A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Damian79]

Wow. Can't believe this is still an argument.



I see people still don't understand probability :/

Chances and probability require you to have other things to compare it to; it's a ratio. You can figure out the chance of a person winning a lottery, because we can compare that to people who play and don't win the lottery.

To assess the probability that the universe exists like it is, you would need to know the number of existing and viable universes... which is unknown. We cannot observe these universes, nor can we look for one that does not exist like this one does.

1:1 is the chance that the universe exists like it is.

Oh that number is based on if there are no other universes. 1:1 chance the universe exists like it is will occur if there are 10^122 universes. As for the lottery, maybe it is you that doesnt understand probability, you dont need to compare with others who play and dont win the lottery. It is simple permutations and combinations. Stuff we all learned in 7th grade IIRC.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Thus the universe is your creator.

The universe is my creator. However, it is not my Creator. It isn't a god.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Non sequitur]

Oh that number is based on if there are no other universes. 1:1 chance the universe exists like it is will occur if there are 10^122 universes.

I have no idea how you arrive at this, as you have to have a limited amount of possible universes to get that ratio.

Odds -> Likelihood that specific event will take place / All possible outcomes that could take place

You need a specific finite "all possible outcomes that could take place".

Can you do the math and explain that?

As for the lottery, maybe it is you that doesnt understand probability, you dont need to compare with others who play and dont win the lottery. It is simple permutations and combinations. Stuff we all learned in 7th grade IIRC.

No, technically I don't.

However, the lottery analogy was flawed because there are limits to the numbers drawn. I was trying to make it correct by saying I needed some finite number to go off of (how many can win, how many are playing, etc.)

If we leave the lottery analogy as-is, I'm left with trying to figure out the odds of winning, from an infinite number of balls that could be drawn.

 

[Damian79]

I think you misunderstand the cosmological constant. It is the chance that a universe can occur with our parameters for life. I made no mistake in the previous post. This number was not mine but from the what looks like peer reviewed article i posted earlier.
[1105.3105] The Value of the Cosmological Constant

Also the lottery analogy is perfect in this case. As time goes by they add more and more to the cosmological constant. If anything the number may be larger. The only thing is the number of universes out there that makes a difference to that number. But since we have no idea if there are multiple universes and how many there are. I dont add it to that number.

 

[xTx]

You first.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ok, what if everything we believe in is made up by man?

what if - we wake up and it was all a game show e.g. like matrix or hunger games?

Except for the laws of physics - one cannot deny gravity.

And, we were given points for how we behaved in stressful situations - like the starving games!

Or we are just a bunch of life form in a big computer - Hitchhiker guide to the universe

What if there is nothing about there and we are just a ball in a wizard's room? Terry Practchett's unseen university

Every legislation / academic reference / everything we know is all made up. It is all made up e.g. laws / school programmes...

what than ...?

The only constant is a finely tuned universe - everyting on earth is / supports life ... what if everything is spelt eveyting???

Our spelling is all made up. Based on norms. What can we change?

What is your version of thinking out of the box?

Your turn. Think out of the box.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ok, what if everything we believe in is made up by man?

Do you have evidence of this? If not, how much weight should I assign this speculation? How seriously should I take it?

What is your version of thinking out of the box?

Speculation based on evidence.

Your turn. Think out of the box.

Sure, outside of my box is an infinite number of other...boxes.

Outside of that infinite number of other boxes is my box. I'm thinking outside of an infinite number of other boxes! Impressive, eh?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Non sequitur]

I think you misunderstand the cosmological constant. It is the chance that a universe can occur with our parameters for life. I made no mistake in the previous post. This number was not mine but from the what looks like peer reviewed article i posted earlier.
[1105.3105] The Value of the Cosmological Constant

The cosmological constant is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space.

Where did you get this "chance that a universe can exist" business? Please show your work.

 

[Damian79]

The cosmological constant is the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space.

Where did you get this "chance that a universe can exist" business? Please show your work.

The cosmological constant is just one value out of the several that can only be changed with the slightest of variations that the universe can exist as a flat universe.

Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40
Ratio of Electrons: Protons 1:10^37
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55

I use the cosmological constant as it is the largest. I am not combining any values, i am only using one value at this point because i am not sure if any of these other number are related.

 

[Non sequitur]

The cosmological constant is just one value out of the several that can only be changed with the slightest of variations that the universe can exist as a flat universe.

Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40
Ratio of Electrons: Protons 1:10^37
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55

I use the cosmological constant as it is the largest. I am not combining any values, i am only using one value at this point because i am not sure if any of these other number are related.

You are just typing ex-post-facto statistics. This doesn't show anything to be fine tuned, just "if things weren't the way they were, they wouldn't be that way."

You are placing personal value on things and sneaking in purpose, as that is the only way to make something meaningful that otherwise has no meaning.

 

[JimFit]

Wow. Can't believe this is still an argument.

I see people still don't understand probability :/

Chances and probability require you to have other things to compare it to; it's a ratio. You can figure out the chance of a person winning a lottery, because we can compare that to people who play and don't win the lottery.

To assess the probability that the universe exists like it is, you would need to know the number of existing and viable universes... which is unknown. We cannot observe these universes, nor can we look for one that does not exist like this one does.

1:1 is the chance that the universe exists like it is.

Multiverses can't explain the Fine Tuning

​

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.


Multiverses also need a Universal Constant to create Universes and not kitties, i already imagine atheists invent a MultiMultiverse to explain the Universal constant of the Multiverse lol

Anyway Random Cosmic Mistakes are craftily, they are masochists psychotics that want their existence to have no meaning and they will do everything to find proof, so they will say "Hey we don't need a Multiverse for this Universe to exist! The probability is 1:1" but of course this is also wrong, you can't have physical necessity from something non physical to account for probability, the lotto machine can't draw something that hasn't have such as letters or symbols, it draws only from numbers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you didn't know you wouldn't assume a materialistic explanation.

I don't assume anything. I don't know.
When pressed, I'ld say a materialistic explanation is more likely (at best). And that's only because I only have evidence of materialiastic phenomena. I don't have evidence of supernatural shenannigans.

Again if the Hubble Constant was different there would be no Universe AT ALL

So?

The Constants have some values that couldn't be obtained by luck

Only a probability of 0 means that something is impossible.

By the very definition of probabilities, stuff CAN happen if the probability isn't 0 of it happening. Your subjective labeling of it being "luck" is again just your hindsight and thinking you are the point of the universe.

What about those other creatures that might have existed with different values, but can't with these? Those potential beings sure weren't that "lucky".

, take for example the Cosmological Constant, it works only in a part of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times, a Theist would say "Hey this was made! It couldn't be due to luck" an Atheist would say "It is due to luck,our existence has no purpose"

I'm an atheist and I would call that a strawman.

See above... "luck" isn't part of the equation here.
Neither are strawman, appeals to ignorance and arguments from incredulity.

The Fine Tuning is not a religious argument but a scientific one, as i pointed out atheists scientists accept it, it is irrelevant if they think that a physical cause will solve it.

It becomes relevant once it is pretended to imply a "tuner" aka "god(s)".
Theists tend to pretend that "fine tuning" implies "design" and thus a "tuner/designer". Surely you will agree that no atheist (or scientist for that matter, theist or otherwise) will pretend to have a "scientific" case for a tuner or designer...

So these values doesn't need explanation right? Then why Susskind which fine tuning is in his field disagrees?

Everything needs an explanation.

The problem here is that you are stacking the deck. You already have your mind set on a specific explanation before you ask the question.

Having said that, it might very well be that there is no need for an explanation for the specific values themselves.

You are making the specific concrete values a "special" set as opposed to other potential sets of values. And you have no rational reason for doing so. You don't even know if another set of values is even possible. And if it is, you don't know the probabilities of those sets. You don't even know the process that leads to the values being set. You don't know anything about it. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else.

I'm fine with stating that I don't have such knowledge.
You are the one who feels that he can form a conclusion building on this ignorance.

No its not because if we change the constants there would be no Universe at all!

There are plenty of values that can be changed and you have no idea if any change to any value would result in "no universe at all". You just assume that you do. I'ld put my money on that being an incorrect assmption.

Nevertheless though, it still doesn't change anything about your argument. It's still building on ignorance. You still have a universe that is not impossible. You still build on hindsight and teleological fallacies.

If you don't know you wouldn't imply materialism of the gaps.

I don't imply anything. I state that I don't know.

WRONG. The Universe is not special IT IS UNIQUE

You travelled to other universes?
You have proven that there are no other universes?

If the answer to both is "no", how can you make that assertion?

, to have something as special you must have something else to compare it.

True. So why do you pretend this universe is special? What universe did you compare it with?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes but the chances of the universe existing like it is like a person winning 10 lottos straight.

First of all, you don't know this. You just assume this.

Secondly, assuming it's true: so?

Are you saying that, given a big enough pool of trials, such a thing can't happen?

If that happened in reality everyone would assume he is cheating.

And everyone would be doing so without evidence.
Are you saying that it would be impossible that this person was just very lucky?

Same applies to the universe.

Indeed, it does. Assuming things about the universe without evidence is indeed also not rational.

And if we are?

What if the universe is a living organism and we humans are really a cancer?
What if we live in the matrix?
What if we <insert anything you can imagine here>?

What is the point of asking such questions?

We know the earth is somewhere near the center of the universe.

The sad part of this, is that i'm not being trolled.

This is pretty much special pleading and not related to the cosmological constant.

How is it special pleading??

Off course, it isn't... it's just exposing how you are asking teleological questions that have no objective value.
They are loaded questions... Loaded with the idea that you are the point and purpose of the universe...

Using the exact same reasoning, the purpose of cold area's is the existence of ice.

 

[Non sequitur]

Multiverses can't explain the Fine Tuning
.

Fine tuning requires a purpose and/or a reason for it.

You've yet to demonstrate either.

 

[JimFit]

I don't assume anything. I don't know.
When pressed, I'ld say a materialistic explanation is more likely (at best). And that's only because I only have evidence of materialiastic phenomena. I don't have evidence of supernatural shenannigans.

No it hasn't a materialistic explanation because materialism began together with the Universe, stop believing in your delusions, they are wrong.
Supernaturalism is jut intention to the natural, it is not something mystical we humans can already do it when etc we change the climate.

So?

So the argument from the anthropic principle is destroyed here.

Only a probability of 0 means that something is impossible. By the very definition of probabilities, stuff CAN happen if the probability isn't 0 of it happening. Your subjective labeling of it being "luck" is again just your hindsight and thinking you are the point of the universe.

I already said that chance can't account for the Fine Tuning of the Universe and you can't draw probabilities from a non physical reality to account for a physical reality.

What about those other creatures that might have existed with different values, but can't with these? Those potential beings sure weren't that "lucky".

"Might"? Prove it.

I'm an atheist and I would call that a strawman.

Other Atheists are not taking it as a strawman and these Atheists are experts on the field of Fine Tuning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s

See above... "luck" isn't part of the equation here.
Neither are strawman, appeals to ignorance and arguments from incredulity.

Is the Universe due to intention or chance? It is due to Intention because chance can't account for it. Prove me that the Universe exists due to chance or else you are making an argument from ignorance. "I wish the Universe is due to chance"

It becomes relevant once it is pretended to imply a "tuner" aka "god(s)".
Theists tend to pretend that "fine tuning" implies "design" and thus a "tuner/designer". Surely you will agree that no atheist (or scientist for that matter, theist or otherwise) will pretend to have a "scientific" case for a tuner or designer...

The people that do science prove that they are the images of God because God is known through His Creation. Again its not pseudoscience to discover intention, Criminologists do this all the time, through science they discover if a death was due to intention or due to accident, is now Criminology a pseudoscience?

When Atheists talk about God as pseudoscience they WANT the Universe to be infinite and therefore they imply also a metaphysical explanation which goes straight against science because an infinite Universe can never be known (it is infinite). Anyway even infinite past cause still need an absolute cause.

Everything needs an explanation.

The problem here is that you are stacking the deck. You already have your mind set on a specific explanation before you ask the question.

You don't understand what i am saying here, science doesn't answer questions about existence, that's materialism of the gaps. I say the Universe is due to intention, you say it is due to chance so you can feel that your life is purposeless, i already debunked chance as an explanation, basically chance fails to explain anything therefor it is due to intention. I say that a timeless and spaceless consciousness before the Universe intended to create the Universe, proof of that? That i have the same immaterial timeless and spaceless consciousness i describe and of course because intention is only part of consciousness!

Having said that, it might very well be that there is no need for an explanation for the specific values themselves.

No explanation? If there is no physical explanation why don't you move explanation above naturalism? Are the constants causeless from nothing? Isn't that sound stupid and magic?

You are making the specific concrete values a "special" set as opposed to other potential sets of values. And you have no rational reason for doing so. You don't even know if another set of values is even possible. And if it is, you don't know the probabilities of those sets. You don't even know the process that leads to the values being set. You don't know anything about it. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else.

Of course i know that if i fix the constants there are consequences! I think it can be shown that the probability of a universe capable of supporting ANY form of complex life is one out of infinity (or in comprehensible terms: exactly zero). This sounds like a grandiose claim, but it seems to me to be obvious, once you consider any fine tuned constant. Consider, for example, the fine tuning of gravity. The fine tuning of it is 1 part in 10^40. That is +/- 1 part away from that value would be life prohibiting (at least for any complex life). Though it should be enough to reasonably infer design. That is only looking at how sensitive that value is to change. It doesn’t really address what that value could have been. That is, when you also consider what the range of possible values could have been outside of the life permitting range, then you are looking at the probability that the value you have would even be what it is. There could be possibly be an infinite number of possible values for the gravitational constant. For example, suppose the gravitational constant was increased +1. The fine-tuning argument would suggest gravity would be so great, that the universe would collapse in on itself before life had any chance to evolve (insomuch as any macro-evolution can occur in the first place). Ok. We added +1 to what the gravitational constant could have been. What if it was +2. Then we don’t need to do the math to know that it would be even more life prohibitive. How about +3? Still no life. Why stop there….How about +4? +5? …..etc… to.+infinity? The same goes in the opposite direction. -1 and the universe can’t form heavy elements, and stars would not form (insomuch as stars could form from a big bang in the first place). If you go -2 from fine tuning, you obviously don’t help the prospects, you logically hurt the prospects of any form of life. This would go all the way that possible range will go (probably to 0). But you still have an infinite number of possibilities.
So, I’d content, if it can be shown that the range of possibilities could be infinite, then it necessarily means that our universe is infinitely fine tuned.


And that’s just looking at one fine tuned constant.

I'm fine with stating that I don't have such knowledge.
You are the one who feels that he can form a conclusion building on this ignorance.There are plenty of values that can be changed and you have no idea if any change to any value would result in "no universe at all". You just assume that you do. I'ld put my money on that being an incorrect assmption.

Then why do you imply a materialistic cause? You know that there can't be any! There are sub constants i don't dispute that, we are talking about the fundamental constants which even if they are explained they also will need another constant.

Nevertheless though, it still doesn't change anything about your argument. It's still building on ignorance. You still have a universe that is not impossible. You still build on hindsight and teleological fallacies.

Ignorance is when you imply a materialistic cause when the constants deal with the matter but their nature is not materialistic. I know that the values of the constants couldn't be different therefore I KNOW THAT MY EXISTENCE WAS INTENDED!

You travelled to other universes?
You have proven that there are no other universes?If the answer to both is "no", how can you make that assertion?

I can't prove a negative lol

True. So why do you pretend this universe is special? What universe did you compare it with?

You made the claim that there are other Universes, prove it.

 

[JimFit]

Fine tuning requires a purpose and/or a reason for it.

You've yet to demonstrate either.

No Fine Tuning creates purpose, God has no purpose to achieve something, He is Omniscience.

 

[Non sequitur]

No Fine Tuning creates purpose, God has no purpose to achieve something, He is Omniscience.

fine-tune: make small adjustments to (something) in order to achieve the best or a desired performance.

Chairs being built didn't create a purpose for sitting. You have it backwards or something.

You have to start with some purpose, in order to say something was fine tuned for that purpose.

 

[Damian79]

You are just typing ex-post-facto statistics. This doesn't show anything to be fine tuned, just "if things weren't the way they were, they wouldn't be that way."

You are placing personal value on things and sneaking in purpose, as that is the only way to make something meaningful that otherwise has no meaning.

From the wiki:

Lambda (&#955 is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, &#955;, is on the order of 10&#8722;122.[14] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.

from Lemley, Brad. "Why is There Life?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.

 

[Damian79]

First of all, you don't know this. You just assume this.

Secondly, assuming it's true: so?

Are you saying that, given a big enough pool of trials, such a thing can't happen?

Yes in a pool of at least 10^122 universes it would be a 1:1 chance.

And everyone would be doing so without evidence.
Are you saying that it would be impossible that this person was just very lucky?

Atleast 10^122 lucky.

Indeed, it does. Assuming things about the universe without evidence is indeed also not rational.

Agreed.

What if the universe is a living organism and we humans are really a cancer?
What if we live in the matrix?
What if we <insert anything you can imagine here>?

What is the point of asking such questions?

Agreed unless you can somewhat prove it.

The sad part of this, is that i'm not being trolled.

Yes, I believe i have shown it earlier in this thread.

How is it special pleading??

Off course, it isn't... it's just exposing how you are asking teleological questions that have no objective value.
They are loaded questions... Loaded with the idea that you are the point and purpose of the universe...

Using the exact same reasoning, the purpose of cold area's is the existence of ice.

Its special pleading because what we are arguing is more like how can H2O exist without the 2O. It isnt even comparable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes in a pool of at least 10^122 universes it would be a 1:1 chance.

And in a pool of exactly 1 universe, some universe must come out. And there need not be any reason why this universe happens to come out as opposed to another.

Just like when you throw a gazillion dice some result will follow. And that result will have the exact same probability as any other result and there need not be any reason why that result came out instead of any of the others.

Atleast 10^122 lucky.

What about all the potential lifeforms that could have existed in any of the other universe configurations? What about their "luck"?

What about the "luck" of the many many people that didn't win the lottery?

Its special pleading because what we are arguing is more like how can H2O exist without the 2O. It isnt even comparable.

Special pleading is when one makes a general rule and then takes exception to that rule to make a point.

Like saying "everything that exists needs to begin to exist... except for this bronze age deity here...".

How is that what I did?

In fact, if anything, I was doing the opposite. I was taking your reasoning and applying it accross the board, to show you how it is fallacious.

The universe is not the way it is just so that humans could live. Humans are not the purpose of the universe.

Just like the north pole is not cold so that ice could exist there. Ice is not the purpose of the north pole.

Rather, humans exist as a result of the universe being the way it is.
Just like ice exists at the north pole as a result of the north pole being the way it is.

That's where the whole fallacy start: the assumption that we humans are special and the point of the universe. The assumption that whatever the explanation of the universe is, it should be an explanation that is centered around the existence of homo sapiens. Unsurprisingly, theists engage in that kind of fallacy on a regular basis. Reason is simple... The religion requires them to believe this...

They assume the answer before asking the question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No it hasn't a materialistic explanation because materialism began together with the Universe, stop believing in your delusions, they are wrong.

I don't "believe" anything.

Supernaturalism is jut intention to the natural, it is not something mystical we humans can already do it when etc we change the climate.

No, that's not what "supernatural" means. "supernatural" is the violation / suspension of natural law.

So the argument from the anthropic principle is destroyed here.

I don't see how...

I already said that chance can't account for the Fine Tuning of the Universe

That's like saying that an accident can't account for your wife's black eye because you hit her.

Having said that, you don't know what can and can't accound for the universe, because you don't have the required knowledge about its origins to make any statement about it one way or the other.

It's just an argument from incredulity. For all you know, this universe was inevitable and "chance" is just irrelevant. You don't know. You just pretend that you do.

and you can't draw probabilities from a non physical reality to account for a physical reality.

Making assumptions about reality again.
Who demonstrated that the universe doesn't come from a physical reality?

"Might"? Prove it.

I can't prove it. Hence the word "might". It's a what-if question. You don't know. Neither do I. I'm just trying to make clear to you how you are making unreasonable assumptions...

Other Atheists are not taking it as a strawman and these Atheists are experts on the field of Fine Tuning

"fine tuning" is not a "field".
At best, it's a non-scientific metaphor used by scientists to make a point about physics. At worse, it's a concept being abused by creationists. This thread is a great example of it.

Is the Universe due to intention or chance?

Why are those the only choices?
And my answer is that I don't know. I'm not the one pretending to have an answer to such questions... that's you.

It is due to Intention because chance can't account for it.

False dichotomy and argument from incredulity. And somewhat of an appeal to ignorance as well. Gratz on the combo points.

Prove me that the Universe exists due to chance or else you are making an argument from ignorance. "I wish the Universe is due to chance"

The projection is hilarious. And my irony meter exploded.
First, why would I try to prove claims that I'm not making?
Second, your bronze-age claims aren't true by default. If you wish to claim intention, then you have a burden of proof. Good luck with that.

Me? I'll stick to "i don't know".

The people that do science prove that they are the images of God because God is known through His Creation.

Evidence?

Again its not pseudoscience to discover intention, Criminologists do this all the time, through science they discover if a death was due to intention or due to accident, is now Criminology a pseudoscience?

The difference is that "criminologists" use evidence to make support their claims, and they also don't provide the answers before asking the questions.
They also have massive bodies of precedents and cases to compare to, to form their conclusions. You have exactly one universe and no way to compare it to another. You do have, however, an a priori belief that requires you to believe that there IS intention. You formed your conclusion before you asked the question.

And for the record, it seems to me like you haven't even come around to honestly asking the question. You started from your answer and continued from there.

When Atheists talk about God as pseudoscience they WANT the Universe to be infinite and therefore they imply also a metaphysical explanation which goes straight against science because an infinite Universe can never be known (it is infinite). Anyway even infinite past cause still need an absolute cause.

And infinite past, by definition, doesn't have a cause, because it never began... being infinite and all...

Regardless though, I don't believe in an infinite past (or an intinite universe for that matter). So I wonder what your point is. Another strawman I guess.

You don't understand what i am saying here, science doesn't answer questions about existence, that's materialism of the gaps. I say the Universe is due to intention

Evidence of this claim?

you say it is due to chance

No. I said that I don't know. 5th time I have to repeat it. Don't let me catch you state that strawman again in future responses. I will be calling you a liar if you do so.

so you can feel that your life is purposeless

My life is not without purpose at all.

i already debunked chance as an explanation

Actually, you just asserted it. Much like you just asserted everything else. You didn't debunk (or demonstrate) anything at all.

, basically chance fails to explain anything

Chance explains lots of things.
Like "why did I win the lottery?" The answer is in probabilities. Chance. The answer is not "because Mars was in the right position" or "fairies made those numbers pop up". The explanation is chance.

therefor it is due to intention

False dichotomy and baseless assertion.
Even assuming that chance isn't an option, that doesn't automatically make your particular claim true. You're still required to support your claim with actual positive evidence FOR your claim.

I say that a timeless and spaceless consciousness before the Universe intended to create the Universe

Evidence?
Start with demonstrating that a "timeless and spaceless consciousness" even exists.
Then explain how the words "before the universe" even make sense.
Then support the claim that this "timeless and spaceless consciousness" created the universe.

It seems you have a lot of homework to do.

, proof of that? That i have the same immaterial timeless and spaceless consciousness i describe and of course because intention is only part of consciousness!

No explanation? If there is no physical explanation why don't you move explanation above naturalism?

Because when we do that, we end up with Norse Gods smashing hammers to explain things like lightning and thunder.

Are the constants causeless from nothing?

I don't understand this question.

I can't prove a negative lol

I didn't ask you to. You made a statement ("universe is unique") and I challenged it.

You saying here that you "can't prove a negative" is actually an admission that you can't support your empty statement. That was the point.

You made the claim that there are other Universes, prove it.

I never made such a claim.
I consider it a possibility. I'm not saying it is the case. It's just yet another possibility. There are lots of possibilities. Some of them interesting, others not. Some of them with some support, others without.

There's no conclusive explanation. That's why I say that I don't know.

Only one of us is pretending to know. And it's not me.