ydoaPs

So is the universe. It has always existed and will always exist. That's why it also applies to God. Maybe you could start pointing out flaws in reasoning rather than just disagreeing with conclusions. Pointing out flaws in reasoning includes pointing out false starting points. So, tell me: when did the universe not exist? Since you quote mined them and obviously don't understand the material (hint: nothing in their work at all contradicts anything I've said), it's far more likely that you're relying on dishonest apologetics people than the actual physicists. Yet neither of them has ever done so using the proper multivariable methods. Odd, no? I wonder why fine tuning disappears any time someone does the analysis properly. Could is possibly be that it doesn't exist? That's an honest question. Do you think it is even possible?

! Moderator Note Yes, yes he does. This exact thread has also been closed twice. We do not allow reposting of closed threads. Thread closed. Continued failure to abide by rule 8 and further opening of closed threads will result in warning points. We do ask that members who see infractions use the report function to bring it to our attention.

! Moderator Note Thread closed

Look at the following picture. If I only let one variable vary, and you don't know how to do multivariable analysis, I can convince you that the red dot is the highest value that function gets. However, if we allow everything to vary, we see that that is far from actually being the case. This is how every single paper ever to find 'fine-tuning' works. No paper that has allowed everything else to vary has found fine tuning. Your "exquisitely narrow range of values" is a lie. Look at the paper in the OP, that paper looks at only one universe, but that one shows exactly how huge that "narrow range" is. We can remove one of the four fundamental forces entirely and be just fine. Indeed.

Now, how about you get around to this post:

Except you're leaving out that every single paper that does proper multivariable analysis fails to find fine tuning. This "exquisitely narrow range of values" is so huge that we can completely remove one of the four fundamental forces and still get life-bearing universes. Come on, Crispy, give me ONE paper that does actual multivariation analysis and finds fine tuning.

Now, how about you get around to this post?

Doing actual multivariable analysis.

! Moderator Note That seems to be nothing but word salad. As such, this thread is moved to Speculations.

Indeed. Were I not involved in the thread, this text would be in a green box and would be pointing heavily to section 2 subsection 8 of the rules.

Now, how about you get around to this post?

YOU talk about it. This is a discussion forum; discuss. Show me one. Just one paper.

Then why can't you find a single paper that allows for multivariation and finds fine tuning? Stop preaching talking points and join the discussion.

Then why can't you find a single paper that allows for multivariation and finds fine tuning? Stop preaching talking points and join the discussion.

Ah, so you didn't even read the paper you're criticizing. Got it. (hint: they're not all fundamental, but rather composite)

Question: did you not understand what I asked for or did you not even read what you linked to?

Show ONE that does proper multivariable analysis. If you are dismissing his work on that criteria, you must dismiss every single paper claiming fine tuning ever. You criticize the paper for only allowing 3 variables (which are all of the variables that influence star formation, btw), then you must criticize every paper claiming fine tuning ever since they never allow anything but one variable.

Perhaps I should have specified WITHOUT COPYPASTA. Feel free to try again when you want an actual discussion.

Close enough. No. It shows that it has an initial ordered state. The universe has always existed and will always exist. A finite past does not necessarily mean a beginning. Now, how about you get around to this post?

Bump for Crispy Bacon since (s)he seems so intent on preaching about fine tuning despite the fact that no multivariable analysis has ever found fine tuning and the fact that it's been shown that life-bearing conditions are so common that you can completely remove one of the fundamental forces and still have life-bearing conditions.

*sigh* do you even know what you are talking about? If you do, you tell me how it is relevant. If not, why are you here merely parroting talking points of disingenuous apologists? This is a discussion forum, not a soap-boxing forum.

! Moderator Note Do not post duplicates of threads that have already been closed. If you wish to discuss fine tuning, there are threads already about that.

What about it? Then neither did the universe. ANY way you can define "begin to exist" which legitimately applies to the universe applies to God. There is absolutely no sense in which the universe did not exist and then it did. The universe is, by definition, eternal. It has always existed and will always exist. Having a finite past in no way precludes the universe from being eternal. There is no time at which the universe did not exist and there never will be a time at which the universe does not exist. There is no sense in which the universe did not exist and then it did. Same with the universe.

Well, they're not exactly popping out of nothing, since there's spacetime. We simply don't have nothing to observe. Nothingness is the absence of everything. No space. No time. No matter. None of the rules for our universe apply. Unluckily for Crispy Bacon, that also applies to things like Conservation of Energy and the very notion of Causality itself. Which makes the claim "You can't get something from nothing" dubious at best. But, again, that's all beside the point as there is no sense at all in which the universe didn't exist and then it came into existence.

Bible verses aren't an adequate response to detailed reasoning. Nor is cropping quotes to cut out the reasoning. That's a nice quote mine you have there. Do you even know what their theorem implies? The only thing it says is that there is a first ordered state of expansion. That's it. It doesn't imply a beginning to anything but the expansion. It is still the case that there is absolutely no sense in which the universe didn't exist and then it did.