the speed of light which allowed that concept to gain traction. It was conducted in 1887 and Einstein presented the framework of SR in 1905 so it is a little hard to imagine he was not generally aware of the state of the experimental picture even if he did not know the specifics of that attempt.

I am not sure if we disagree or not. The multiverse picture could be true or it could end up like the aether. I do not know. The fine tuning claim is not demonstrated either. The whole thing is open and it will be fun to see how it turns out.

its more so the gift of heaven, rather than the fear of hell

I believe there is a debate on how much he knew in 1905 of MM, Einstein apparently claimed later in life that he couldn't even remember if he knew about it pre 1905 or not.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1545

I certainly don't disagree with any of this.

Eventually that paper had a reference to this Einstein statement -

Being a theist like some people in this forum (like bunny) is one thing, but your views are making me sad. You, my friend, are perfect to be used as an example why indoctrinating children into their parents' religion is child abuse.

Spiritual Quotient is silly. Religion is merely the suspension of disbelief. Therefore SQ is merely your ability to regard beliefs not proven as fact, nothing more.

It makes me sad that you think a man made theory is greater than the word of God. You obv dont think the Bible is completly true, but how is it the best selling book of all time? There are hundreds of books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible. If Jesus didnt perform miracles or even exist, how did he manage to be named after a time period? How are miracles performed in His name today?

I call it good parenting b/c they helped lead me to the Truth.

Ugh. This is something I wish Dawkins had never said, and you should definitely not repeat it. Child abuse is a crime. It is, and should be, illegal. When an adult abuses a child, that adult should be punished and not allowed to raise his or her children.

On the other hand, "indoctrinating children into their parent's religion" is not a crime. It is not, and should not be, illegal. When an adult indoctrinates a child into a religion, that adult should not be punished and the government should not take that person's children away.

Unless you disagree with the statements I make in the second paragraph (in which case we can have a different discussion), you should avoid using such strong rhetoric.

A step to far perhaps..

hahah ya i agree

Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Your theist logic is no match for the brilliant mind of this cartoon character:

"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder." -Homer Simpson

thats simple...choose Jesus

actually a good point by homer tho lol

You're gonna turn me into an atheist soon.