No he couldn't, that's the argument that the Sun isn't needed for life because it is lifeless. For the Universe to exist there are processes that take place and are invisible to us, maybe massive stars serve a purpose, recently it was discovered that planet Zeus affects positively the earth's atmosphere, maybe the chain extents even belong our galaxy.
You seem to be missing the point of the counterargument, which is that life is an irrelevancy if the universe was fine-tuned for something else altogether. Why single life out as the purpose given that, with alterations in the constants, it's not just life that disappears?
Atheists like you think that the earth must be in the center of the Universe to mean something, clearly this is fallacious. The center of attention to a conscious being isn't a center inside space and time.
No, that's not right. My claim is much more moderate than that. I'm suggesting that a universe of the kind depicted in Genesis lends itself more readily to the claim "The universe was fine-tuned for human existence." Given God's power, creating such a universe would presumably have been within his capacity.
The Genesis is a poem that describes the creation of the World from the human standpoint, it doesn't go into detail.
Isn't that what you're doing with the fine-tuning argument; describing the creation of the world from a human standpoint (i.e., presuming that everything was fine-tuned just for us)?
God placed the author in the position to see the Universe to be created and he described what he saw with the knowledge the humans had at the time. If you go today to an uncivilized tribe and show them a 3d high definition virtual reality hologram about the creation of the Universe they will describe it with the knowledge they have today(earth,fire,light,darkness and so on..). Probably you will end up to have a second Genesis account that looks primitive.
Sure, I agree. That's not my point, however. See above.
It doesn't, he could create a Universe filled with Black holes without any life.
Really? How do you know that?
Is God a conscious being? Yes he is. Are we conscious beings? Yes we are.These are facts.
No. Those are just assertions. I'll grant you that we are conscious beings, but you've got your work cut out for you in showing that God is a conscious being.
Do we care only for conscious beings (life)? Yes we are. Then how do you expect another conscious being to care less about us who we are conscious and more about unconscious structures?
By that reasoning, everyone should be enthusiastic about my field, psychology, as it is the study of minds. Yet we know that people have diverse interests. Some people are interested in, and fascinated by, unconscious systems. Astronomers for example. Perhaps the designer is an astronomer, not a psychologist or biologist. Whatever happens on this fragile rock is of less concern to him than watching neutron stars collide.
Something supernatural is attached to the natural, what we call supernatural is something that happens with intention from the Mind that preexisted the Natural world and we call the Creator, etc the image on the shroud of Turin was created by a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation. We know what electromagnetic energy is, the supernatural description goes to the fact that it was intended[/SIZE] to happen not because it is something invisible.
I struggle to see how this follows from my comment. Notably, acceptance of the first premise rules out a supernatural cause for the shroud's imprint, just as it rules out a supernatural cause for the universe. In positing the first premise, that causes are not unlike their effects, you've essentially decapitated your own argument.
Because the Physical Universe demands an absolute beginning, it was proven by BVG Theorem. I don't know why we still discuss it, prove me that the Universe is Eternal.
In my experience, these terms generate so much confusion because different people mean very different things by them. What do you mean by "absolute beginning," and in what way does "absolute beginning" imply a beginning from nothing?
We know that the current state of the universe began over 13 billion years ago. As we go back, further and further, we don't reach nothingness, but a spacetime boundary.
I can't prove to you that the universe is eternal, because I don't know that to be true. I am aware, however, of cyclical models that link the Big Bang to a Big Crunch. That might be construed as "eternal" I suppose.
Where is that interview? Vilenkin even admitted that quantum fluctuations can't be past eternal because they are not strong enough. I didn't used Vilenkin to support my whole Theology, i used him to support the claim that the Universe came from something non physical.
I'll try to find it. It was part of a compilation of interviews that included others as well.
