tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post7041338281784022100..comments2024-03-02T00:44:55.128-08:00Comments on Pleiotropy: Refuting the fine-tuning argumentBjørn Østmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-85768799658293507342016-01-23T07:35:22.433-08:002016-01-23T07:35:22.433-08:00Fine tuning argument is not actually required for ...Fine tuning argument is not actually required for proving the existence of God. Please see the link below:<br /><br />https://sekharpal.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/is-fine-tuning-actually-required-for-proving-the-existence-of-god/uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-23226370397341448272009-06-11T19:35:41.590-07:002009-06-11T19:35:41.590-07:00I'm doing some research for this fine-tuning a...I'm doing some research for this fine-tuning argument and ran into your post. <br /><br />Just a few questions... You say that you don't understand how they could have figured out the range or percentage that Hugh Ross is talking about. Maybe I'm not getting the finer points of abstract mathematics, but can't one just calculate the percentage by taking the value as the baseline and see how far you can get away from it? For example, if the value is 5.5, but I can still make things work with value 4, then we have a pretty big range (one would say (5.5-4)/5.5 = 27%) But if I find that the 5.5 value only works within the range of 5.49 to 5.50, then the percent "accuracy" is smaller.. 0.18%. <br /><br />Am I missing something here? I thought that it was pretty straight-forward how they would figure that out. Of course, one could say that perhaps it's IMPOSSIBLE for that range to even go below 5.3, so in that case, the domain changes. But that's another issue that needs to be proven separately. So far, as far as I can tell, they haven't shown the physical/philosophical boundaries or limitations, so we have to assume that if a value is 5.5, then we can just take that at face value (no pun intended). <br /><br />I also have questions about your claim that these values could be "linked" (as in through a Grand Unifying Theory), but I will just hold off on those questions, because I'm not even sure if you're checking this blog anymore. :)<br /><br />Thanks in advance for the thoughtful posting. I do understand that the God-of-the-gaps argument is weak, but I thought that your last statement can also be characterized by mean creationists as science-of-the-gaps.Daniel Kimhttp://www.gracepointforum.orgnoreply@blogger.com