A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Smidlee]

If you have doubts about Heliocentrism and want to have a career in astronomy, then you should probably keep your opinions to yourself.

Do you know why? Because being absolutely wrong about the most basic concepts in your field of work casts you in a bad light.

Why didn't you write " If you have doubts about abiogenesis ...."?

 

[JimFit]

He is claiming that you reject evolution when the vast majority of biologists accept it as true.

Evolution is a well established fact. Macroevolution on the other hand is not.

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent

How have you determined that it is proof of intention? The Bible says that the universe was created for humans. Why then is the huge majority of it hostile to human life? What does it say about the "creator's" intentions when the creation is nearly entirely anti-human?

Oh men...Do you seriously consider this an argument against our existence? The fact that we exist is enough to refute it. The Universe is big because it is expanding, if it didn't expand we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Again before 1000 years all it takes to have life is a planet, in our case earth. Today we know that it takes much more things to have life. Everything inside the Universe is an open system, planets belong to systems and galaxies belong to clusters. This shows interconnection, even what you see as void it isn't truly void, it consists of dark matter and dark energy.

Seems much more likely that the creator made the universe for all that vacuum that's out there. Very supportive to vacuum.

Does the vacuum has consciousness?
Our existence isn't important because of our size or position in the Universe.

Ah yes, this creation that is clearly a creation. I'll come back to this...

It is a Creation because there is no randomness. Basically true Randomness can exists only in Nothingness.

The burden of proof would seem to be on you here. You are making the claim that there is an intention there, so you must support it. You don't get to make any nonsense claim you want and then say your claims are valid unless someone else can disprove them.

A design doesn't need a Designer anymore?
To disprove a Creator you must first disprove the Creation and say that we live in a Cosmic mistake, of course this doesn't happen, the Universe is governed by Laws and Constants. The fact that intelligent conscious life was determined

Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)

It shows a plan to have consciousness and since matter doesn't understands what consciousness is ONLY a conscious mind could plan conscious minds to exist. THE ONLY THING you can say to refute it is that Consciousness is an illusion and we are cosmic mistakes. Remember Evolution is Deterministic.

Lets analyze that scenario

Only matters exists, mind is an illusion

• Cogito ergo sum. I have conscious experiences. Even if these experiences (including the feeling of being the subject of conscious expriences) are illusions, I am still experiencing these illusions. Therefore consciousness exists – even if all other apparent conscious beings in the universe would be philosophical zombies (that is, beings that act rational, but lack conscious experience).
• If consciousness exists, there is ‘mind’. This rules out orthodox materialist monism (the notion that there is only matter, and that mind is an illusion).
• Caveat: I can only falsify this for myself, because I cannot with certainty claim anyone else has conscious experiences. Vice versa, you cannot verify my conscious experiences, so you should not believe my claim, but base your evaluation on your own conscious experience (or lack thereof).

Okay, so let's establish some words and their definitions then, shall we?

I will use the word "create" (for the purposes of this discussion) to mean what you say here.

You know that its the only word you can use since cosmic accident would sound ridiculous! The fact that you use the word CREATION is selfdestructive to your argument that there is no intention behind.

Something is "created" if there is some intelligent agency at work. When I write some music, I CREATE music because I am taking conscious action. When my husband made hamburgers for dinner last night, he CREATED hamburgers because he had to take conscious action. I will leave out any and all implications of artistic merit from this, so a creation does not need to be an artistic thing. I can create a clean shower just as easily as I can create a piece of music.

On the other hand, I will use the word "cause" to refer to something that came about without some conscious choice as to the outcome. Thunderclouds CAUSE lightning, for example. This can also happen when people make things but have no control over the outcome. When I pour a bowl of oats and raisins for breakfast, I CAUSE a particular arrangement of raisins int he bowl. But since I do not choose where each raisin goes, I do not CREATE it.

HM? We could predict where the raisin goes, that's pseudorandomness.

I hope that the meanings of each word as I am using them here is clear to you, and I also hope that the difference between the two is clear.

Yes you are clear.

Now, tell me...

How can you tell them difference between the two? If you see a particular thing, how can you tell if it was the result of some CAUSAL influence or a CREATIVE influence? You said earlier that the universe is a creation. How would you tell the difference between a created universe and a caused universe?

What you have here is an argument from physical necessity. The Universe had a cause something physical therefor it wasn't created. I am really tired to explain this over and over again!

Physical Necessity

This alternative seems extraordinarily implausible because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.

Infinite Causes

The notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious, even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it won’t help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause.

 

[bhsmte]

Why didn't you write " If you have doubts about abiogenesis ...."?

What does abiogenesis have to do with astronomy?

 

[Smidlee]

What does abiogenesis have to do with astronomy?

What does astronomy have to do with Darwinism?

 

[bhsmte]

Evolution is a well established fact. Macroevolution on the other hand is not.

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent



Oh men...Do you seriously consider this an argument against our existence? The fact that we exist is enough to refute it. The Universe is big because it is expanding, if it didn't expand we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Again before 1000 years all it takes to have life is a planet, in our case earth. Today we know that it takes much more things to have life. Everything inside the Universe is an open system, planets belong to systems and galaxies belong to clusters. This shows interconnection, even what you see as void it isn't truly void, it consists of dark matter and dark energy.



Does the vacuum has consciousness?
Our existence isn't important because of our size or position in the Universe.



It is a Creation because there is no randomness. Basically true Randomness can exists only in Nothingness.



A design doesn't need a Designer anymore?
To disprove a Creator you must first disprove the Creation and say that we live in a Cosmic mistake, of course this doesn't happen, the Universe is governed by Laws and Constants. The fact that intelligent conscious life was determined

Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)

It shows a plan to have consciousness and since matter doesn't understands what consciousness is ONLY a conscious mind could plan conscious minds to exist. THE ONLY THING you can say to refute it is that Consciousness is an illusion and we are cosmic mistakes. Remember Evolution is Deterministic.

Lets analyze that scenario

Only matters exists, mind is an illusion

• Cogito ergo sum. I have conscious experiences. Even if these experiences (including the feeling of being the subject of conscious expriences) are illusions, I am still experiencing these illusions. Therefore consciousness exists – even if all other apparent conscious beings in the universe would be philosophical zombies (that is, beings that act rational, but lack conscious experience).
• If consciousness exists, there is ‘mind’. This rules out orthodox materialist monism (the notion that there is only matter, and that mind is an illusion).
• Caveat: I can only falsify this for myself, because I cannot with certainty claim anyone else has conscious experiences. Vice versa, you cannot verify my conscious experiences, so you should not believe my claim, but base your evaluation on your own conscious experience (or lack thereof).

You know that its the only word you can use since cosmic accident would sound ridiculous! The fact that you use the word CREATION is selfdestructive to your argument that there is no intention behind.



HM? We could predict where the raisin goes, that's pseudorandomness.



Yes you are clear.



What you have here is an argument from physical necessity. The Universe had a cause something physical therefor it wasn't created. I am really tired to explain this over and over again!

Physical Necessity

This alternative seems extraordinarily implausible because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.

Infinite Causes

The notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious, even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it won’t help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause.

Keep clinging to that chemist, he is your security blanket.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why didn't you write " If you have doubts about abiogenesis ...."?

If you think that everything we are currently ignorant of can be answered by "God did it with magic", then why would you be a scientist to begin with?

 

[selfinflikted]

Abiogenesis doesn't have, as far as I know, enough supportive evidence for someone expressing dissent to be mocked. Evolution, on the other hand, does.

 

[Smidlee]

If you think that everything we are currently ignorant of can be answered by "God did it with magic", then why would you be a scientist to begin with?

Atheist claims "nobody did it with magic" and believe somehow that sounds more logical. Even magic requires a magician and often a code.

Abiogenesis doesn't have, as far as I know, enough supportive evidence for someone expressing dissent to be mocked. Evolution, on the other hand, does.

Let make it clear I don't disagree (as well as other creationists) with evolution in nature. What is being debated is evolution that exist only in evolutionist's mind.

Science can only test evolution is nature (microevolution) and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis requires a lot of code which is more in common with macroevolution.

 

[Kylie]

Evolution is a well established fact. Macroevolution on the other hand is not.

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent

It's the same thing. It's like saying that me walking across the room really happens, but I'm incapable of walking down the street.

Oh men...Do you seriously consider this an argument against our existence? The fact that we exist is enough to refute it. The Universe is big because it is expanding, if it didn't expand we wouldn't be here to discuss it. Again before 1000 years all it takes to have life is a planet, in our case earth. Today we know that it takes much more things to have life. Everything inside the Universe is an open system, planets belong to systems and galaxies belong to clusters. This shows interconnection, even what you see as void it isn't truly void, it consists of dark matter and dark energy.

I see it as an argument against a God who created the universe solely to be used by Humans.

Does the vacuum has consciousness?
Our existence isn't important because of our size or position in the Universe.

Irrelevant to my point.

It is a Creation because there is no randomness. Basically true Randomness can exists only in Nothingness.

If it is nothingness, then there is nothing which can hold the property of being random. Nothingness cannot be random!

And there is plenty in the universe which is random. Brownian motion can't be predicted.

A design doesn't need a Designer anymore?
To disprove a Creator you must first disprove the Creation and say that we live in a Cosmic mistake, of course this doesn't happen, the Universe is governed by Laws and Constants. The fact that intelligent conscious life was determined

Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)

It shows a plan to have consciousness and since matter doesn't understands what consciousness is ONLY a conscious mind could plan conscious minds to exist. THE ONLY THING you can say to refute it is that Consciousness is an illusion and we are cosmic mistakes. Remember Evolution is Deterministic.

Lets analyze that scenario

Only matters exists, mind is an illusion

• Cogito ergo sum. I have conscious experiences. Even if these experiences (including the feeling of being the subject of conscious expriences) are illusions, I am still experiencing these illusions. Therefore consciousness exists – even if all other apparent conscious beings in the universe would be philosophical zombies (that is, beings that act rational, but lack conscious experience).
• If consciousness exists, there is ‘mind’. This rules out orthodox materialist monism (the notion that there is only matter, and that mind is an illusion).
• Caveat: I can only falsify this for myself, because I cannot with certainty claim anyone else has conscious experiences. Vice versa, you cannot verify my conscious experiences, so you should not believe my claim, but base your evaluation on your own conscious experience (or lack thereof).

Life evolved to suit the conditions that was already here. You are making a logical fallacy if you claim that we must be designed just because we are able to survive in the universe.

You know that its the only word you can use since cosmic accident would sound ridiculous! The fact that you use the word CREATION is selfdestructive to your argument that there is no intention behind.

Please try to comprehend basic English.

HM? We could predict where the raisin goes, that's pseudorandomness.

No you couldn't.

I could create a robot that makes very specific movements to stir the oatmeal and raisins, and I could tell you exactly where I put the raisin and you could know exactly how the robot moves. You still wouldn't be able to predict the position of the raisin after five minutes.

Yes you are clear.

Glad we agree on something.

What you have here is an argument from physical necessity. The Universe had a cause something physical therefor it wasn't created. I am really tired to explain this over and over again!

Physical Necessity

This alternative seems extraordinarily implausible because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.

This sounds like technobabble to me. You're just stringing together a bunch of phrases like "M-theory" and "105000 different universes" in an attempt to sound impressive.

BTW, if there really are that many different universes, each with its own different values, then it would seem obvious that some would be better suited for life than others. Life, of course, is only going to evolve in those universes where the fundamentals of nature are such that life is capable of evolving. And therefore, any life forms that are intelligent enough to ask, "Why are the fundamentals fine tuned for us" are only going to exist in the universes that have suitable conditions! Your own argument damages your point that there is some fine tuning entity.

Infinite Causes

The notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious, even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it won’t help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent. A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause.

Oh, please? The first cause argument? Are you serious? Go and learn some actual arguments!

 

[Smidlee]

It's the same thing. It's like saying that me walking across the room really happens, but I'm incapable of walking down the street.

Developmental biologists know the difference. Microevolution usually involves genetic changes in late embryo development after the body plan has been establish while macroevolution involves changes in early embryo development where the development genes are interconnected involve the body plans. So far in the lab they found embryos will developed only one way and it extremely resistance to changes.

It's more like microevolution is a walk in the park while macroevolution is like going across the galaxy.

 

[Kylie]

Developmental biologists know the difference. Microevolution usually involves genetic changes in late embryo development after the body plan has been establish while macroevolution involves changes in early embryo development where the development genes are interconnected involve the body plans. So far in the lab they found embryos will developed only one way and it extremely resistance to changes.

It's more like microevolution is a walk in the park while macroevolution is like going across the galaxy.

If what you say is true, you will have no trouble producing a source from such a biologist that explains how they are two fundamentally different processes.

I have seen many biologists who have said otherwise. So until you can produce the source I ask for, I'll stick with what I know, okay?

 

[Smidlee]

I have seen many biologists who have said otherwise. So until you can produce the source I ask for, I'll stick with what I know, okay?

I bet your are referring to evolutionary biologists and not developmental biologists. How many times do I have to post Eric Davidson paper which atheist continue to ignore? Of course evolutionary biologists doesn't want developmental biologists steal the show.

Even when Marshall was debating Meyers he didn't deny this fact even though he's not a fan of ID.

 

[Kylie]

You do know that evolution affects POPULATIONS, not individuals, yes? The development of an embryo occurs to an INDIVIDUAL.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You use the same argument with the black holes. Life was not the main plan of God because He likes to create stars and stare at them. I think i said why life is more important than a rock for God.
Intelligent Life was an inescapable fact

Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)

Yes, you asserted that life was more important to God, but you did so by assuming that conscious beings are only interested in other conscious beings. I showed you that this was not true. A conscious and intelligent designer may be interested in non-conscious entities, such as stars and galaxies. Such a designer may have created the universe solely for this purpose, not for life.

You have no arguments, YOU WANT YOUR LIFE TO HAVE THE SAME VALUE AS A ROCK!

At the beginning of our conversation you were flinging strawman after strawman at me. You desisted for a while, but have once again returned to the strawmen arguments.

Why do you claim that they are superior to us? They don't even wonder why they exist.

So? They don't have to be conscious to be the source of the designer's fascination.

That's it. Do you see how simple it was for God to have a Universe filled with Black holes?

No, because you haven't argued for this point. You've merely asserted it. I've been asking you to elaborate on it further.

You said that God is not conscious, if i supported that i wouldn't have a problem to call physical necessity or nothingness God, they have the same properties according to this, both unconscious.

No, I said that you had your work cut out for you in showing that God is conscious. But never-mind...

So we are doing science for our egoism? No offering to the community? Have you seen lots of Scientists to discover something and keep the discovery for themselves? Lol
Science started when different conscious beings came together. Your argument is not only fallacious, it also destroys the meaning we do science.

You've missed the forest for the trees. My point was simply that conscious beings can be interested by non-conscious entities. That's why your argument that God must have an intrinsic interest in conscious beings is flawed. He need not have any such interest. He could, for all we know, be a recluse.

Criminologists doesn't have to see the criminal act to have a suspect.

Most criminologists don't suspect ghosts as the perpetrators of crime.

Even the notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious, even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause. You can't escape the first cause.
You still try to lock God inside the Physical Universe, God created this Law
because it applies only to the Physical Universe which is Finite.

I haven't locked him inside in anything. You've ruled him out as a cause. I'm just asking you to be consistent with your first premise.

Space = Time
Of course the Universe didn't "exist" before someone to cause it to exist.
That means that the cause is spaceless and timeless.

You don't be seem following. If the beginning of the universe is also the beginning of time, then there was no time in which the universe did not exist. It has always existed.

See? An atheist will say that the Universe popped out of Nothingness instead of follow the simple way to conclude that the Universe was caused by something timeless and spaceless. Remember quantum physics can't help you either, quantum vacuum still demands space to exist.

No, you've conjured yet another strawman, not a particularly good one either. I'm saying that we don't know if nothingness was ever a real state of affairs, which is quite different from saying that the universe popped out of nothingness.

Incidentally, isn't that what you believe? That God magically conjured the universe out of nothing?

Are minds physical? If they are how can you measure a mind?

I'm not a mind-body dualist. However, even if we take dualism for granted, how can a mind make a decision to create if it exists in a timeless state?

These models are wrong therefor there is no meaning to analyze it anymore.

So every single model of cosmogony is wrong because unless it implies a beginning from nothing?

 

[Smidlee]

You do know that evolution affects POPULATIONS, not individuals, yes? The development of an embryo occurs to an INDIVIDUAL.

I do know before evolution can affect population it has to effect individuals first. This is as dumb as saying cancer doesn't effect individual cells but the body. Cancer doesn't have an effect on the body until the cancer grows so large.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do know before evolution can affect population it has to effect individuals first. This is as dumb as saying cancer doesn't effect individual cells but the body. Cancer doesn't have an effect on the body until the cancer grows so large.

You don't appear to understand how evolution works.

 

[Smidlee]

You don't appear to understand how evolution works.

No one does , they just accepted it by faith. They have discover that to change the form of a fruit fly it would require some serious "rewiring" in early development genes which are interconnected to one another. Small baby steps of Darwinsim won't work.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No one does , they just accepted it by faith.

Yes, people do. Don't project your ignorance onto others.

 

[Smidlee]

Yes, people do. Don't project your ignorance onto others.

Oh but I'm not ignorant on the subject and know some evolutionist have tried to say there were some unknown "toolkits" were involved in the past that are no longer here. They would be more open about their ignorance if it wasn't for ID movement.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Oh but I'm not ignorant on the subject and know some evolutionist have tried to say there were some unknown "toolkits" were involved in the past that are no longer here. They would be more open about their ignorance if it wasn't for ID movement.

Given what you've posted so far, it doesn't appear that you have a particularly good understanding of evolution.