Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We don't know the Earth is the only planet with life on it. We've only examined planets in this solar system, and we're not even 100% sure that they don't have life on them. This solar system is only an infinitely small speck in the universe.
You threw away scientific methodology when you made design unfalsifiable. No matter what the evidence is, you will claim that it "supports the possibility of design". Even evidence that exactly matches what we would expect from evolution, you proclaim that it supports design . . . because you say so.
Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me. You are looking back at what has already happened, and declaring that it was meant to happen that way from the start. That is hindsight bias.
Fine tuning means that there is a fine tuner. Where is the evidence for the tuner?
If the universe was random and the values that it has happened prior to life existing but was nevertheless necessary for life to exist.
No, my argument is based on the scientific data that shows that there are many values in the universe that must be the way they are for life to exist on earth.
No, it is not like that at all. It is saying that there are values that are measured and those measurements are very precise and required to be that way for life to exist on earth.
IT would be more like, the temperature at the north pole is below 32 degrees, there is ice at the north, ice appears when the temperature drops below 32degrees so the appearance of ice necessitates temperatures below 32 degrees.
It is the same thing except that the universe having other values would not permit life to exist at all.
Realty is that the universe is considered fine tuned for life.
Now you are showing your ignorance for astrophysics. That is exactly why the lottery fallacy is faulty, it isn't like the universe could just pop up with the values that we have that permit life without having the same meta-laws for the multiverse system it arises from.
No my options were either natural or design. There could be possibilities that could factor in. It seems I am more open for possibilities as well as realty than you and those who deny what by authority is claimed.
But I can see that you are seeing the implications of fine tuning and how it would support agency, purpose, planning, intent by an intelligent agent
That is why non-religious scientists are striving to eliminate the problem of fine tuning.
So the future will be like Star Trek?
I think the main point is, if the universe is set up for life naturally, why is there only life on planet earth? Shouldn't there be abundant life in all the different stages, on other planets?
Ah, so this is where your problem arises. They do not describe fine tuning as an appearance of fine tuning. The fine tuning is established, the appearance of design comes from the fact that these fine tuned values give the appearance of design because they "appear as if someone or something has set or fixed them to permit life to exist."
Look, it makes utmost sense for a Christian to think that God created the universe and the appearance lends support to that notion.
However, if you want to have an non-theistic natural explanation you will have to show where those meta-laws come from.
Your entire argument rests on misunderstandings and lack of knowledge of what fine tuning is and the assumption of no God. You have to deny the scientific findings to hold your position, I don't.
I can't see the future. Kind of doubt it, but who knows. What does Star Trek have to do with anything?
To establish "tuning", you need to provide evidence of the act of "tuning".
Tuning is an act done by an agent with a purpose.
Good luck with that.
Yes, exactly. Just like I explained in a previous post. Your a priori beliefs are creating a bias in your entire "tuning" rant. You don't understand that by labeling the universe as "tuned", you are implying a "tuner". You don't feel like you need to support a "tuner", because you believe in a god. That's your bias. You accept this on faith. You already jumped to that conclusion and you already decided that you won't require any evidence for it.
Oh I see. You don't understand the issue and it is evident that many of you don't but you don't care because you all agree and you all agree because you all hold to the non-theistic worldview that God is not real.
You don't care if your arguments are straw men arguments that deny actual scientific data and terms that scientists themselves have labeled the observations.
What I realize, and I might add is very evident is that people on here take issue when they use science as their defining authority but then deny the same when it doesn't conform to their own personal beliefs.
Isn't that what you all charge creationists with? POT KETTLE BLACK.
It's a fictional idea.
Of course one would also have to provide evidence that every instance of the appearance of design would be the result of only random, meaningless, mindless and directionless products of naturalistic mechanisms, which would be the product of only a random, meaningless, mindless and directionless mechanisms....which of course would be the result of....
Well, you get the picture.
Give evidence of the nothing which produced the something which produced the appearance of design.
Are you making a faith based, supernatural, claim
I'm not making any claims. I'm responding to the claims of oncedeceived.
I don't know where the universe came from. And I'll stick with that honest answer until someone provides a reasonable answer with reasonable evidence.
Ponds and puddles aren't random? Are ponds put in place with intent, purpose and agency?
Also, OUR type of life. Other values might be better suited for life. You don't know that. All you have are a priori beliefs and appeals to ignorance.
What other forms of life have scientists said were possible?I would think that they might know just a little more than you do about other forms of life possible with different values and they think it is very rare or impossible.
Indeed. Not just any depression, but a depression of certain properties.Water will fit any depression that will hold it.
The process of life will begin, thrive, and evolve to fit a universe of certain properties.Life as we see could not just fit into the universe in any ol' way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?