Thomas Eshuis wrote:ughaibu wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:The absence of evidence for fine-tuning undermines fine-tuning.
You realise that fine-tuning is a problem in physics?
No, because it isn't.
ughaibu wrote:Are you suggesting that physicists have fabricated this problem without evidence?
I am suggesting that creationists have fabricated it and you've apparently been taken in by it.
If you're talking about the fine-tuning problem scientists are discussing, which isn't the same thing, then your comment is a non-sequitur.
Thomas you're really quite mistaken here and you might be conflating the issue of fine-tuning as understood by physicists, with fine-tuning as defined by creationists and
where they want to go with asking that question. There is a fine-tuning problem in physics, and it is something like this: Why are the laws and constants of nature
the way they are? For example, why is the strength of the electromagnetic force so very much greater than the strength of the gravitational force?
Why did the universe appear to have such an extremely high level of entropy in it's earliest periods?
And a host of related questions. Those are legitimate areas of investigation in physics, and they
really are referred to collectively as the fine-tuning problem.
Creationists think they have a solution to the fine-tuning problem in physics. God did it, with magic. Which is of course unfalsifiable conjecture. So it's not that it is a bad question, or a nonsensical question that physicists aren't actually concerned with. The problem when it comes to creationism is the same as it always is, which is that the God hypothesis is not a useful scientific model. It's really just an argument from ignorance.
We don't know, it seems unlikely we'd get this particular ensemble, so magic man man musta waved his magic wand
because what we see is what he wanted. Which can be applied to any conceivable observation, so it's worthless. It's not a prediction, it's ad-hoc rationalization.