If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?".

Quite to the contrary - you have completely ignored the point that the "fine-tuning" argument rests entirely on the unfounded assumption that life as we know it is somehow a "goal" of the Universe.Show support for this assumption, or the rest of your house of cards topples.I won't hold my breath. So?Let's return to the pothole-puddle analogy.Instead of a pothole, we could have a flat patch of ground, or even a mound - a place where water would not have a place to fill. Does this mean that potholes are fine-tuned to hold water? And again...so?You continue to operate under the unfounded assumption that life as we know it is a "goal" for the Universe. I didn't appeal to a YouTube video. I don't argue via proxy - I'm capable of presenting my own argument. I couldn't care less what that YouTube video says - I didn't even watch it.But again - your source argues using the unfounded assumption that life as we know it is a "goal" for the Universe"

quote:

---

from the perspective of obtaining a habitable universe.

---

This assumption is key to the remainder of the argument. If life as we know it is not a "goal" for the Universe, then the Universe cannot be "fine-tuned" to support life.No evidence has been presented to support the concept that life as we know it is a "goal" for the Universe. In fact, I alluded to evidence that this is explicitly [i]not[i] the case in my previous post...which you ignored, in favor of simply repeating yourself. Allow me to be more specific:The concept that human life is a "goal" for the Universe is on the level with the assumption that the Earth is the center of the universe. You can make a self-consistent argument using both assumptions, but there is no reason to think they are true beyond simple human self-importance.Life as we know it occupies a single small planet orbiting a single star in a Universe so inconceivably vast that to assume that the purpose of the whole thing is to give rise to us demonstrates a staggering level of arrogance. The vast majority of the Universe is not "fine-tuned" to life. The Universe is far more "fine-tuned" to support Hydrogen or Oxygen or stars or galaxies or interstellar dust particles or comets or water or any number of other things that by far outnumber and out-mass every living thing that has ever existed combined.The basic laws of the Universe may have been inevitable, the only way that a Universe can form. Or it may have been one of an infinite number of infinitely varied Universes, ranging from those that can support life throughout their entire volume to those where no life or even matter could ever form. We simply don't know. What we do know is that our Universe bears no evidence of having been "tuned" to cause us to form - rather, we show very conclusive evidence of having evolved and adapted to fit one niche within the Universe. This is the assumption of many Theists, but is still an unfounded, unevidenced assumption upon which the entire concept of "fine-tuning" rests.We are the water, and the Universe is the pothole. We formed to fit the Universe, not the other way around. If the pothole had a different shape that could still hold water, "life" would simply possibly exist in a form different from ours. If the pothole was not a pothole but was rather a flat patch of ground or a mound or a mountain or an empty space or any number of other options, then life would simply not have formed. None of which means that the pothole was specifically dug in an exact shape to cause water to fill it in a precise way.In other words, you continue to babble about irrelevant topics rather than addressing the root of the problem:Your argument only follows if the assumption that life as we know it is a "goal" for the Universe is true.You have not shown that it is true. Therefore, your argument does not follow. You have shown no evidence for the "fine-tuning" of the Universe because your argument rests on an unproven premise. End of story. QED. Done.Support that basic assumption with evidence, and then your other arguments will be relevant. Until then, it's a house built with no foundation.

The Cosmological Constant is actually a very good example of fine tuning - we do need a reason why it has the value it takes, and much study has been made in this area. There are various potential mechanisms and of course the standard multi-verse possibility. But it does need addressing. Umpteen parameters that are necessary for life on Earth are finely tuned, and the fine tuning is kindly provided by the multiverse of planets and stars that make up the Universe.

quote:

---

Quite to the contrary - you have completely ignored the point that the "fine-tuning" argument rests entirely on the unfounded assumption that life as we know it is somehow a "goal" of the Universe.

​

Show support for this assumption, or the rest of your house of cards topples.

---

I have not argued that "life as we know it is somehow a 'goal' of the Universe." This does not underlie my claims or the data that I've presented.

quote:

---

You continue to operate under the unfounded assumption that life as we know it is a "goal" for the Universe.

---

I have not argued this.

quote:

---

This assumption is key to the remainder of the argument. If life as we know it is not a "goal" for the Universe, then the Universe cannot be "fine-tuned" to support life.

---

This does not follow. No matter what the "goal," the cosmological constant must be extremely fine-tuned for the universe to be be able to sustain life.

quote:

---

No evidence has been presented to support the concept that life as we know it is a "goal" for the Universe.

---

Exactly. I have not argued this point. It is not relevant to my argument.

quote:

---

Your argument only follows if the assumption that life as we know it is a "goal" for the Universe is true.

---

Not so. The statement is very simple. If a universe will be able to sustain life (whether that is its "goal" or not), then the cosmological constant must be extremely fine-tuned. Do you disagree with this?

I think part of the problem in this debate lies in two different meanings connected with the term 'fine-tuned'. The meaning of the verb 'to fine-tune' is something like "precisely adjusting something towards an optimum setting". On this interpretation, the idea of a goal is an implicit part of it. Moreover, those who use the argument of fine-tuning as evidence for an intelligent creator of the universe, can only do so consistently if they admit that their fine-tuning entity had a goal in mind, or else their argument is useless.Another possible interpretation of the word (not the verb) 'fine-tuned' is something like "having a very exact, particular value". If the term is used in this sense, the notion of a goal is much less strongly implied, if at all. On this interpretation, the fact that we find ourselves in a universe that's exactly right for us cannot be a surprise, because if the universe wasn't exactly right for us, we wouldn't be here to think about it.The use of these two different meanings as interchangeable interpretations might be the cause of some confusion.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

The point is not whether the universe is fine tuned for us as much as we are fine tuned to the universe. Without us be tuned for the universe than life is impossible or would be totally different than it is. It is not that the universe exists for us but that we are capable of being here do to the physical properties that allow us to be here and the fact that over the course of 13.8 billion years there have been numerous creation of life supporting elements from such things as supernovae, which creates the heavier elements from which provides the substances that contribute to life. It is not that it it the only possibility as some in this topic would state. We exist because we are tuned to the universe.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Bluescat48, what exactly do you think my argument was in post 169? And what do you think my view is with regard to the fine-tuning argument?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I was agreeing with you just extrapolating it. The point I was trying to make is that the universe is not tuned for us we are tuned to it since we are made from it.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Ah, OK. That wasn't quite clear to me from what you wrote. Excuse me for perhaps sounding a bit condescending, I didn't mean it that way.

quote:

---

I think part of the problem in this debate lies in two different meanings connected with the term 'fine-tuned'. The meaning of the verb 'to fine-tune' is something like "precisely adjusting something towards an optimum setting". On this interpretation, the idea of a goal is an implicit part of it. Moreover, those who use the argument of fine-tuning as evidence for an intelligent creator of the universe, can only do so consistently if they admit that their fine-tuning entity had a goal in mind, or else their argument is useless.

​

Another possible interpretation of the word (not the verb) 'fine-tuned' is something like "having a very exact, particular value". If the term is used in this sense, the notion of a goal is much less strongly implied, if at all. On this interpretation, the fact that we find ourselves in a universe that's exactly right for us cannot be a surprise, because if the universe wasn't exactly right for us, we wouldn't be here to think about it.

​

The use of these two different meanings as interchangeable interpretations might be the cause of some confusion.

---

Perhaps. Some are probably unclear about what they mean by "fine-tuning," and I suspect others read things in to the phrase that aren't there. The phrase fine-tuning in science simply means the second of your two definitions. The universe is fine-tuned to very high precision.The next question is "Why?" There are a number of possible answers. Perhaps this is the goal of a divine creator, or perhaps there are a nearly-infinite number of multiverses. Neither of these answers is implicit in the phrase "fine-tuning." Both answers are inferences to the data.

But I thought I'd just implied that on the second interpretation there is no "why". It's one side of the coin, the other side of which is: if the universe were different, there wouldn't be a "why not".Actually, considering there is neither a "why", nor a "why not", there is in fact no coin, no dilemma.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Are you now claiming that there is empirical objective evidence in favour of the existence of gods?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't think he is. The thing for which empirical evidence exists that he is talking about are the "laws of nature". The speculating he is talking about refers to the gods being the reason for them to exist.Read my Message 116 for my original reply to RAZD for more clarity.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

OK. I guess unless RAZD clarifies we can leave it at that. But he seems to me to be be suggesting that the existence of laws compatible with life is evidence of some sort of "why" question that implies the existence of gods. The fact that our models are always necessarily incomplete doesn't seem to justify what is being implied here.

Yes, like I said to him, we don't know, therefore claiming they must be because of a god is not a position I think someone should take.They could be because of a god. But as long as no evidence of that fact is presented, acting like it isn't so has no consequence to reality whatsoever.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Indeed they could. But the number of unevidenced possible causes for the universe and it's nature (of which gods are just a small subset) are all but infinite. Even if any of these actually are the cause the idea that anyone has guessed the right gap filler is 1 out of near infinity.And then we have the fact that all the evidence so far suggests that supernatural answers are more than likely just the result of humans asking the wrong questions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.