Howcome..

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:57 pm

Trace the argument, BGood.

The question was: "I know that the Earth is finely tuned, but isn't it bound to happen? With all the planets of coarse one of them is going to form correctly."

This is a probability question. Now, I have provided an answer based on valid, non-Christian research, substantiating my claim. Can you provide research that says that these areas are NOT improbable?

If not, then you are incorrect, sir. Secondly, I suggest you keep this away from your philosophical understanding of the interpretation of data. You are again outside of the mainstream on this, and, regardless, your interpretation is a very, very different thing from clarification of mis-stated facts. That you interpret from you bias is expected. You have to play by the rules.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:08 pm

Jac3510 wrote:Trace the argument, BGood.

The question was: "I know that the Earth is finely tuned, but isn't it bound to happen? With all the planets of coarse one of them is going to form correctly."

This is a probability question. Now, I have provided an answer based on valid, non-Christian research, substantiating my claim. Can you provide research that says that these areas are NOT improbable?

I am not debating this.

Jac3510 wrote:If not, then you are incorrect, sir. Secondly, I suggest you keep this away from your philosophical understanding of the interpretation of data. You are again outside of the mainstream on this, and, regardless, your interpretation is a very, very different thing from clarification of mis-stated facts. That you interpret from you bias is expected. You have to play by the rules.

???
I thought the original question was

Howcome God made things like volcanos, earthquakes etc?

Also somebody brought up a point to me which is that out of the whole universe it isn't that hard to have at least one planet perfect for life, out of the many there are.. does this ruin the fine-tuning argument?

Again the figures we have now make it improbable, but nothing proves that the universe was fine tuned.

The probability formula for a planet forming perfect for life is full of unknown variables.

What formula did you use? What are the variables? Why are those variables used. And what are the values these variables can have?

Now you can tell me with confidence that you can reach an actual figure?

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:21 pm

I am not debating this.

Funny, because that is exactly the substance of my argument. Perhaps this will help our readers:

1. There are a wide variety of improbable factors that must be met for any given planet to support life.
2. There are, in comparison to (1), relatively few available planets.
3. Thus, it is unlikely that any given planet should support life.

I provided research to document both 1 and 2. You countered by saying "The numbers aren't precise." I countered by saying the precision isn't what's important, although you certainly didn't provide any references for your claim! What is important, I argue, is that the factors themselves are generally improbable, and the margin of error is plenty wide enough to support the conclusion. You responded that "improbability doesn't imply design," which, of course, is nowhere at all mentioned in my argument.

Now, do you claim that the factors are NOT generally improbable, and, if so, what research do you have to support this? And what research do you have to argue that the numbers I presented are factually incorrect?

I thought the original question was
"Howcome God made things like volcanos, earthquakes etc?

That was one of the questions, which was answered. There were two questions in the OP, the second relating to fine tuning. This question was clarified a few posts down as quoted.

Also somebody brought up a point to me which is that out of the whole universe it isn't that hard to have at least one planet perfect for life, out of the many there are.. does this ruin the fine-tuning argument?"

This is the substance of the current discussion, to which I provided research indicating that it is not likely that there would be any life sustaining objects in our universe.

Again the figures we have now make it improbable, but nothing proves that the universe was fine tuned.

This is a matter of interpretation, which is based on your assumption that improbability does not imply design. You can assert that all you like, but it doesn't change anything. The best you can say is that this does absolutely nothing to help or hurt the fine-tuning argument because, in your mind, there is no such thing, as fine-tuning is built on the idea of probability. Since you reject the argument, you have no frame of reference for which to comment on the discussion.

If, though, you accept the FT argument on its terms and suppositions, then it is obvious that the numbers do not, in fact, damage the argument but actually, assuming the truthfulness of its philosophical basis', support it.

The probability for a planet forming perfect for life is full of unknown variables.

Yes, and it is full of known variables, as referenced. Incredulity doesn't work, BGood. You are arguing against the mainstream.

What formula did you use? What are the variables? Why are those variables used. And what are the values these variables can have?

I didn't use a formula. I quoted Ross and his research. I have already said that if you have a problem with it, take it to him and his research. For my part, I have referenced a qualified authority on the matter, which is exactly what is required for honest discussion.

Now you can tell me with confidence that you can reach an actual figure?

I can tell you with confidence that these men, who are far more trained in the field than I am, have reached what they consider to be ballpark figures that roughly reflect reality.

See, this is how this works: if you make an assertion, you provide evidence to back it up. I made an assertion, I backed it up. If you are going to assert my references are incorrect, then you have to deal with them, not me. It is enough for me that the majority of these are written and reviewed by men with Ph.D's in this field.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:26 pm

I will simply counter with,

A. How many planets are in the Universe?

B. What formula did you use to reach the probability of a life sustaining world? so that I can pick it apart.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:28 pm

And I will reply with, "Take it up with Ross."

It's in the link, sir.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:10 am

Jac3510 wrote:And I will reply with, "Take it up with Ross."

It's in the link, sir.

Very well I shall.

=)

Sorry if I came on so strongly, references used incorrectly really do irk me so.

I'm not stating that fine-tuning is nonsence, only that current knowledge does not favor either possibility.

And lack of knowledge only creates larger improbabilities. The more we know the more we realize how lacking in knowledge we are, and the more we are in awe of creation.