Yes- our science does not suggest a finely tuned universe, ths is a falacy
Actually what we have learnt from science does suggest a fine-tuned universe, this is not something I am just making up myself but something that was realised and upheld by leading physicists including Nobel Prize winners. Now, as I have repeatedly mentioned this is of course is not proof of God - the apparent fine tuning may have a natural explanation. If you think it is a falacy you need to provide a scientific explanation as to why.
the constants of our universe cause our science not the other way round
the constants of our universe do not 'cause our science'. The mathematical constants are merely part of the scientific make up that governs our universe.
you do realise that by saying things can exist without a finely tuned universe you are throwing out the finely tuned universe argument.
No this is not the case. The fine tuned universe 'argument' (i'm not sure why we are calling it an argument since i am not claiming it is proof for God etc.) siimply states that if you change the value of any one of a number of constants by a tiny amount then stars, palnets or elements such as carbon would fail to form. The fact that things may exist outside our universe that do n ot require fine tuning bears no imapct on the fact that our universe does appear to be fine tuned.
I'm not the one making the finely tuned universe argument, it is not science that makes the rules of the uiverse its the universe that makes the rules for science
I don't think either way round is quite accurate - the most appropriate thing we can say regarding this is that all the matter, energy and radiation within our universe is governed by the laws of science. Although one things for sure is that if it wasn't for the laws of science the universe wouldn't exist as we know it and you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm not making any assumptions, the finely tuned universe argument states that nothing could exist if the universe was not finely tuned, by finely tuned the argument means that if the constants that cause our science were different nothing would exist
the finely tuned 'argument' definitly does not state that 'nothing could exist if it wasn't finely tuned' - all it says is that from what we know about physics currently the universe appears finely tuned with regard to it's constants -if you change one slightly, stars planets do n ot form etc. - it does not say anything at all regarding things outside of our own universe. It'spossible for things to exist without being finely tuned if the science was completely different. In addition if the science was similar but the constants were slightly different we could still have other universes wich display some resemblance to our own.
conversely if the finely tuned universe is required for some thing to exist then any science that derives from these constants is valid where ever things exist
this is a very narrow view to take - a fine tuned universe may not be rquired for something to exist and universes can have different fine tuned configurations that give rise to formation of stars and planets with different science
you say its possible for a myriad of universes to exist with different constants, yet earlier you quetioned me as to why I though there may have been more then one big bang
well according to current thinking in theoretical physics it is possible for universes to exists with constants different to our own - a very small number of configurations would give rise to universes with stars and planets etc. but the majority would not. but i have never heard the idea of two big bangs within our own universe before which i was asking you about the scientific rationale behind it
lets try to alay the cofusion shall we, if a being comes here from a different universe with different laws, it some how changes into something that can be full understood and yet remain unknowable, is it?
anything that appears in our universe no matter where it came from can be fully unerstood and knowable - as long as we're smart enough. the point i've been making is that we caqn not make any observations outside our universe hence anything that currently exists outside our universe is currently 'unknowable' (note i started using this term since this discussion started of about definition of Agnostic etc.)
Topic: The Quest for Truth: Balance.