The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

OH?
That's not evidence of anything other than itself, see? Just like looking in a mirror is nothing more than seeing yourself.

So if something is totally random that is just a mirror seeing nothing more than seeing myself too?

 

[AirPo]

So how is it a pattern?

1 inch is 1 inch is 1 inch. Cut and paste a million times and you still have 1 inch is 1 inch.

 

[AirPo]

What do you mean that is not where the OP is going?

The OP is implying that apparent design means something more than apparent design.

 

[AirPo]

So if something is totally random that is just a mirror seeing nothing more than seeing myself too?

So's law.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Lol, it's easy, all I do is read what Jesus actually said about prayer at various points and then compare that to real life observations.
Here is what Jesus had to say on the subject:
1) And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. “And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)

2) Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)

3) Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.(Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)

4) Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)

5) And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-13 NAB)

6) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)

7) If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)

8) It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)

9) On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

This obviously not the experience of Christians so either Jesus was wrong or was intentionally deceiving (not out of character for God), either way prayer doesn't work the way he said it would.

I've experienced answered prayer. I've experienced unanswered prayers that were later shown to be the best thing for me and where what I'd asked in prayer would not have been. The problem with unbelievers and prayer is that most don't have anything to go on to determine anything at all about prayer. Unbelievers think that everything that a believer believes is based in not really knowing if God exists except for prayers, or feelings, or faith. Unbelievers don't understand that there is evidence of God that has nothing to do with prayers, feelings or faith.

This seems pretty weak but I am happy to let it pass for now since it is not really a main point. We can talk about how badly the bible fails as prophecy some other time

Ok.

Citation needed. This notion seems to contradict many of the creation myths that were in that earlier link.

I should have looked at that link before responding but I didn't so I'll go back and look here in a bit.

This is not convincing at all. You are attempting to read modern science back into a book that never contained it. Noticed that the Bible says stretched out in the past tense so even your own book described the action as compelted, not an ongoing expansion as we actually observe...if you will pardon the pun...that argument was quite a stretch

Actually that isn't true. There are some that speak of spreading the heavens as if it is a past event but others that speak to it being an ongoing one.
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Psalm 104
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in Isaiah 40:22
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things ; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Isaiah 44
There are others but another point which is relevant is that God knows the beginning from the end. HE is sitting at the beginning stretching and at the end where the stretching is over with.

Yes post hoc, well spotted. The fun thing about post hoc explanations is that they are really easy to invent in such a way that they explain the data.

You must of missed where I said, that even if it can be considered post hoc, intelligent beings are better explained by theism than naturalism.

Where is that? And does the bible make any claims that are not consistent with what we know about science?

Does science make any claims that we find with more information are wrong?

I believe the mention of the mountains being in the ocean was in Jonah when he goes down into the waters (figuratively)but the knowledge that there were mountains in the ocean was not known in Jonah's time.

Um I don't think so. I seem to remmer this long string of creation after the initial heavens and earth bit. Are you just talking about matter in general?

He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. John 1:3


Where is this?

Taking abiogenesis out of the picture and then talking exclusively about abiogenesis. ..

abiogenesis is about living matter from non-living matter. What I was referring to here was after life..

For whoever he was writing to, speaking to etc. It honestly doesn't matter though unless you want to pursue it.

Not necessary right now.

Which again emphasizes that the only special thing in our universe is life. So why is this more special than a universe that is "fine tuned" to allow one single planetoid made of gold?

Yes, but you had said intelligent life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The OP is implying that apparent design means something more than apparent design.

The OP is proposing explanations based on the fine tuning of the universe. I feel Theism better explains the fine tuning than naturalism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not evidence of anything other than our tendency to notice patterns.

No, if the measurements were not precisely what they are the universe would not exist. That is not a pattern that is actual fact.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which is correct, because your conclusion is wrong. Nothing presented supports your conclusion. It is illogical. That has been pointed out again and again, but that fact gets ignored.

There are no facts that have been given. That is the problem. You are asserting my conclusion is wrong without one shred of evidence to support your claim. You are just giving me your opinion that my conclusion is wrong without providing why it is wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you say, but for some reason you can't tell us how unlikely they've determined it is nor can you find a paper where they explain how they came to that answer. That's awfully suspicious.

I've provided support through various links. You just seem to dismiss them all.

What's even more suspicious is that the references you've tried to give haven't even related to that question. Makes me wonder if you're trying to fool us or if you simply don't understand the issue here.

I don't even know what you are referring to here.

 

[AirPo]

The OP is proposing explanations based on the fine tuning of the universe. I feel Theism better explains the fine tuning than naturalism.

Exactly, which is not at all supported by the "evidence" cited in the OP.

 

[AirPo]

No, if the measurements were not precisely what they are the universe would not exist. That is not a pattern that is actual fact.

The only fact is the painfully obvious if things were different they would be different.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In the case of constants having the value that they have, I'll have to ask here:
- which data?
- which equation?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v1.pdf page 5 if it doesn't take you to the exact page.

How do you apply this to something like the values of constants of this universe, of which we have a set of exactly 1?

What? Explain what you mean here?

If it's easier to explain, demonstrate this theorem with an analogy provided by Loudmouth on this subject.

We have a black back. We do not know what is in it.
We go in with our hand, without looking what's inside, and pull out an object which has the number "54526" engraved on it.

We don't know if there are other such objects in the bag.
We don't know that IF there are other such objects in it, if they have numbers engraved on them. If they do, we don't know if they all have the same number or different numbers. We also don't know how many objects there are still in the bag - if any at all.

See page five.

So.... please demonstrate this "theorem" by fieding this data into an equation and coming up with a probability stating how likely it was that we pulled out that specific object, with that specific number engraved on it.

That is what you are looking at in the link I provided.

 

[AirPo]

There are no facts that have been given. That is the problem. You are asserting my conclusion is wrong without one shred of evidence to support your claim. You are just giving me your opinion that my conclusion is wrong without providing why it is wrong.

No, you are claiming your conclusion is correct without one shred of evidence to support it. I've pointed out the problems again and again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Exactly, which is not at all supported by the "evidence" cited in the OP.

It is supported by it.

 

[AirPo]

I've provided support through various links. You just seem to dismiss them all.

I don't even know what you are referring to here.

No, we keep pointing out that what you have linked in no way supports what you are claiming.

 

[AirPo]

It is supported by it.

No, it's not. It's just wishful thinking.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, you are claiming your conclusion is correct without one shred of evidence to support it. I've pointed out the problems again and again.

The evidence is the fine tuning.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

Conclusion: a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, we keep pointing out that what you have linked in no way supports what you are claiming.

Actually you all either dismiss the actual fine tuning of the universe which is supported by scientists in the field. Then you claim there is no evidence but the evidence is the fine tuning. Then you all assert I'm wrong in my conclusion without giving anything but opinion to show I'm wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it's not. It's just wishful thinking.

No wishful thinking is that the appearance of design is not actual and can be shown to be an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The only fact is the painfully obvious if things were different they would be different.

If that satisfies you then by all means you are free to dismiss the facts.