A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[JimFit]

YOU said, that the multiverse doesn't exist, because we can't prove that it does. The same for god. But for god, you make an exeption and say that he can exist even though we can't demonstrate him.
Special pleading.

God is the Mind that created the Universe, i have a Mind, i know what is it to have a Mind, i know that my Mind can get better therefor i don't have a reason to exclude a higher Mind that created the world especially when our Minds can understand the Universe AND EVEN CAN REPLICATE IT in their minds. I can't show you God, God is not my puppet, the reason of this life is to go at your own to God, if you will return to me i will return to you said the Lord.

Why the Multiverse is not like God?

because BVG Theorem proved that even them are Finite and then you have the problem of ex nihilo creation and the transcendental cause.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf

Assertion. Calling it "creation" already assums a creation. And unless you can, calling it "creation" is unjustified.

Something that was intended to happen is a Creation, you can't have intention without a Mind.

I don't know.
And I don't know that these two are the only options. If you said "was it random or not random", THEN we would have a proper dichotomy, but the way you set it up is unjustified.
Also: Even if I said "deterministic", this would NOT point to a creator. "Deterministic" does NOT mean "deliberatly set up".

Was the Universe Random or Deterministic? Is there anything in the Universe that defies cause and effect? If yes we are here by pure luck.

Thanks for the "Evolution is deterministic" article, btw.
Because this proves my point.
Here they say that it is deterministic and not random... and yet they DON'T say that therefore it is intelligently guided or deliberatly set up. Because being "deterministic" and "set up", or "deliberate" or anything you need to claim intention are NOT the same.

Evolution was used by Atheists as something random that cuts off the beginning of the Universe with how life was created, that of course doesn't happen, Randomness destroys intention.

Neo-Darwinism is dead.

Cornell evolutionary biologist declares neo-Darwinism dead | Uncommon Descent

Thomas Nagel vs. his critics: Has Neo-Darwinian evolution failed, and can teleological naturalism take its place? | Uncommon Descent

Nope. Not at all. There is nothing about something being deterministic that even IMPLIES a creation, let alone proves one. I could just as well say "everything that is green proves that it doesn't have a creator". It's the same nonsensical connection between two unrelated features.

Of course IT IMPLIES a Creation because in the case of life it leads to humans that have intention and can understand intention, the Universe was determined to have life that can determine its existence. Whatever is Deterministic it is a pre-determined event, the physical Universe was determined by God because it is Finite and Fine Tuned.

COMPLETE non-sequitor.
Also, this isn't proposed by "atheists", this is proposed by some cosmologists... and I have no idea how you connect this to any god claim, because even if this "mother universe" was reality, it would neither prove, nor disprove a god.
Sure, it would make a god unnecessary as part of a hypothesis... but he already is. So this proposition makes no sense on many levels.

You used Multiverse in your previous posts to disprove a Creator.

Never said they were. Go back and read my comment.
Also, even if I did: This would NOT be a special pleading fallacy. It would be a fallcy, but not special pleading. Learn your fallacy, before you use the labels.

"If Quantum Physics is random, how come... etc, etc..."

I never said it was random. Strawman-fallacy.
See, THAT'S an actual fallacy that applies to what you've said.
You claim that I've said something, which I haven't, just to attack this made up position, because it's easier to attack that, than my actual position.

Defenders of the Many Worlds Hypothesis will typically appeal to some physical theory which serves to generate or describe the ensemble of worlds that exist. For example, M-theory, which unifies various string theories of physics, permits a cosmic landscape of 10500 different states of the quantum vacuum characterized by different fundamental constants. One can then conjoin M-theory with inflationary cosmology to produce different bubble universes in the wider sea of expanding false vacuum to try out the various combinations permitted by the cosmic landscape. If we assume an infinity of worlds, each combination will be repeated infinitely many times. Your argument that somehow quantum mechanisms help Multiverse to win ground is at best wishful thinking.

Strawmen-fallacy. I've never said anything about chance.
Also, where is the peer reviewed stuff about the fine-tuning?
Your papers don't seem to qualify, as far as I can tell.

First of all all great Scientists accept it.

Even your atheists indoctrinators such as Hitchens and Dawkins accept it as a legitimate argument that comes from science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDJ9BL38PrI

Francis Collins: Atheist Richard Dawkins Admits Universe's Fine-Tuning Difficult to Explain

Luke Barne's paper has been accepted for publication in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia.

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

To deny the Fine Tuning you must prove that the constants are not really constants. Please do it. Falsify the greatest minds of our era to prove that you are a Cosmic mistake without purpose and free will that Nothingness spewed, i dare you.

False dichotomy.

Chance or Intention? Is there a third way?

Then present it.
And stop telling me that I have to present evidence for a position I don't take.

When someone can observe that our universe exhibits parameters that are balanced and ordered, cannot that same individual infer a logical argument that supports an intelligent designer as its cause? It’s quite reasonable to believe that the fine tuned argument of our universe is a logical argument when we know that any adjustment to the parameters that hold our universe together would have serious implications.

I never said he couldn't.
But your argument seems to be again a non-sequitor...
Why would the existence of mind point to a god? Just because he is also a mind? Well, big deal! Fairies also have minds! This does not mean that the existence of our minds points to fairies!

You can think of God as a Dragon or a fairy but we don't talk about an objective materialistic God because God is immaterial, we talk about a Mind that created the Universe, it is like asking to show you my Consciousness, there is no objective materialistic Consciousness. There is only one Truth and that truth is universal, that's why Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is open for everyone because if you follow love,forgiveness,mercy,patience,peace,freedom,justice,charity,equality your Mind can be like God's Mind.

Assertion. Also, perfect by what standard? His own?
Big deal! I'm also perfect by my own standard, this means that god can't be perfect... by my standard.
Nonsensical!

The perfection of your Mind is the balance of your consciousness. Jesus Christ teachings for God are Universal, these teachings (love,forgiveness,mercy,patience,peace,freedom,justice,charity,equality) apply to every human being. They are the way to reach God and the way to reach God is to do good to the fellow human.

I don't know what you mean by "perfect".
And even if you could describe something that might hypothetically be a perfect mind, this would not automatically mean, that it also had to exist!

If something is known that it can be reached then it exists, i know that i can cross the road without crossing it, the fact that there is a road it means that something before me created the road. The translation of God ΘΕΟΣ in ancient greek is "Someone that he is ahead of you" They said that the wisest man in front of God will feel the dumbest man because God is always ahead of you.

Sorry, but you've made fallacies at pretty much each corner. Not one sentence actually seems logically sound.
Please try again.

You didn't debunked the Fine Tuning of the Universe.
You didn't propose a different explanation on how we are here without a Creator.
You are full of fallacies, contradictions and you try to feel smart when your arguments are swallow illogical and doesn't offer anything to philosophy.

 

[RichardParker]

God is the Mind that created the Universe, i have a Mind, i know what is it to have a Mind, i know that my Mind can get better therefor i don't have a reason to exclude a higher Mind that created the world especially when our Minds can understand the Universe AND EVEN CAN REPLICATE IT in their minds. I can't show you God, God is not my puppet, the reason of this life is to go at your own to God, if you will return to me i will return to you said the Lord.

Wow, this is a huge pile of non-sequitors. Very impressive.
"I have a food, therefore I know what it is to have feet, I know that my feet aren't perfect, therefore there needs to be a perfect foot, who can score a soccer goal from 1000 yards away!"
Yeah, sounds reasonable!

No, seriously. Please, at least try to actually structure some sort of argument, because what you've writen here is nonsense. Your premisses make no sense, and don't at all lead to the conclusion you want to arrive at.

because BVG Theorem proved that even them are Finite and then you have the problem of ex nihilo creation

I don't necessarily believe in ex nihilo creation.
But I thought you did. Didn't your god create the universe out of nothing (at least according to your believe)?
So, why would you want to argue against ex nihilo creation. Seems to be a requirment for you, after all.

Something that was intended to happen is a Creation, you can't have intention without a Mind.

Ahm... and your argument was originally to demonstrate that it actually is a creation.
So, you've created a beautifull example of circular reasoning:
"I know that there is a creator, because a creation needs a creator! And I know that the universe is a creation, because there is a creator behind it. And I know that there is a creator, because the universe is a creation."

Beautiful.
Nonsensical, sure, but it at least can hold up as a text-book-example of circular reasoning.

Was the Universe Random or Deterministic? Is there anything in the Universe that defies cause and effect? If yes we are here by pure luck.

Three short sentences, and so many errors. You really aren't even trying anymore, are you?
To your first question: I don't know.
To your second question: Well, quantum mechanics seems to be a more probabalistic model, than a deterministic. At least as far as I can tell. But regardless: How does it matter? After all, we are not talking about something IN the universe, we are talking about the universe itself. So, even if I granted you that everything INSIDE the universe is entirely deterministic, this wouldn't be an argument for the origin of the universe also having to be terministic.
And your last sentence is a complete non-sequitor, once again. Maybe you should start looking up what logical arguments actually work.
They are build on premisses, which need to be demonstrated to be true, and the conclusion has to fallow from them.

Evolution was used by Atheists as something random that cuts off the beginning of the Universe with how life was created...

This is literally a nothing of a statement.
It makes no sense, it seems to confuse evolution with all kinds of other scientific models and it's all in all incomprehensible.
Please try again... maybe after you've looked up what evolution actually is.

Of course IT IMPLIES a Creation because in the case of life it leads to humans that have intention and can understand intention, the Universe was determined to have life that can determine its existence. Whatever is Deterministic it is a pre-determined event, the physical Universe was determined by God because it is Finite and Fine Tuned.

Asserion after assertion. Do you have ANYTHING to back ANY of this up?
I mean, I can just make up claims as well... but I don't know what the point of it would be.
Also, even if I granted you all your assertions again, your conclusions STILL wouldn't fallow! So, even when you make up your own personal premisses without any evidence, you STILL can't create an argument that would point to your god! This is really, really poor!

You used Multiverse in your previous posts to disprove a Creator.

No, I didn't.
I dare you to find a poste of me, where I claim that a multiverse would disprove a creator!
Really. No kidding! Show me, where and when I claimed ANYTHING like that!

Defenders of the Many Worlds Hypothesis will typically appeal to some physical theory which serves to generate or describe the ensemble of worlds that exist. For example, M-theory, which unifies various string theories of physics, permits a cosmic landscape of 10500 different states of the quantum vacuum characterized by different fundamental constants. One can then conjoin M-theory with inflationary cosmology to produce different bubble universes in the wider sea of expanding false vacuum to try out the various combinations permitted by the cosmic landscape. If we assume an infinity of worlds, each combination will be repeated infinitely many times. Your argument that somehow quantum mechanisms help Multiverse to win ground is at best wishful thinking.

I'm not even going to pretend, that I believe that you understand any of the things you attack here.

First of all all great Scientists accept it.

(talking about the fine-tuning argument)

Nope. They don't.

To deny the Fine Tuning you must prove that the constants are not really constants.

No, not at all!
So, now you even prove that you don't understand the fine-tuning argument... even though it's the argument you want to defend!
What the hell...?
The fine-tuning argument argues that the constants could have been any other way, and that you need a creator to actually determine them to be the way they are to have life in this universe.
I don't have to show that the constants aren't constant... that's not even...
Why?
In the fine-tuning argument BOTH SIDES AGREE that the constants are constants! The argument is why they are the way they are!

Chance or Intention? Is there a third way?

I don't know. Did you prove that there isn't? Because if YOU make the claim that there are only these two options, YOU have to prove that there aren't any others... which I don't think you can! Therefore your premise is not based on anything but only your assertion... and so I can reject it without evidence as well.
A REAL dichotomy would be "either with intention or without intention". THAT'S a true dichotomy. But "without intention" is not the same as "chance".

When someone can observe that our universe exhibits parameters that are balanced and ordered, cannot that same individual infer a logical argument that supports an intelligent designer as its cause?

No, you can't. Even IF I granted you the premisses that these parameters are ordered (which I don't, btw... These parameters seems to be quite messy and "random" for a lack of a better word), there STILL would be no justification to jump to an intelligent cause, because nature is fully capable of creating order itself.
Not to forget: All intelligence we know of seems to depend on brains which are part of this universe. So, to claim that there is an intelligence that transends this universe is a HUGE claim, that needs additional evidence!

The perfection of your Mind is the balance of your consciousness.

Meaningless word-salad.
"The parameters of your smell is the odor of your neckline."
Great.

You didn't debunked the Fine Tuning of the Universe.

I don't need to. You haven't demonstrated that there is a fine tuned universe. So, what can be asserted without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence.

You didn't propose a different explanation on how we are here without a Creator.

I don't have to.
Because when I don't know something, I just say "I don't know".
I'm not justified to just stick my magical fairies in any gap of our knowledge, and neither are you. My inability to explain something is NOT evidence for the claim you've dreamed up.

You are full of fallacies, contradictions and you try to feel smart when your arguments are swallow illogical and doesn't offer anything to philosophy.

I just sifted through a huge poste of non-sensical statements and non-sequitors, but sure: I am the illogical one...

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

You want a third option besides chance and intention? How about biological reproduction.

God spoke the Word to begin creation. The Word was "God". Not the English word...God spoke his own Name. The entirety of creation and all the infinite universes in the traveling metaverse are the result of a biological act.

What did the "Word" do then? The word became flesh. Not our flesh, God flesh. God individuated himself as a singular being inside the void space universe. This God the Son. The "first born of all creation". He is the image/form/individuation of the infinite ocean of God the Union that can not be pictured.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

The universe is not forced into fine tuning, it is geometrically nested among infinite other universes and their equal size render the expansion constant the same within every single universe.

Scientist can think in random infinities, what is so difficult about thinking in a perfectly homogeneous infinity that supports the metaverse in very basic simple divisions of infinity.

All you need is One.

The trouble stems from the fable of the big bang. It trains people to think outwardly and explosively starting with an extremely specific amount of mass.....so then where did all the infinite random universes come from? Ridiculous non-sequitur of non-logic.


Every single time you have ever been shone the "Big Bang", the demonstration violates it's own logic: There is no imaginary outside space in which to view the singularity from. The only valid point of perspective in inside the singularity and it has no spatial border.

There is no imaginary nothing space for it to inflate into. Let that really sink in.

 

[RichardParker]

God spoke the Word to begin creation. The Word was "God". Not the English word...God spoke his own Name. The entirety of creation and all the infinite universes in the traveling metaverse are the result of a biological act.

Biology has nothing to do with that...
Biology simply deals with... well, biological systems. Living organisms. Nothing with multiverses, metaverses or universes.

So... I don't understand the majority of the rest of your comment (except your first part, that biological reproduction can be a good example of neither intention nor chance), but I know that calling the things you describe here "biological acts" doesn't make much sense.

 

[bhsmte]

Biology has nothing to do with that...
Biology simply deals with... well, biological systems. Living organisms. Nothing with multiverses, metaverses or universes.

So... I don't understand the majority of the rest of your comment (except your first part, that biological reproduction can be a good example of neither intention nor chance), but I know that calling the things you describe here "biological acts" doesn't make much sense.

Much of what usus states does not make sense, nor is supported with objective evidence.

He has a wonderful creative imagination though.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Biology has nothing to do with that...
Biology simply deals with... well, biological systems. Living organisms. Nothing with multiverses, metaverses or universes.

So... I don't understand the majority of the rest of your comment (except your first part, that biological reproduction can be a good example of neither intention nor chance), but I know that calling the things you describe here "biological acts" doesn't make much sense.

It is biological because the wave front that creates the metaverse and the nested fields that compose each universe is the wave form expression of the original infinite substance.

The original infinite substance being a quark/gluon soup that is infinitely super conductive: The consciousness this could support can scarcely be imagined by the human mind...because it does not issue from a single point like ours, it is every where and there is not border.

The traveling metaversal stack is the wave form expression of the original unmoving Infinite (God). It is the pure geometry of quantizing a real Infinite.

It is unbelievably simple. Which is why I think many highly educated people have difficulty with it. But the logic is bullet proof, the structural unfolding yield a highly predictive model of universal phenomenon.

Structural fine tuning.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Much of what usus states does not make sense, nor is supported with objective evidence.

He has a wonderful creative imagination though.

I have tons of objective and scientifically derived evidence. One of the evidence I use is the entire standard model of particle generation.

My model predicts 6 flavors of atomic stability, 3 densities of matter and 3 of antimatter. It does this structurally. That is exactly what the standard model predicts with a 5.3 Sigma surety that there is no 4rth density family.

I have to go to work but will be back in 4 or so hours.

TTYL!



Oh and thanks for the compliment bhsmte. I aim to make greater sense to you in the near future

 

[Belk]

It is biological because the wave front that creates the metaverse and the nested fields that compose each universe is the wave form expression of the original infinite substance.

The original infinite substance being a quark/gluon soup that is infinitely super conductive: The consciousness this could support can scarcely be imagined by the human mind...because it does not issue from a single point like ours, it is every where and there is not border.

The traveling metaversal stack is the wave form expression of the original unmoving Infinite (God). It is the pure geometry of quantizing a real Infinite.

It is unbelievably simple. Which is why I think many highly educated people have difficulty with it. But the logic is bullet proof, the structural unfolding yield a highly predictive model of universal phenomenon.

Structural fine tuning.

Indeed. Large quantities of dense bone structure will confer that property.

 

[RichardParker]

It is biological because the wave front that creates the metaverse and the nested fields that compose each universe is the wave form expression of the original infinite substance.

The original infinite substance being a quark/gluon soup that is infinitely super conductive: The consciousness this could support can scarcely be imagined by the human mind...because it does not issue from a single point like ours, it is every where and there is not border.

The traveling metaversal stack is the wave form expression of the original unmoving Infinite (God). It is the pure geometry of quantizing a real Infinite.

It is unbelievably simple. Which is why I think many highly educated people have difficulty with it. But the logic is bullet proof, the structural unfolding yield a highly predictive model of universal phenomenon.

Structural fine tuning.

Ok...
And as I've said: This has nothing to do with biology!
You know that biology is an actual scientific field, that deals with only a very specific part of the natural world, right? Living things, to be exact.
Metaverses, universes, quarks, gluons, waves, and whatever you are packing together here might be part of physics, some of these elements are part of philosophy... some of these elements don't seem to be much of anything, but whatever it might be: It's not biology, because biology deals with biologically living organisms.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Ok...
And as I've said: This has nothing to do with biology!
You know that biology is an actual scientific field, that deals with only a very specific part of the natural world, right? Living things, to be exact.
Metaverses, universes, quarks, gluons, waves, and whatever you are packing together here might be part of physics, some of these elements are part of philosophy... some of these elements don't seem to be much of anything, but whatever it might be: It's not biology, because biology deals with biologically living organisms.

What is the definition of a "living organism"?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Indeed. Large quantities of dense bone structure will confer that property.

Comes from lots of practice ramming into other peoples heads.

 

[JimFit]

Wow, this is a huge pile of non-sequitors. Very impressive.
"I have a food, therefore I know what it is to have feet, I know that my feet aren't perfect, therefore there needs to be a perfect foot, who can score a soccer goal from 1000 yards away!"
Yeah, sounds reasonable!

I described God as a Mind that created the Universe and we as humans are the images of God not because of our appearance but because of our Minds, my argument is valid. You don't accept it because you think God is something really really different from us when Jesus said that we can be perfect just like God is perfect, perfection has nothing to do with Eternity. In fact if there is soccer there is someone that created the soccer game and the rules and he is the best player that with the stronger feet because he had to know the game he create to play it, you created an excellent benchmark. Replace the inventor-player with God, the rules with physics and you have the analogy. You now only have to be perfect so keep exercising.

No, seriously. Please, at least try to actually structure some sort of argument, because what you've writen here is nonsense. Your premisses make no sense, and don't at all lead to the conclusion you want to arrive at.

Nop, my argument is valid, i used your argument for God.

I don't necessarily believe in ex nihilo creation.
But I thought you did. Didn't your god create the universe out of nothing (at least according to your believe)?
So, why would you want to argue against ex nihilo creation. Seems to be a requirment for you, after all.

If you don't follow ex nihilo then you follow infinite causes.
Ex nihilo is stupid, if there was God how is that ex nihilo?

Ahm... and your argument was originally to demonstrate that it actually is a creation.
So, you've created a beautifull example of circular reasoning:
"I know that there is a creator, because a creation needs a creator! And I know that the universe is a creation, because there is a creator behind it. And I know that there is a creator, because the universe is a creation."

Beautiful.
Nonsensical, sure, but it at least can hold up as a text-book-example of circular reasoning.

But it is a Creation, it had a beginning therefor it was created, it is irrelevant if the cause is Mindless or a Mind.

Three short sentences, and so many errors. You really aren't even trying anymore, are you?
To your first question: I don't know.
To your second question: Well, quantum mechanics seems to be a more probabalistic model, than a deterministic. At least as far as I can tell. But regardless: How does it matter? After all, we are not talking about something IN the universe, we are talking about the universe itself. So, even if I granted you that everything INSIDE the universe is entirely deterministic, this wouldn't be an argument for the origin of the universe also having to be terministic.

Whether a quantum system is random or not kinda depends on what you’re taking about. For example, the electrons in an atom show up in orbitals that have extremely predictable shapes and energy levels, and yet if you were to measure the location of an electron within that orbital, you’d find that the result is pretty random but true randomness lucks structure. I think quantum mechanics will be revealed as something truly deterministic because something causeless is unscientific. Now you said that if the Universe is Deterministic the cause is also Deterministic! We agree on that! The problem is that you can't have an past infinite physical chain of cause and effect so the cause of the Universe is transcendental and escapes the laws of physics because the Creator determined the laws of the Universe.

And your last sentence is a complete non-sequitor, once again. Maybe you should start looking up what logical arguments actually work.
They are build on premisses, which need to be demonstrated to be true, and the conclusion has to fallow from them.

If something is random then it is a lucky event, you can't have intention with randomness.

Suppose that you are in a casino and you win in a row, you are starting to feel lucky but you continue to win until the casino is run our of money, is that intention or chance? Wouldn't this make you think that the game was staged?

This is literally a nothing of a statement.
It makes no sense, it seems to confuse evolution with all kinds of other scientific models and it's all in all incomprehensible.
Please try again... maybe after you've looked up what evolution actually is.

Atheists used evolution theoretically to propose a different chain of events that lead to a different creature. They even proposed that there can be other elements that create life, they used Evolution to say that life is an accident and humans are an accident of necessity, there was no intention behind. Evolution as a whole is proven to be Deterministic, that shows intention. Restart the Universe with the same constants and the same laws and you get inevitably humans.

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study -- ScienceDaily

Asserion after assertion. Do you have ANYTHING to back ANY of this up?
I mean, I can just make up claims as well... but I don't know what the point of it would be.
Also, even if I granted you all your assertions again, your conclusions STILL wouldn't fallow! So, even when you make up your own personal premisses without any evidence, you STILL can't create an argument that would point to your god! This is really, really poor!

The Fine Tuning of the Universe shows intention. We know that ONLY conscious minds can understand intention therefor the ONLY thing that could build us intention is a Mind because it understands what intention is, intention doesn't exist in nature. Evidence for what? For Fine Tuning?

Here

[1112.4647] The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life

(talking about the fine-tuning argument)

Nope. They don't.

If they don't why they talk about the Theory of Everything and the Multiverse Hypothesis? Even Sean Caroll in the debate with Craig admitted that there is Fine Tuning, he said You don't accept the Fine Tuning because it leaves you with no arguments. Lets hear what the Scientists have to say about the Fine Tuning.

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 life’s requirements and nature’s 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 can’t 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.

You can also find other names of Scientists that accept the Fine Tuning on this paper

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

 

[JimFit]

No, not at all!
So, now you even prove that you don't understand the fine-tuning argument... even though it's the argument you want to defend!
What the hell...?
The fine-tuning argument argues that the constants could have been any other way, and that you need a creator to actually determine them to be the way they are to have life in this universe.
I don't have to show that the constants aren't constant... that's not even...
Why?
In the fine-tuning argument BOTH SIDES AGREE that the constants are constants! The argument is why they are the way they are!

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
2. It is not due to law or chance
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design
   
   Physical Necessity
   
   Consider the first alternative, 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.
   
   
   Chance
   
   ​
   So what about the second alternative, that the fine-tuning is due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe’s being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists a sort of World Ensemble or multiverse of randomly ordered universes of which our universe is but a part. Now comes the key move: since observers can exist only in finely tuned worlds, of course we observe our universe to be fine-tuned!
   
   
   
   ​
   So this explanation of fine-tuning relies on (i) the existence of a specific type of World Ensemble and (ii) an observer self-selection effect. Now this explanation, wholly apart from objections to (i), faces a very formidable objection to (ii), namely, the Boltzmann Brain problem. In order to be observable the entire universe need not be fine-tuned for our existence. Indeed, it is vastly more probable that a random fluctuation of mass-energy would yield a universe dominated by Boltzmann Brain observers than one dominated by ordinary observers like ourselves. In other words, the observer self-selection effect is explanatorily vacuous. As Robin Collins has noted, what needs to be explained is not just intelligent life, but embodied, interactive, intelligent agents like ourselves.Appeal to an observer self-selection effect accomplishes nothing because there’s no reason whatever to think that most observable worlds or the most probable observable worlds are worlds in which that kind of observer exists. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: most observable worlds will be Boltzmann Brain worlds.
   Since we presumably are not Boltzmann Brains, that fact strongly disconfirms a naturalistic World Ensemble or multiverse hypothesis.
   
   
   
   Design
   
   It seems, then, that the fine-tuning is not plausibly due to physical necessity or chance. Therefore, we ought to prefer the hypothesis of design unless the design hypothesis can be shown to be just as implausible as its rivals.

I don't know. Did you prove that there isn't? Because if YOU make the claim that there are only these two options, YOU have to prove that there aren't any others... which I don't think you can! Therefore your premise is not based on anything but only your assertion... and so I can reject it without evidence as well.
A REAL dichotomy would be "either with intention or without intention". THAT'S a true dichotomy. But "without intention" is not the same as "chance".

You walk on the street, suddenly you meet a friend, you met him by chance. You are planning to go to his house, it was intended to go. I really can't understand why you keep insisting that there is a third answer...i

No, you can't. Even IF I granted you the premisses that these parameters are ordered (which I don't, btw... These parameters seems to be quite messy and "random" for a lack of a better word), there STILL would be no justification to jump to an intelligent cause, because nature is fully capable of creating order itself.
Not to forget: All intelligence we know of seems to depend on brains which are part of this universe. So, to claim that there is an intelligence that transends this universe is a HUGE claim, that needs additional evidence!

First prove me that these parameters are messy and random, i think its an argument from ignorance or wishful thinking that they are messy and random. Is the Universe ordered from necessity? I debunked this above. You said that Nature can create order from chaos, in which way? Did the Universe came from chaos? What about entropy? The problem of the apparently low entropy of the universe is one of the oldest problems of cosmology. The fact that the entropy of the universe is not at its theoretical maximum, coupled with the fact that entropy cannot decrease, means that the universe must have started in a very special, low entropy state.

Intelligence is the only rational argument because chance and necessity were debunked.

Meaningless word-salad.
"The parameters of your smell is the odor of your neckline."
Great.

You asked me what perfection is. I replied perfection is the golden rule, the goldilock zone.

I don't need to. You haven't demonstrated that there is a fine tuned universe. So, what can be asserted without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence.

The evidence for fine-tuning is enormous. I’m actually starting to think that almost every property that contributes to life arising must be fine-tuned. The ph value of blood, the amount of green house gases on Earth, the distance of the Earth from the sun, the iron in the middle of the Earth, the energy of visible light, the speed at which the Earth spins around its axis, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, the distance of stars from each other, the ratio of the strength of the covalent bonds to van der waals forces – all of these are fine-tuned. Fine-tuning is something real, it’s not a matter of opinion. How one interprets fine-tuning is a matter of proper reasoning which is always much more difficult than identifying a phenomenon. The theists have in the favor analogical reasoning which is the most foundational of all reasoning, the atheists have a mere wish that there is a one time exception to the rules.

I passed 2 papers but you didn't read them

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard Forum paper draft for posting.pdf

I don't have to.
Because when I don't know something, I just say "I don't know".
I'm not justified to just stick my magical fairies in any gap of our knowledge, and neither are you. My inability to explain something is NOT evidence for the claim you've dreamed up.

There are only 3 options.

1) The Universe came from absolute Nothingness without a cause.
2) The Universe is a result of an infinite past of chain of events.
3) The Universe was created by a transcendental cause.

1 is self destructive. 2 was debunked by BVG Theorem. 3 is the only logical argument since we can recreate theoriticaly the events that brought us here. Imagine the Cosmologists one day to be capable to create a new Universe, doesn't that proves that there must be a Mind prior to the Universe they will be create? You will not characterize them as alchemists or magicians but as rational scientists. God is the same, He is not magical, He revealed Himself through his creation.

 

[Belk]

Comes from lots of practice ramming into other peoples heads.

Well, we can be a fractious lot can we not?

 

[RichardParker]

What is the definition of a "living organism"?

Well, life is generally measured on a number of characteristics.

Like being composed of cells, having a metabolism, being self-replicating and subject to chance. A big part of life is also based around biochemistry.
...
I find it odd that I have to explain to you what biology is. I mean, it's not like we learn the difference between biology, physics and other scientific fields at some higher college-level, this is high school stuff, at best.
I mean, I don't want to be insulting or so, it just seems very, very odd to me, that somebody would talk about waves, and metaverses, and what not and then call that biology.

 

[RichardParker]

my argument is valid

No, it's just a bunch of assertions, without really any connecting logic.

You don't accept it because you think God is something really really different from us

Nooooo, I don't accept it because you have presented no evidence and not even a coherent argument.

In fact if there is soccer there is someone that created the soccer game and the rules and he is the best player that with the stronger feet because he had to know the game he create to play it,

Thanks for proving my point. You really do not know, how logical arguments go.
See, the fact that you grant me this means that you think THIS is valide:

1. Soccer exists.
2. Somebody created soccer.
3. Therefore he is the best player.
4. Therefore he has the strongest shot.

No, no, no. None of this fallows!
From the existence of soccer, you can't necessarily conclude that somebody created soccer! I could have been a groupe of people. Or it could have been a society, changing an already existing game over a long periode of time, step by step.
And even IF there was just one person who created soccer: The person who creates a game doesn't need to be the best at the game! This simply doesn't fallow!
And even if he was the best at the game, it doesn't need to mean that he has the strongst shot either!
I've made this bat-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] example as a parody of your argument, and you literally just acknowledged, that you think that this is how logic works.

1. I have a mind.
2. Therefore it was created by a mind.
3. Therefore that mind is greater than mine.

NONE of this is logicly valide.

Nop, my argument is valid, i used your argument for God.

Given that I've never made an argument for god, this is again a nonsensical statement.

If you don't follow ex nihilo then you follow infinite causes.

False dichotomy AGAIN...
Wow... you're really bad at this.

Ex nihilo is stupid, if there was God how is that ex nihilo?

Well, what did he create the universe from? Everything that gets created gets created ex materia, right? From allready existing material, correct? A table doesn't get puffed into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo) by the carpenter, right? He creates it from already existing material (ex materia).
So, did your god create the universe out of nothing (creation ex nihilo) or did it create it out of already existing material (ex materia)?
Btw: We ONLY have examples of ex materia creations, so if you want to argue for an ex nihilo creation, you will have to demonstrate that this is even possible.

But it is a Creation, it had a beginning therefor it was created...

Oh, so "creation" only referes to things that have a beginning, not necessarily a creator? Ok.
Under that definition of "create", your argument fails again. Because you've just negated the necessity of a creator for a creation.

Whether a quantum system is random or not...

I NEVER SAID QUANTUM SYSTEMS ARE RANDOM!!!!
Stop arguing against points you WANT me to make and adress what I've actually said!
I swear, your strawmaning gets out of hand here!
I'm going to ignore the rest of that part there, because it literally doesn't adress anything I've said, since you seem to assume (without having read my comment apparently) that I've said that quantum systems are random. I didn't. And if you read my comment, you would have noticed that.

If something is random then it is a lucky event, you can't have intention with randomness.

Irrelevant to literally EVERYTHING I've said.
And false at that. You certainly can have an intentionally build system with a random component.
So, even when you adress strawmen, you fail to make a coherent point.

they used Evolution to say that life is an accident and humans are an accident of necessity

Restart the Universe with the same constants and the same laws and you get inevitably humans.

What on earth is an "accident of necessity"?
And how does your second statement not invalidate your claim that evolution would require humans to be accidents? If we are an inevitable consequence of this universe, what about us is accidental? 0_o

The Fine Tuning of the Universe shows intention. We know that ONLY conscious minds can understand intention therefor the ONLY thing that could build us intention is a Mind...

And the only minds that exist are the result of brains. And brains are the product of this universe. Therefore you've just negated the idea of there being a mind outside the universe.
If you are going to make statements like "ONLY this has this property", then I will do the exact same thing, and therefore your god is emediatly negated.

Also, as I've said:
The universe isn't finely tuned, and fine tuning doesn't necessitate intention.

You can also find other names of Scientists that accept the Fine Tuning on this paper...

I don't care, because I recognize a quote mining fallacy... and I recognized at least some quote mines in your set of quotes.
Not to forget: Some of these people simply argue that, for life to exist the way it does in this universe, this universe needs to have exactly the constances it has now.
I've already agreed to that. I challenge the assertion, that this means it's "fine tuned for life"!
Because we can't know if other constances would have created a universe with different kind of life, maybe a universe with better conditions for life...
Maybe other constances are not even possible, which negates the entire argument from the get-go!
There is MORE you need to demonstrate for the fine-tuning argument to work, than just "life as it is now requires exactly this kind of universe".

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
2. It is not due to law or chance
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design

1. False "trichotomy". How did you demonstrate that these are all the possibilities? (And before you ask: "Can you think of a fourth?"... No. But that's not the point. If you claim that these three are all possible options, you need to demonstrate that, NOT assert that)
2. Assertions. Especially the "chance" one. I don't see any reason why it can't be because of chance. You don't know if any other possible universes even COULD exist, therefore you don't know if you work on the probability base of 1:2 universes (only two universes possible) or if you work from the basis of 1:100000000000000000000000.
And even if I granted that you somehow could show that the odds really are 1:100000000000000000... so what? If you pick a cart our of 1:100000000000000, the odds for every card will always be 1:100000000000000... and yet, if you pick a cart, you will get one!
Therefore, even if the universe assembled its properties by pure chance, you will get a universe which low probabilities by necessity!


Your third point would fallow (Finally, you've managed to at least create an argument that is valide... it's not sound yet, though... and arguments that are only structurally valide are useless), if you could demonstrate the first two premisses... which you haven't so far.

I really can't understand why you keep insisting that there is a third answer.

I didn't. Go, and look what I've writen... stop imagining things I haven't.
But you say that there CAN'T be a third option. And this needs to be demonstrated.

Also:
An apple falls from the tree. It will always fall DOWN. Nobody is intentionally pulled down, and the direction isn't chosen randomly.
So yes: There are more options than you assert.

First prove me that these parameters are messy and random, i think its an argument from ignorance or wishful thinking that they are messy and random.

Wow...
First of all, I've said: "random" for a lack of a better word.
You don't just get to exclude parts of my statement, and then expect me to defend your strawman!
Secondly: I've said "They SEEM"! I never said they are!
See, differently to you, who claims that the universe seems fine tuned, therefore it is fine tuned, I don't conclude from feauters that SEEM to be to "they actually are".
The reason why I said that they seem to be is, that these parameters have extremly weird values. They are not nice, round numbers, and they don't even seem to be really connected. They SEEM to be kind of a mess.

You said that Nature can create order from chaos, in which way?

No. I didn't.
You entered the "chaos" part... again, apparenlty for no other reason than to destort my argument.
I said that nature can create order.

Like in snowflakes, that can form naturally.
Or by evolution, that can lead to new proteins.
Or if you stir up differently sized particles, the small ones will settle down on the bigger, heavier ones and create order that way.
...
Nature is full of examples where we get order from a less orderly system.

What about entropy? The problem of the apparently low entropy of the universe is one of the oldest problems of cosmology. The fact that the entropy of the universe is not at its theoretical maximum, coupled with the fact that entropy cannot decrease, means that the universe must have started in a very special, low entropy state.

Ok.
So what?
This is called an "unknown". If your just going to stick your god into every gap we still have, you're commiting the "god of the gaps" fallacy...
Not to forget: It has as a result that your god is always shrinking, since our understanding of the universe is continuing to increase.
It's also a so called "argument from ignorance".
"We don't know why entropy started on such a low state! Therefore GOD!"
Nope. Doesn't fallow.

I replied perfection is the golden rule, the goldilock zone.

That's SO NOT WHAT YOU'VE ANSWERED!
Here, let me get your original statement, since you've clearly forgoten about it!

The perfection of your Mind is the balance of your consciousness.

THAT was your original statement! And this literally makes no sense! And if you now claim that

"The perfection of your Mind is the balance of your consciousness."
is the same as
"perfection is the golden rule"
then I advice you to get some help!
I'm not trying to be mean here, but this is really some of the most rediculous thing I've ever heard!

I’m actually starting to think that almost every property that contributes to life arising must be fine-tuned.

And yet, all you can present here are examples of things that need to be just right for life AS WE KNOW IT now...
Still don't see the problem with your argument?

Not to forget: You are ignoring the simple fact that many attributes we have have evolved to specificly live under these conditions. That's not the universe being fine-tuned for us, that's life having evolved to match the given parameters.

1) The Universe came from absolute Nothingness without a cause.
2) The Universe is a result of an infinite past of chain of events.
3) The Universe was created by a transcendental cause.

How did you show that these are the only three options?


Look, this is getting long and longer with each point, and you are just piling on assertion over assertion, false dichotomies and strawmen...

Let's make this simple.
First, you've skipped one thing that I want you to acknowledge:

You've writen:

1)You used Multiverse in your previous posts to disprove a Creator.

To which I replied that I didn't, and dared you to show me where I did.
Either show me, where I said something like that, or at least acknowledge that you've made something up that I never said. I hate it when people make up points that I've never made, because I find it extremly dishonest.

Then:
Just give me evidence for one of these things, then we work from there.

1. "The universe could have had a huge number of possible combinations for its parameters".
This is something you would have to believe to believe in the fine-tuning, right? After all, if this wasn't the case, than there wouldn't be any reason to explain the parameters we have. If these parameteres were the only possible combination, than the odds of getting exactly this universe would be 1:1, which negates the idea of fine tuning.

2. "Randomness/chance and intention are the only two possibilities."
You've made that claim a lot. Maybe it's time to justify it.

3. "Whatever created the universe has a mind."
This seems like an extreme claim, given that all minds we know of seem to be connected to brains. You seem to believe that it is possible for a mind to exist without a brain. Please demonstrate that.

Adress any of these claims, I don't care which. To me, they seem all equally unsupported, and it seems that they are essential to your argument.

 

[davidbilby]

Whether a quantum system is random or not kinda depends on what you’re taking about. For example, the electrons in an atom show up in orbitals that have extremely predictable shapes and energy levels, and yet if you were to measure the location of an electron within that orbital, you’d find that the result is pretty random but true randomness lucks structure.

Jimfit's "answer" here verbatim stolen from

Q: If quantum mechanics says everything is random, then how can it also be the most accurate theory ever? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

What a funny kind of Christian you are JimFit, one who believes wholeheartedly in presenting other people's words as if a) you understand them b) you actually wrote them yourself. What does your Bible have to say on that subject, for example, Exodus 20 verse 15, Jeremiah 23 verse 30? What a funny kind of debate, one person (richardparker) honestly bringing up points and another (you) simply googling and copy-pasting the most apparently relevant text, but lacking the knowledge, you can't even judge relevance accurately...

The distinction here is in the definition of "random", by the way, which your answer fails to grasp because it was given by someone else to somebody else's (different) question...

 

[JimFit]

Thanks for proving my point. You really do not know, how logical arguments go.
See, the fact that you grant me this means that you think THIS is valide:

1. Soccer exists.
2. Somebody created soccer.
3. Therefore he is the best player.
4. Therefore he has the strongest shot.

No, no, no. None of this fallows!
From the existence of soccer, you can't necessarily conclude that somebody created soccer! I could have been a groupe of people. Or it could have been a society, changing an already existing game over a long periode of time, step by step.

Yes you can conclude that someone created the game, it has rules and a structure, someone made it and this someone is the best in the game because he is the only one that can play it. Then you said that there could be a couple of people, no, one has the idea, even if the others helped him to built it his idea was his. Then you said that the game changed time to time, yes but that included players, it wasn't changed in a fact that there were no other players at the beginning. It was always player centric.

And even IF there was just one person who created soccer: The person who creates a game doesn't need to be the best at the game! This simply doesn't fallow!
And even if he was the best at the game, it doesn't need to mean that he has the strongst shot either!

He is the best in the game because he is the only one. If i create a table game i will be the best for just being the only one.

I've made this bat-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] example as a parody of your argument, and you literally just acknowledged, that you think that this is how logic works.

1. I have a mind.
2. Therefore it was created by a mind.
3. Therefore that mind is greater than mine.

NONE of this is logicly valide.

1. I have a Mind.
2 God is a conscious being therefore He has a mind
3. Therefore because i was created second God's mind is higher than me

False dichotomy AGAIN...
Wow... you're really bad at this.

No its not, you have an event, the event must have a cause because there are no causeless things.

<-to infinity<->cause <->cause <->cause <->cause <->cause

OR

nothingness -> cause <->cause <->cause <->cause <->cause

There is no third way, if there is please present it.

Well, what did he create the universe from? Everything that gets created gets created ex materia, right? From allready existing material, correct? A table doesn't get puffed into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo) by the carpenter, right? He creates it from already existing material (ex materia).So, did your god create the universe out of nothing (creation ex nihilo) or did it create it out of already existing material (ex materia)?
Btw: We ONLY have examples of ex materia creations, so if you want to argue for an ex nihilo creation, you will have to demonstrate that this is even possible.

Yes but God isn't nothing, He is something, he created material out of him, we don't know what God consist of and if he consist from anything but He exists therefor is not material from nothing but from something transcendent.

Oh, so "creation" only referes to things that have a beginning, not necessarily a creator? Ok.
Under that definition of "create", your argument fails again. Because you've just negated the necessity of a creator for a creation.

The Universe is separate from the thing it created it because the Universe is finite. Therefor whatever created the Universe is a Creator even if it is a mindless machine that creates bubble universes randomly without a purpose.

I NEVER SAID QUANTUM SYSTEMS ARE RANDOM!!!!
Stop arguing against points you WANT me to make and adress what I've actually said!
I swear, your strawmaning gets out of hand here!
I'm going to ignore the rest of that part there, because it literally doesn't adress anything I've said, since you seem to assume (without having read my comment apparently) that I've said that quantum systems are random. I didn't. And if you read my comment, you would have noticed that.

You said

To your first question: I don't know.
To your second question: Well, quantum mechanics seems to be a more probabalistic model, than a deterministic. At least as far as I can tell. But regardless: How does it matter? After all, we are not talking about something IN the universe, we are talking about the universe itself. So, even if I granted you that everything INSIDE the universe is entirely deterministic, this wouldn't be an argument for the origin of the universe also having to be terministic.

Determinism means cause and effect, before 1000 years the clouds seemed random, then they became probabilistic and today they are deterministic because we know what determines them, we know the cause.
Quantum mechanics to be probabilistic (for now) isn't an argument against the Deterministic Universe because as a whole the Universe works with Determinism. You then said (and i misread it) THAT A DETERMINISTIC EVENT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PRE-DETERMINISTIC, how is that even possible? How can you have determinism from randomness? The Universe had a cause, either the cause is the unmovable cause of the Creator or the cause extends to infinity. The second has been long debunked by BVG Theorem and Thermodynamics. The only argument you can have is a transcendent infinite chain of cause and effect.

Irrelevant to literally EVERYTHING I've said.
And false at that. You certainly can have an intentionally build system with a random component.
So, even when you adress strawmen, you fail to make a coherent point.

If something doesn't happen with intention then it was a lucky event, no one has planned it, it just happen. You don't even offer a counter argument for why is wrong what i said, you just dismiss it without arguments.

What on earth is an "accident of necessity"?
And how does your second statement not invalidate your claim that evolution would require humans to be accidents? If we are an inevitable consequence of this universe, what about us is accidental? 0_o

Accident from necessity is when etc the humidity of your house is high and you get mold.

And the only minds that exist are the result of brains. And brains are the product of this universe. Therefore you've just negated the idea of there being a mind outside the universe.
If you are going to make statements like "ONLY this has this property", then I will do the exact same thing, and therefore your god is emediatly negated.

Nop we have brainless organisms that make conscious decisions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lls27hu03yw

My brain express my consciousness and not the other way around because of the plasticity of the brain etc if Einstein didn't involved with mathematics he wouldn't develop more neurons in the calculating area of the brain. For me the brain is another organ that i can modify and if i can modify it how does it takes decisions for me? There has to be something above the brain that takes decision for the brain.

Quit Calling Them "Vegetables!" Study Shows Patients in PVS State Show Awareness | LifeNews.com


Then you said that brains are the product of this universe, yes but the Universe isn't eternal, it had a beginning and the Universe is mindless, it doesn't understand what a mind is, therefor it couldn't create something that it didn't know, basically the Universe doesn't even know what knowing is. Take this analogy, a factory builds robots, robots are intelligent but the machine that builds them has a limited set of moves, assembling, welding, packaging. If the robots it builds are capable for more features we can safety say that factory wasn't created by itself and someone has planned the process for these intelligent robots! In case you are saying that Evolution doesn't support this well...from the time that Evolution is Deterministic IT IS A FACTORY THAT INEVITABLY CREATES HUMANS, it just does it in a biggest factory with longest time.

Also, as I've said:
The universe isn't finely tuned, and fine tuning doesn't necessitate intention.

I presented evidence for fine tuning, you just close your ears and do the la la la thing. We can say that if the values were different and still had a Universe then the Universe isn't fine tuned. But what about the expansion?
Stephen Hawking has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball. The destruction of a structure doesn't prove that there is a structure? You don't accept the Fine Tuning because it could be a Universe with different values but if we change the values of the expansion THERE WOULD BE NO UNIVERSE AT ALL!

Is the fine-tuning real?


Yes, it’s real and it is conceded by the top-rank of atheist physicists. Let me give you a citation from the best one of all, Martin Rees. Martin Rees is an atheist and a qualified astronomer. He wrote a book called “Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe”, (Basic Books: 2001). In it, he discusses 6 numbers that need to be fine-tuned in order to have a life-permitting universe.
Rees writes here:

These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator?
​

There are some atheists who deny the fine-tuning, but these atheists are in firm opposition to the progress of science. The more science has progressed, the more constants, ratios and quantities we have discovered that need to be fine-tuned. Science is going in a theistic direction. Next, let’s see how atheists try to account for the fine-tuning, on atheism.

I don't care, because I recognize a quote mining fallacy... and I recognized at least some quote mines in your set of quotes.[/wuote]

I don't care is not an argument! It sounds more like a desperate answer to refuse the reality of the Fine Tuning. If these quotes belong to these Scientists and they accept the Fine Tuning why don't you accept it? Your atheism makes you biased against Scientific knowledge.

Not to forget: Some of these people simply argue that, for life to exist the way it does in this universe, this universe needs to have exactly the constances it has now.
I've already agreed to that.

You said that the Fine Tuning doesn't exist.

What does it meaning to be fine-tuned for life?


Here are the facts on the fine-tuning:

• Life has certain minimal requirements; long-term stable source of energy, a large number of different chemical elements, an element that can serve as a hub for joining together other elements into compounds, etc.
• In order to meet these minimal requirements, the physical constants, (such as the gravitational constant), and the ratios between physical constants, need to be withing a narrow range of values in order to support the minimal requirements for life of any kind.
• Slight changes to any of the physical constants, or to the rations between the constants, will result in a universe inhospitable to life.
• The range of possible ranges over 70 orders of magnitude.
• The constants are selected by whoever creates the universe. They are not determined by physical laws. And the extreme probabilities involved required put the fine-tuning beyond the reach of chance.
• Although each individual selection of constants and ratios is as unlikely as any other selection, the vast majority of these possibilities do not support the minimal requirements of life of any kind. (In the same way as any hand of 5 cards that is dealt is as likely as any other, but you are overwhelmingly likely NOT to get a royal flush. In our case, a royal flush is a life-permitting universe).

Examples of finely-tuned constants
Here are a couple of examples of the fine-tuning. Craig only gave one example in the debate and didn’t explain how changes to the constant would affect the minimal requirements for life. But Bradley does explain it, and he is a professional research scientist, so he is speaking about things he worked in his polymer research lab. (He was the director)
a) The strong force: (the force that binds nucleons (= protons and neutrons) together in nucleus, by means of meson exchange)

• if the strong force constant were 2% stronger, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, no hydrogen containing compounds. This is because the single proton in hydrogen would want to stick to something else so badly that there would be no hydrogen left!
• if the strong force constant were 5% weaker, there would be no stable stars, few (if any) elements besides hydrogen. This is because you would be able to build up the nuclei of the heavier elements, which contain more than 1 proton.
• So, whether you adjust the strong force up or down, you lose stars than can serve as long-term sources of stable energy, or you lose chemical diversity, which is necessary to make beings that can perform the minimal requirements of living beings. (see below)

b) The conversion of beryllium to carbon, and carbon to oxygen

• Life requires carbon in order to serve as the hub for complex molecules, but it also requires oxygen in order to create water.
• Carbon is like the hub wheel in a tinker toy set: you can bind other elements together to more complicated molecules (e.g. – “carbon-based life), but the bonds are not so tight that they can’t be broken down again later to make something else.
• The carbon resonance level is determined by two constants: the strong force and electromagnetic force.
• If you mess with these forces even slightly, you either lose the carbon or the oxygen.

Either way, you’ve got no life of any conceivable kind.

 

[JimFit]

I challenge the assertion, that this means it's "fine tuned for life"!
Because we can't know if other constances would have created a universe with different kind of life, maybe a universe with better conditions for life...
Maybe other constances are not even possible, which negates the entire argument from the get-go!
There is MORE you need to demonstrate for the fine-tuning argument to work, than just "life as it is now requires exactly this kind of universe".

That's argument from ignorance

What you have is an argument from ignorance:

1. I don&#8217;t know what other universes are like
2. Therefore, we are here by chance


It doesn&#8217;t follow.


We IDers have an argument from analogy:
1. like causes spawn like effects
2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune
3. the universe is fine-tuned
4. therefore the universe is the result of intelligence

1. False "trichotomy". How did you demonstrate that these are all the possibilities? (And before you ask: "Can you think of a fourth?"... No. But that's not the point. If you claim that these three are all possible options, you need to demonstrate that, NOT assert that)

No its not "False Trichotomy", if you don't accept the 3 options, chance necessity and design you must present a forth way, you didn't so i am right there is no forth way.

2. Assertions. Especially the "chance" one. I don't see any reason why it can't be because of chance. You don't know if any other possible universes even COULD exist, therefore you don't know if you work on the probability base of 1:2 universes (only two universes possible) or if you work from the basis of 1:100000000000000000000000.
And even if I granted that you somehow could show that the odds really are 1:100000000000000000... so what? If you pick a cart our of 1:100000000000000, the odds for every card will always be 1:100000000000000... and yet, if you pick a cart, you will get one!
Therefore, even if the universe assembled its properties by pure chance, you will get a universe which low probabilities by necessity!

This is the fallacy from possibility. It&#8217;s not rational to believe:

1. x is more probable than y
2. y is possible
3. therefore I believe y
What you have is an argument from ignorance:
1. I don&#8217;t know what other universes are like
2. Therefore, we are here by chance
It doesn&#8217;t follow.


We IDers have an argument from analogy:

1. like causes spawn like effects
2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune
3. the universe is fine-tuned
4. therefore the universe is the result of intelligence


The only argument the atheists have is a mere wish:

1. like causes spawn like effects
2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune
3. the universe is fine-tuned
4. I wish like causes did not spawn like effects or I wish fine-tuning were the result of chance.
5. therefore, we are here by chance.

Your third point would fallow (Finally, you've managed to at least create an argument that is valide... it's not sound yet, though... and arguments that are only structurally valide are useless), if you could demonstrate the first two premisses... which you haven't so far.

I did.

I didn't. Go, and look what I've writen... stop imagining things I haven't.
But you say that there CAN'T be a third option. And this needs to be demonstrated.

Also:
An apple falls from the tree. It will always fall DOWN. Nobody is intentionally pulled down, and the direction isn't chosen randomly.
So yes: There are more options than you assert.

The apple depends on the gravity, the power of the branch, the wind and many other factors..if we could calculate them all it would be a deterministic event.

Wow...
First of all, I've said: "random" for a lack of a better word.
You don't just get to exclude parts of my statement, and then expect me to defend your strawman!
Secondly: I've said "They SEEM"! I never said they are!
See, differently to you, who claims that the universe seems fine tuned, therefore it is fine tuned, I don't conclude from feauters that SEEM to be to "they actually are".
The reason why I said that they seem to be is, that these parameters have extremly weird values. They are not nice, round numbers, and they don't even seem to be really connected. They SEEM to be kind of a mess.

Oh men...that's anecdotal fallacy at its best. I have provided proof why they are Fine Tuned multiple times

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

What you have is an argument from ignorance, you said that they could be random (without any argument to support it) therefor fine tuning doesn't exist, fine tuning also doesn't speak about round numbers. what does that even mean anyway? round numbers lol

No. I didn't.
You entered the "chaos" part... again, apparenlty for no other reason than to destort my argument.
I said that nature can create order.

Like in snowflakes, that can form naturally.
Or by evolution, that can lead to new proteins.
Or if you stir up differently sized particles, the small ones will settle down on the bigger, heavier ones and create order that way.
...
Nature is full of examples where we get order from a less orderly system.

You speak of Nature like it creates the laws and the constants. To have evolution, snowflakes and new proteins you must have first fine tuned constants.

Ok.
So what?
This is called an "unknown". If your just going to stick your god into every gap we still have, you're commiting the "god of the gaps" fallacy...
Not to forget: It has as a result that your god is always shrinking, since our understanding of the universe is continuing to increase.
It's also a so called "argument from ignorance".
"We don't know why entropy started on such a low state! Therefore GOD!"
Nope. Doesn't fallow.

God doesn't shrink as we learn more, He gets bigger because it shows that we are here after a fine tuned process that creates humans and supports intention and not Randomness, the more we understand the more we get into the position of the Creator and validate the Bible that talks about the images of the Creator and not the Creator as something unreachable.
Entropy is really well defined, we have measured entropy, we know what entropy is, the problem steams from why the Entropy happened like that, is it because of necessity chance or design?

And yet, all you can present here are examples of things that need to be just right for life AS WE KNOW IT now...

What does that even mean? Are you making an argument from ignorance again?

I wish life could be different therefor design is wrong ?

Not to forget: You are ignoring the simple fact that many attributes we have have evolved to specificly live under these conditions. That's not the universe being fine-tuned for us, that's life having evolved to match the given parameters.

That's the argument of necessity, i debunked it multiple times.

How did you show that these are the only three options?
Look, this is getting long and longer with each point, and you are just piling on assertion over assertion, false dichotomies and strawmen...

And you still doesn't provide a forth option...

Just give me evidence for one of these things, then we work from there.

1. "The universe could have had a huge number of possible combinations for its parameters".
This is something you would have to believe to believe in the fine-tuning, right? After all, if this wasn't the case, than there wouldn't be any reason to explain the parameters we have. If these parameteres were the only possible combination, than the odds of getting exactly this universe would be 1:1, which negates the idea of fine tuning.

Yes.

2. "Randomness/chance and intention are the only two possibilities."
You've made that claim a lot. Maybe it's time to justify it.

You walk on the street, suddenly you meet a friend, you met him by chance. You are planning to go to his house, it was intended to go. If it isn't by chance then it is by intention, if it is not by intention it is by chance.

3. "Whatever created the universe has a mind."
This seems like an extreme claim, given that all minds we know of seem to be connected to brains. You seem to believe that it is possible for a mind to exist without a brain. Please demonstrate that.

I addressed that above.