by the way this is the way the debate should be had.... the author mentions the critiques right up front on page 3-4... and some he admits are potential stumbling blocks... here is a sample... "In this paper I shall examine a particular variant of the fourth view, that the fraction of baryons that develops into living organisms is maximized by the observed constants of physics. This hypothesis is in principle falsiï¬able, and I shall argue that considerations of hypothetical variations of the cosmological constant give a very preliminary inconclusive hint that it may become falsiï¬ed, since the fraction of baryons that condense into galaxies that in turn form living organisms would be higher if the cosmological constant were lower. This result thus gives a preliminary suggestion that there might eventually be evidence against optimal ï¬ne tuning for 3life (or at least for maximizing the fraction of baryons that become living organisms) by such a biophilic principle. However, email comments by Robert Mann [11], Michael Salem [12], and Martin Rees [13] have shown me that it is not at all clear that the very small increase in the fraction of baryons that would condense into galaxies if the cosmological constant were zero instead of its tiny observed positive value would also lead to an increase in the fraction of baryons that would go into life, since conceivably the small diï¬erences in the galaxies produced by lowering the cosmological constant to zero might also aï¬ect the fraction of baryons within galaxies that become life in a way that would overcompensate for the higher fraction of baryons condensing into galaxies."
Indeed. But I'll give it a shot But then the title of the thread makes one wonder why Jem is constantly trying to force a deity into science and pitting religion against science for years, if not in fear of it . Him being as ignominious as ever, it could be anything, like all his chairs are not at home perhaps.
Lol! The kind of religioscience you must be sucking up from staring at the same couple of vids as you post here a million times is what you must presume the "state of science" to be. But as you can't differentiate between that and what the actual state of it is, you wouldn't recognize science if it smacked you in the face. Misunderstanding purposefully and from ignorance is what you have done for the last 5-10 years. Snipping selected lumps of text to paste and curve fit your pre-concluded God into. The point is......the value of the cosmological constant is not "settled science". Yet you're the one, the theist, treating it like it is, screaming and throwing insult at anyone who points out your mistake. The paper suggests an in principle falsifiable hypothesis that a zero or negative cosmological constant would be more conducive to forming galaxies and life. However, the cosmological constant still only appears to be what it is. Science has not yet fixed it. It's value is a matter of science. What you presume its value means non-scientifically is philosophical (supernatural mumbo jumbo in your case) . If you presume zero would be a natural value , but an infinitesimally tiny value above zero is the work of a Cosmic Conjuring Creator, then it is equally valid to propose that considering everything appears natural should you care to look , a tiny positive value suggests, rather than any so called "fine-tuning" speculation, the great sky god fucked up aiming at zero. Or, it is infinitely more likely the result of the imprecision of naturalness. Whatever, religious based guessing about Creator and fine-tunings has no part in it . You don't use screwdrivers to hammer home nails. Especially imaginary make-believe screwdrivers made from pixie dust.
And yet you believe the universe simply conjured itself into existence from absolutely nothing, just because your "god" said so
Frankly, I have no use for "Book Thumpers", unless they are thumping it on their own head. Belief (or not) is personal. But the demand of Atheists (so-called) are no less annoying. Why? Because the demand of Atheists (and it IS a DEMAND, even though never explicitly stated as such), is that ALL OF EXISTENCE MUST FALL WITHIN THE 5 SENSES OF HUMAN PERCEPTION. And when I say "5 senses", we all know it really means for the most part ONE sense - Sight. So the demand is everything MUST be within purview of a single human sensory organ. And it has to be observable NOW - on THEIR timetable. Because we all know that many things that in the past were unobservable/unprovable in their time are now provable - but if living in the past, such things would never exist to them because...they say so. The Multiverse is unprovable. Now. To adamantly say it doesn't exist would require...Faith - and a claim to clairvoyance of future time. Such is the logic and religion of Atheism and it's Pope, Richard Dawkins. Seems more like a scam.
hey stu, nice strawman you troll, you are the only lugnut who would argue science is settled. See that first sentenced... it means.... it has long been recognized that jem has been correct and Stu is a troll moron because jem was telling the truth when he said many top scientists say the constants of our universe appear fine tuned for life.
Oh dear. Thought you were using your sockpuppet again did you .....or have you finally gone completely total, talking in the third person. You've just acknowledged a paper explaining why a zero or slightly negative value of the cosmological constant would be expected to maximize galaxy and star formation and therefore life also. The exact opposite of this... This advice would be good for you..... The fine tuning argument from religion is in any event baseless. If the constants of the Universe have to be fine tuned, it merely suggests any presumed tuner has very limited choices. Poof goes the idea of an all-powerful almighty God when it is possible only to select from a specific set of values to successfully magic a universe.
you lie about science again troll. let me correct your troll misrepresentation. The paper stated (as I have stated and you have lied about) that it is accepted science that our universe appears finely tuned. However --- the paper suggests there is a ------------------ Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life -- It should now be clear to everyone here but troll like stu that the fine tuning of our universe is science based not religion based. The science has does no deal with whether the Tuner is all powerful or more limited. Only scared old 1950s thinking atheists bring up that stuff in response to the science. Your argument is silly. The objection is sometimes posed in interviews to the top scientists about the Theory of Everything and they acknowledge that even it the TOE is found...a TOE does not rule in our out a Tuner. A Tuner could make the TOE. So you have come a long way in your science Stu... you now cite papers which acknowledge the fine tunings of our universe. Something you lied about for 5-7 years. Now the next thing you have to understand is that the tunings are evidence of a Tuner... but even if turns out there is a multiverse.. that does not rule out a Creator. In short Stu... science has made 1950s thinkings atheists like you you look ignorant for many years. Its nice you finally updated your worldview.
Here is the link to the cornell library to the paper your article cited.... http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444 Preliminary Inconclusive Hint of Evidence Against Optimal Fine Tuning of the Cosmological Constant for Maximizing the Fraction of Baryons Becoming Life Don N. Page (Submitted on 12 Jan 2011 (v1), last revised 28 Jan 2011 (this version, v2)) The effective coupling `constants' of physics, especially the cosmological constant, are observed to have highly biophilic values. If this is not a hugely improbable accident, or a consequence of some mysterious logical necessity or of some simple principle of physics, it might be explained as a consequence either of an observership selection principle within a multiverse of many sets of effective coupling constants, or else of some biophilic principle that fine tunes the constants of physics to optimize life. Here a very preliminary inconclusive hint of evidence is presented against the hypothesis of optimal fine tuning of the cosmological constant by a biophilic principle that would maximize the fraction of baryons that form living organisms or observers.[/QUOTE]