A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[JimFit]

I corrected your typo.

How you are not a nihilist? You believe you came from nothing and you go to nothing, end of your brain end of you.

That is not what I believe. I don't believe that deities had anything to do with my existence, but I could not honestly endorse what you have written above.

Scientists are not deities.

eudaimonia,

Its Ευδαιμονία not eudaimonia.

 

[Non sequitur]

JimFit,

None of that shows that the universe was intentionally or purposefully fine tuned.

It shows the unlikelihood of things being the way they are; that's all your numbers, statistics and videos show. Again. (Btw, you don't need to repost things that have already been established; I accept the data.)

The conclusion that it is "special" is because of the value you personally put on intelligent life; which is subjective.

I'm sorry you don't understand how making the hop from observation to intent and purpose.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

The mathematics of propability, used in this same way, clearly proves the impossibility of just about everything that we - even people like you! - would consider "our universe". That includes even things like "microevolution"... which is stochastically impossible.

The only common sense result is the intelligent design of our Creator... for anything. For everything.


Even this post.


Consider this.

I agree except for the microevolution part. We do see adaptation. Many times that adaptation is detrimental and not beneficial. The old saying about "use it or lose it" applies. Mankind has certainly become weaker over the ages and is now becoming more obese than ever due to lack of exercise and improper diet.

The men of the pre-flood era lived longer due to their environment and their need to be strong and robust. We no longer have that need.

 

[Eudaimonist]

How you are not a nihilist? You believe you came from nothing and you go to nothing, end of your brain end of you.

That doesn't make me a nihilist. While nihilists might regard death as final, that isn't what makes someone a nihilist.

Between past nothing and future nothing is plenty of something. I experience and regard my life as fully mattering and meaningful to myself.

I am not even close to being a nihilist. It is offensive to be called one.

Scientists are not deities.

Did I say that they were?

Its Ευδαιμονία not eudaimonia.

I'm fully aware of how the word is spelled in Greek. What I write is how it is often spelled using our alphabet. There isn't anything wrong with doing so.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JimFit]

JimFit,
None of that shows that the universe was intentionally or purposefully fine tuned.

1. if something is fine-tuned, then it came into existence
2. if something comes into existence, then it does so either due to chance or not chance
3. if something is not chance, then it is intentional
4. there is no known instance of chance fine-tuning any complex thing
5. therefore, it is more plausible that that which is fine-tuned is due to intention, rather than chance
6. the universe is fine-tuned
7. therefore, it is more plausible that it is due to intention


Now let’s apply this same logic to the pyramids. we have no evidence that the pyramids were built by humans, only a prior reasoning.


1. if something is fine-tuned, then it came into existence
2. if something comes into existence, then it does so either due to chance or not chance
3. if something is not chance, then it is intentional
4. there is no known instance of chance fine-tuning any complex thing
5. therefore, it is more plausible that that which is fine-tuned is due to intention, rather than chance
6. the pyramids are fine-tuned
7. therefore, it is more plausible that it is due to intention

God doesn't need anything from us to have a purpose, He just created us because He loves us. No purpose. Humans have purpose to be perfect like God.

It shows the unlikelihood of things being the way they are; that's all your numbers, statistics and videos show. Again. (Btw, you don't need to repost things that have already been established; I accept the data.)

Unlikelihood compared to what? Non existence? You have no other Universe to compare this and say "Yes there is Fine Tuning but it was due to Luck" Luck doesn't even exist to start of...

The conclusion that it is "special" is because of the value you personally put on intelligent life; which is subjective.

So many fallacies in only two sentences! If a Conscious Mind (and not intelligent life) wasn't important then why our Consciousness affects the result of the double slit experiement? I mean you atheists were yelling that only Materialism exists, if Materialism can be affected by our Consciousness your whole argument goes to garbage. Then again with your statement there is another mistake, to be in the center of the attention you must be conscious, how can rocks be aware of their existence? You imply that somehow my life is has the same importance with a rock, in what criteria? The unconscious rock? OF COURSE MY LIFE MATTERS BECAUSE ONLY CONSCIOUS PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THEIR LIFE!

I'm sorry you don't understand how making the hop from observation to intent and purpose.

I'm sorry but everything points to intention because Materialism is Finite, the cause of the Universe could only be transcendent, spaceless and timeless, it describes consciousness.

 

[JimFit]

That doesn't make me a nihilist. While nihilists might regard death as final, that isn't what makes someone a nihilist.

Between past nothing and future nothing is plenty of something.

This something will extinct together with the Universe someday, it wont leave a fingerprint of you anywhere so this something is an illusion and i have seen very little atheists to live their lives like that, to the extreme because there is no second life. Anyway this whole atheistic worldview is so wrong in so many ways which will take me hours to explain. You must know that the peace you feel inside you when you think that your life has an end is the peace you feel when you are dead.

I experience and regard my life as fully mattering and meaningful to myself.

You don't have free will in Materialism to choose for yourself except if yourself is a real clone separated from you. The fact that you think like a Dualist proves that Materialism goes against our Minds.

I am not even close to being a nihilist. It is offensive to be called one.

Yes you are. This something is not even yours.

Did I say that they were?

You said God is a Deity therefor His images are too deities, there is nothing that God did which humans can't in fact Jesus said "Be perfect just like our Father in Heaven is perfect". When we do Science we prove that we are the images of God because our Mind is above space, time and materialism and that's why it can understand the Creation. We can "see" the past, the future and the present through the eyes of our consciousness because it is transcendent.

 

[Non sequitur]

1. if something is fine-tuned, then it came into existence
2. if something comes into existence, then it does so either due to chance or not chance
3. if something is not chance, then it is intentional
4. there is no known instance of chance fine-tuning any complex thing
5. therefore, it is more plausible that that which is fine-tuned is due to intention, rather than chance
6. the universe is fine-tuned
7. therefore, it is more plausible that it is due to intention

Number 1: A fine-tuned guitar did not come into existence. The guitar was created by a person, then tuned for the purpose of perfect pitch.

Number 4: That depends on how you are looking at things. A beautiful mountain and landscape was not fine-tuned by time and nature, but could appear that it was if you are so inclined to believe that was the intent. Do you see the problem of perception?

And that leads to number 6, where your problem lies.

You don't know purpose nor intention of the universe, therefore you can't say it's fine tuned.

You'd have to know what that purpose and intent was, first, not just assert it was fine tuned for something after-the-fact, especially since you are determining what it was tuned for.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This something will extinct together with the Universe someday, it wont leave a fingerprint of you anywhere so this something is an illusion and i have seen very little atheists to live their lives like that, to the extreme because there is no second life.

I have no idea what you mean by "living to the extreme"? Is this "extreme" some hedonistic pursuit like wine, women, and song? My life is too short to waste on hedonism.

Anyway this whole atheistic worldview is so wrong in so many ways which will take me hours to explain.

You don't even know what my worldview is. You are aware, at best, of only a few isolated positions. There isn't just one "atheistic worldview" any more than that there is only one "theistic worldview".

You must know that the peace you feel inside you when you think that your life has an end is the peace you feel when you are dead.

You must think that you are a mind reader. Don't quit your day job.

You don't have free will in Materialism to choose for yourself except if yourself is a real clone separated from you.

I'm not a "Materialist". I have never called myself one. I could reasonably be described as a metaphysical naturalist, but even that requires qualification. My metaphysics is probably not something that you are familiar with.

The fact that you think like a Dualist proves that Materialism goes against our Minds.

I don't think like a Dualist, if by that you mean substance dualist. I do take a dual-aspect view of the mind-body relation, but that isn't what you mean, I suspect. I'm anti-reductionist (an emergentist), and prefer a view of entity-action causality to Newtonian style event-event causality. That is what accounts for my views on human nature with regards to the subject of free will. It doesn't involve "a real clone separated from you".

I agree that reductive materialism has no room for free will, but I am not a reductive materialist. I don't fit into your pigeon holes.

You said God is a Deity therefor His images are too deities

In which post? I don't recall saying anything like that. You may have me confused with someone else.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Atheism = Nihilism

No, atheism is not equivalent to nihilism.

Atheists believe that their existence is a purposeless random mistake, if you believe that something determined your existence you cannot claim that you are an atheist.

Wrong.

You don't even know what a body is to start with.

And that justifies your assertion how?

We have evidence that mindless [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] have consciousness and intention which debunks that even a body is needing.

Take note of the humorous spelling error.

Your body is just a collection of atoms, that's it, in materialism you are not different from a rock, the fact that Consciousness defers us from a rock while we are still composed with atoms just like a rock gives credit to the idea that consciousness creates life and not the other way around.

The atoms in my body are arranged differently to the atoms forming a rock. That's a significant difference, not something to trivialise.

 

[bhsmte]

Take note of the humorous spelling error.

Freudian slip?

 

[paul becke]

1. if something is fine-tuned, then it came into existence
2. if something comes into existence, then it does so either due to chance or not chance
3. if something is not chance, then it is intentional
4. there is no known instance of chance fine-tuning any complex thing
5. therefore, it is more plausible that that which is fine-tuned is due to intention, rather than chance
6. the universe is fine-tuned
7. therefore, it is more plausible that it is due to intention


Now let’s apply this same logic to the pyramids. we have no evidence that the pyramids were built by humans, only a prior reasoning.


1. if something is fine-tuned, then it came into existence
2. if something comes into existence, then it does so either due to chance or not chance
3. if something is not chance, then it is intentional
4. there is no known instance of chance fine-tuning any complex thing
5. therefore, it is more plausible that that which is fine-tuned is due to intention, rather than chance
6. the pyramids are fine-tuned
7. therefore, it is more plausible that it is due to intention

God doesn't need anything from us to have a purpose, He just created us because He loves us. No purpose. Humans have purpose to be perfect like God.



Unlikelihood compared to what? Non existence? You have no other Universe to compare this and say "Yes there is Fine Tuning but it was due to Luck" Luck doesn't even exist to start of...



So many fallacies in only two sentences! If a Conscious Mind (and not intelligent life) wasn't important then why our Consciousness affects the result of the double slit experiement? I mean you atheists were yelling that only Materialism exists, if Materialism can be affected by our Consciousness your whole argument goes to garbage. Then again with your statement there is another mistake, to be in the center of the attention you must be conscious, how can rocks be aware of their existence? You imply that somehow my life is has the same importance with a rock, in what criteria? The unconscious rock? OF COURSE MY LIFE MATTERS BECAUSE ONLY CONSCIOUS PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THEIR LIFE!



I'm sorry but everything points to intention because Materialism is Finite, the cause of the Universe could only be transcendent, spaceless and timeless, it describes consciousness.

I just read a few hours ago that the universe is so finely tuned for us that the odds against its being random are as enormous as those of hitting a bull's eye of a diameter of 1 mm at one end of the known universe, with a dart thrown from the other end of it.

You're wasting your time arguing with Non sequitur. His argument are vapid.

 

[JimFit]

Number 1: A fine-tuned guitar did not come into existence. The guitar was created by a person, then tuned for the purpose of perfect pitch.

The Guitar was created and tuned by a Conscious person who had the intention to make the guitar in the first place.

Number 4: That depends on how you are looking at things. A beautiful mountain and landscape was not fine-tuned by time and nature, but could appear that it was if you are so inclined to believe that was the intent. Do you see the problem of perception?

The mountain and the landscape were fine tuned from the laws and the constants of Nature. The observer must watch the landscape as an entity to understand beauty. When you go to a gallery and watch a painting, do you observe paint, canvas and wood or the whole art itself?

And that leads to number 6, where your problem lies.

There is no problem because it has been proven that Consciousness precedes matter and matter is finite just like any physical therefor the cause of the Universe must be transcendent.

You don't know purpose nor intention of the universe, therefore you can't say it's fine tuned.You'd have to know what that purpose and intent was, first, not just assert it was fine tuned for something after-the-fact, especially since you are determining what it was tuned for.

The Universe has no purpose, it is unconscious. Whatever precedes the Universe has the intention to create the Universe in the first place because physical necessity doesn't work here. God has no purpose, Eternity is purposeless, the purpose of this life is to be perfect like God and join Him to heaven. God didn't need a purpose to create us, He didn't want to achieve something because He is Omniscience, He just loved us and created us, that's it.

 

[JimFit]

I just read a few hours ago that the universe is so finely tuned for us that the odds against its being random are as enormous as those of hitting a bull's eye of a diameter of 1 mm at one end of the known universe, with a dart thrown from the other end of it.

You're wasting your time arguing with Non sequitur. His argument are vapid.

His arguments are just unscientific, if you believe in Evolution you believe also in Fine Tuning because there is a hierarchy in both. You can't claim that there is no Fine Tuning if the Universe began.

 

[JimFit]

I have no idea what you mean by "living to the extreme"? Is this "extreme" some hedonistic pursuit like wine, women, and song? My life is too short to waste on hedonism

So the fact that you are not a hedonist (like your Epicurean ancestors) is because you just don't like it, what if another atheist likes it? What bothers him to live it at the expense of others?

You don't even know what my worldview is. You are aware, at best, of only a few isolated positions. There isn't just one "atheistic worldview" any more than that there is only one "theistic worldview".

But there is, its called Metaphysical Materialism!

You must think that you are a mind reader. Don't quit your day job.

You don't answer because you haven't ever philosophized the atheist thing, you now try to come with a definition of atheism more positive to you but you still will come up with a definition which is not yours because you haven't free will in the first place to make it yours. Your brain serves you the answers not you.

I'm not a "Materialist". I have never called myself one. I could reasonably be described as a metaphysical naturalist, but even that requires qualification. My metaphysics is probably not something that you are familiar with.

Yes i know what an atheist believes.

I don't think like a Dualist, if by that you mean substance dualist. I do take a dual-aspect view of the mind-body relation, but that isn't what you mean, I suspect. I'm anti-reductionist (an emergentist), and prefer a view of entity-action causality to Newtonian style event-event causality. That is what accounts for my views on human nature with regards to the subject of free will. It doesn't involve "a real clone separated from you".

So the Mind exists because we are somehow complex (still no free will in the machine). There are brainless organisms that have consciousness and intention, you don't have to be complex to have intention. One problem for emergentism is the idea of "causal closure" in the world that does not allow for a mind-to-body causation.

I agree that reductive materialism has no room for free will, but I am not a reductive materialist. I don't fit into your pigeon holes.

Fun Fact neither emergentism allows free will lol.

In which post? I don't recall saying anything like that. You may have me confused with someone else.

You said it in post #854

"I don't believe that deities had anything to do with my existence"

 

[JimFit]

No, atheism is not equivalent to nihilism.

Why?

Wrong.

Why?

And that justifies your assertion how?

What does bodies have to do with Consciousness?

The atoms in my body are arranged differently to the atoms forming a rock. That's a significant difference, not something to trivialise.

That doesn't make sense Αρχαιοπτέρυξ, Reductionism doesn't say that, it says that complexity is responsible for our consciousness, its not just the arrangement , we are not the only conscious beings in fact there are brainless organisms with different arrangement from ours and still are conscious.

 

[NannaNae]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWWFf8G3BKI
I like this one!
and dang they haven't even started asking the real questions yet.
the kind of questions even the
intelligent design folks really don't want to know.

give it a few hundred years IF ( and that is huge and not likely IF ) we keep going that long. So chances are they won't ever guess a good enough question to try and answer.

 

[Non sequitur]

I just read a few hours ago that the universe is so finely tuned for us that the odds against its being random are as enormous as those of hitting a bull's eye of a diameter of 1 mm at one end of the known universe, with a dart thrown from the other end of it.

You're wasting your time arguing with Non sequitur. His argument are vapid.

The incredible odds of something being the way it is does not show it was finely tuned for being the way it is.

You start by declaring the universe is fine tuned for us; this is an assertion and you have no evidence for this.

 

[Non sequitur]

The Guitar was created and tuned by a Conscious person who had the intention to make the guitar in the first place.

Exactly. We know there was a purpose for the guitar's creation.

There is no problem because it has been proven that Consciousness precedes matter and matter is finite just like any physical therefor the cause of the Universe must be transcendent.

Please provide this proof that consciousness precedes matter.

The Universe has no purpose, it is unconscious. Whatever precedes the Universe has the intention to create the Universe in the first place because physical necessity doesn't work here. God has no purpose, Eternity is purposeless, the purpose of this life is to be perfect like God and join Him to heaven. God didn't need a purpose to create us, He didn't want to achieve something because He is Omniscience, He just loved us and created us, that's it.

I don't understand how you don't get this.

1) How do you know something preceded the universe?
2) If something did, how do you know of its intentions?
3) What physical necessity doesn't work here?

You have to assert a purpose and intention first, before arriving at your conclusions.

 

[Non sequitur]

The mountain and the landscape were fine tuned from the laws and the constants of Nature. The observer must watch the landscape as an entity to understand beauty. When you go to a gallery and watch a painting, do you observe paint, canvas and wood or the whole art itself?

Never mind. I see why you'll never understand how you are wrong.

Saying the mountain and landscape were fine tuned from the laws and constants of nature means you believe they were purposefully and intently made to be the way are; like a painter.

However, they were naturally formed, from the randomness of nature and time, not fine tuned.

Was the purpose and intent of the laws and constants of nature when they fine tuned the mountains and landscape?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So the fact that you are not a hedonist (like your Epicurean ancestors)

Like who?

is because you just don't like it

What?!?

what if another atheist likes it?

Why should this matter to me?

What bothers him to live it at the expense of others?

Ask him.

But there is, its called Metaphysical Materialism!

No, it isn't. That is not at all a plausible name for my worldview, and it is not even a name for a worldview at all.

You don't answer because you haven't ever philosophized the atheist thing

I have spent the past twenty five years philosophizing my views. You have spent a few seconds playing mind reader and pretending that you understand mine. You have failed pretty badly.

Yes i know what an atheist believes.

You may know what some atheists believe. However, since atheists may disagree on virtually any issue other than belief in the existence of a God or gods, and there is in fact a great variety of belief among atheists, you can't know what all atheists believe by knowing what "an atheist" believes.

You don't know what I believe. If you insist on thinking that you do, you will simply hallucinate my beliefs. They will all be in your mind, and not mine.

"I don't believe that deities had anything to do with my existence"

Yes, but you had somehow turned that into "You said God is a Deity therefor His images are too deities". There is no logical connection between the two statements.


eudaimonia,

Mark