Prove me that Randomness Nothingness or Infinite past causes exist. The only way to disprove intention is to prove Randomness, the only way to disprove the transcendence is to prove Metaphysical Materialism.
BVG THeorem destroyed Metaphysical Materialism. The Double Slip Experiement proved that Consciousness affects the result which means that it preceeds matter.
Something to have a purpose must have a result, Eternal nature doesn't have a result, it never ends by definition. You can't have a purpose when you are Eternal.
Formed from Nothing? is that what you say? You can't escape something from nothing, the constants to form had to follow another constant that guides the formation and that chain of events can't go ad infinium. You clearly don't understand your fallacy.
Laws and Constants allowed intelligent life to unfold but the laws and the constants aren't seperate from matter, they describe matter and they can't exist without matter and for that reason they began to exist.
Did i said that the constants have intentions or will? They describe the will of God to reach His goal, us. Don't make me write again why His goal was us and not etc black holes.
Wilczek: life appears to depend upon delicate coincidences that we have not been able to explain. The broad outlines of that situation have been apparent for many decades. When less was known, it seemed reasonable to hope that better understanding of symmetry and dynamics would clear things up. Now that hope seems much less reasonable. The happy coincidences between lifes requirements and natures choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work.
Hawking: Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life.
The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.
Rees: Any universe hospitable to life what we might call a biophilic universe has to be adjusted in a particular way. The prerequisites for any life of the kind we know about long-lived stable stars, stable atoms such as carbon, oxygen and silicon, able to combine into complex molecules, etc are sensitive to the physical laws and to the size, expansion rate and contents of the universe. Indeed, even for the most open-minded science fiction writer, life or intelligence requires the emergence of some generic complex structures: it cant exist in a homogeneous universe, not in a universe containing only a few dozen particles. Many recipes would lead to stillborn universes with no atoms, no chemistry, and no planets; or to universes too short-lived or too empty to allow anything to evolve beyond sterile uniformity.
Linde: the existence of an amazingly strong correlation between our own properties and the values of many parameters of our world, such as the masses and charges of electron and proton, the value of the gravitational constant, the amplitude of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electroweak theory, the value of the vacuum energy, and the dimensionality of our world, is an experimental fact requiring an explanation.
Susskind: The Laws of Physics
are almost always deadly. In a sense the laws of nature are like East Coast weather: tremendously variable, almost always awful, but on rare occasions, perfectly lovely.
[O]ur own universe is an extraordinary place that appears to be fantastically well designed for our own existence. This specialness is not something that we can attribute to lucky accidents, which is far too unlikely. The apparent coincidences cry out for an explanation.
Guth: in the multiverse, life will evolve only in very rare regions where the local laws of physics just happen to have the properties needed for life, giving a simple explanation for why the observed universe appears to have just the right properties for the evolution of life. The incredibly small value of the cosmological constant is a telling example of a feature that seems to be needed for life, but for which an explanation from fundamental physics is painfully lacking.
Smolin: Our universe is much more complex than most universes with the same laws but different values of the parameters of those laws. In particular, it has a complex astrophysics, including galaxies and long lived stars, and a complex chemistry, including carbon chemistry. These necessary conditions for life are present in our universe as a consequence of the complexity which is made possible by the special values of the parameters.
Victor Stenger: The most commonly cited examples of apparent fine-tuning can be readily explained by the application of a little well-established physics and cosmology. . . .
ome form of life would have occurred in most universes that could be described by the same physical models as ours, with parameters whose ranges varied over ranges consistent with those models.
. My case against fine-tuning will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics nor on the existence of multiple universes.
