Jump to content

Talk:Fine-tuned universe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.189.41.93 (talk) at 05:43, 31 January 2019 (→Multiverse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCreationism B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

WikiProject iconPhysics B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.



Diproton argument

As far as I can tell, IF 2% stronger strong nuclear force THEN no hydrogen left, is simply false. Paul Davies and Martin Rees do make the argument and citations are good, but even respected physicists can be often wrong, and it is the case here.

To be precise, it is not disputed that IF 2% stronger strong nuclear force THEN stable diproton. What is disputed is IF stable diproton THEN no hydrogen left.

To be careful, I noted the dispute instead of deleting it. (I also think this particular case is of historic interest, although of no scientific interest.) But I'd prefer a better example in "Premise" section. Since "Examples" section is copied from Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees, I guess it can stay there.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...

Now has an article: https://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/fine-tuning/ William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fine-tuned Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fine-tuned Universe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Multiverse

Craig has 2 Phds and has written or edited 30 books. He has also written many scholarly and popular articles. He has debated well known public intellectuals like Sam Harris and C. Hitchens and A. C. Grayling. Why is he called "unreliable"? 24.189.33.102 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any contribution should be backed-up with independent, secondary, reliable sources. Also suggest you read Wikipedia policy contained in WP:FRINGE. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel Craig is unreliable? Why do you feel he is not neutral? 24.189.33.102 (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should read my comments above, other editors comments on your Talk page and also WP:FRINGE. Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments and I asked you to support them. Why do you feel Craig is unreliable? Please don't be so dogmatic you are in violation of Wikipedia rules.24.189.41.93 (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, any contribution(s) to this article must be backed-up with independent, secondary and reliable sources and not one individual view(s). That is Wikipedia policy and is in no way being "dogmatic" and neither is it a "violation of Wikipedia rules". I and other editors, who have commented on your previous Talk page 24.189.33.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have already informed you of the conventions that Wikipedia operates and you appear to have taken no notice. You also appear not to have read WP:FRINGE. All this has been explained to you multiple times and you are asked to abide by Wikipedia policy. David J Johnson (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To IP editor. Please note that your sources do not meet our requirements for reliability. Further attempts to insert them will result in me asking Admins for sanctions against you for tendentious editing. Thanks. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 16:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 24.189.41.93: In order to include Craig in this article, you need to refer to a reliable secondary source. His own writings are a primary source, and it doesn't matter how notable he is as a philosopher or theologian, just because he writes something doesn't mean it's reliable information unless it is reported on by an independent, reliable secondary source such as the journal Nature. That is how Wikipedia works. Please stop attempting this insertion. -Jordgette [talk] 16:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia does not approve of primary sources why does this article refer to numerous primary sources? Should we eliminate all such sources?24.189.41.93 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing over the list, the primary sources in this article appear to be papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and/or authored by highly notable cosmologists. Feel free to point to primary sources that do not meet such criteria. -Jordgette [talk] 16:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it is okay to refer to notable individuals as primary sources! Both philosophers and scientists are used as primary sources throughout the article. Now the question becomes: why do you feel Craig is not notable? Craig has 2 Phds and has written or edited 30 books. He has also written many scholarly and popular articles. He has debated well known public intellectuals like Sam Harris and C. Hitchens and A. C. Grayling.24.189.41.93 (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no more objections I will add Craig's statement about the multiverse.24.189.41.93 (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, read the comments from several editors above and comply with Wikipedia policies. Consensus is against these changes. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered the objections mentioned above. I have patiently considered these objections despite their obvious lack of merit. Do you have any additional objections? Please comply with Wikipedia policies and work for a solution.24.189.41.93 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lecture experienced editors on Wikipedia policies. The "solution" is already there - the consensus is against your changes. Please just accept this. David J Johnson (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel your objections have merit please defend them. If you feel my criticism of said objections is unconvincing tell me why. Don't be shy.24.189.41.93 (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fine-tuned_universe&oldid=881062768"