Fine Tuning

[anonymous person]

...or, you know, the anthropic principle...

What about it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What about it?

Simple, really: "if things were different, then things would be different and we wouldn't be here wondering about it".

Just because we happen to be here, doesn't imply or mean that we were meant to be here.

 

[Peter1000]

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

WROOOOOOOOONG, as Trump would say.

The theory of evolution is a predictive explanation that is supported by the available evidence. It's not a good guess.

Tell me Peter, do you think that it went like this?
Scientist: "Here's this crazy idea, what if everything just CHANGED into other things?"
Other Scientist: "ooh, sounds good, that's definitely a theory"
Head Scientist: "A theory is now defined as TRUE!"
Scientist: "Oh cool, I made a true theory! YAAAAY"

Google is your friend:
"Not quite. The claim here is misleading, suggesting that we need to be able to have 100% certainty in every idea for it to be useful science. There is a lot unknown about how abiogenesis originally occurred, but we are not without evidence. Just because we can't go back in time and record the original event, doesn't mean we can't learn things about it by the results it left behind - life!"
"
Not quite. The claim here is misleading, suggesting that we need to be able to have 100% certainty in every idea for it to be useful science.[8]

Abiogenesis is not a critical component of the theory of evolution. If a "cosmic watchmaker" dumped the raw materials down here a few billion years ago, he included with them a program--the "watch"--that they followed in order to end up where we are today. That program is evolution. This is the reason that the leaders of all the major religions find no conflict between the science of evolution and the faith in divine creation. Their god created a universe that is sufficiently orderly and logical that we can make our way in it without having to stop every ten minutes and ask for divine inspiration in dealing with this or that anomalous natural phenomenon, and being gobbled up by it while waiting for said divine inspiration. The universe runs rather elegantly on a set of natural laws and evolution is one of the many corollaries of those laws. Somewhere there may be a universe built on Lobachevskian geometry where there is no gravity, no entropy and no lightspeed limitation, and that god had to design a different set of natural laws for his creatures. (Hey, I read fantasy and sci-fi too, I just don't try to pass it off as religion.)

Abiogenesis as a distinct hypothesis (it has not been tested sufficiently to be elevated to the status of a theory) is difficult to disprove. It awaits the corroboration of finding evidence of non-DNA based life having arisen on earth and either hiding in some deeply buried cracks or being out-competed to extinction. Or of finding that same evidence on another planet. As such it's a work in progress and has not achieved the status of evolution itself, relativity, heliocentrism or gravity.

Still, disprovability is only one element of the scientific method. Another is that extraordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation. Which assertion is more extraordinary: abiogenesis, or the existence of creatures external to a universe that reveals itself to be more orderly with every generation of scientist, which violate all the rules of that universe? The theory of abiogenesis can safely be used as a working hypothesis while we await the exploration of our solar system and then the next one. The "theory" of supernatural creation requires extraordinary substantiation before we have any obligation to treat it with respect."

In short - we cannot directly test abiogenesis yet, but we can look at its results and make testable predictions from the RNA world theory.

Good news! Evolution is testable! So this is irrelevant.

No scientists were alive when cheetahs had a dramatic depopulation event, and yet we find evidence of such an event happening. We can determine what long-ago was like by looking at today. Can we be sure? No, but that's normal in science.

...no, they're doing it because SCIENCE. Not because they don't like God.


Evolution is indirectly testable by the predictions it makes, but God isn't. That's the difference.

So evolution is indirectly testable by the predictions it makes. Can you give me the best prediction that the theory of evolution has made since 2010?

So would you not be willing to say that the incredible, precision constants in the universe and the goldilock
effects that set our earth apart from trillions of other planets spinning around their suns is an indirect test that a Superior Being is in control of our universe and earth?

 

[Peter1000]

"TagliatelliMonster, post: 70537765, member: 391173"]He's talking about people like YOU, who make use of that logical fallacy, mate.

You don't like my logic because it is based in a Superior Being. Your logic is all based on 'random chance happenings' (trillions x trillions x trillions to 1). My logic, therefore, is more logical than yours. My logic requires less faith than your logic.

What the word "theory" means in a scientific context has exactly zero relation with atheism.

It has everything to do with atheism and little to do with truth, at least since Darwin, unless that truth happens to be in line with a godless world view.

The reason the theory of evolution is such a popular religion is because it gives men an opportunity to explain the universe and earth life without the need for a Superior Being. Thousands joined and now that brotherhood chokes out any institution or any person that has anything to do with a Superior Being. Atheism fights with all it's might to keep any discussion of Intelligent Design out of the educational processes. It is all about godless (atheism).

Evolution theory is very testable, mate.
If you would have bothered with learning the basics of the basics, you would have known that as well.

What test has been devised to prove that a worm evolved into a laughing hiena. I would be interested in that test. So show me the internet address.

Again, the events themselves are not the point. The events DID happen: the universe came about in some way and so did life.

The question is HOW.

Now dear Watson, you are getting close. You have no idea and have no way to test for a reason how it all started, so why waste your time any further.

That is exactly why my logic is every bit as logical as your logic. We both cannot test our hypothesis's. So why don't we put our logics together and prove how a Superior Being used natural means to bring about the universe and life on earth. That would be interesting.

Your beliefs are irrelevant.

Your beliefs are irrelevent too.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't like my logic because it is based in a Superior Being.

It's not about "liking" it. It's about it being "invalid". And more importantly, it's not just about a "superior being". It's about an undetectable, undemonstrable, unfalsifiable one that only shows up in a bronze age book.

Your logic is all based on 'random chance happenings' (trillions x trillions x trillions to 1).

No.

My logic, therefore, is more logical than yours. My logic requires less faith than your logic.

Positing undetectable super beings is never "more logical" then positing actual observable processes...

It has everything to do with atheism and little to do with truth, at least since Darwin, unless that truth happens to be in line with a godless world view.

Millions of theistic scientists around the world who have no issues with the scientific context of the word "theory", disagree.

The reason the theory of evolution is such a popular religion

Not a religion, just like germ theory of desease isn't a religion.

is because it gives men an opportunity to explain the universe and earth life without the need for a Superior Being.

1. evolution is a theory of biology and it has exactly zero to say about the universe
2. no "superior beings" are included in evolution (or any other scientific theory), because no "superior beings" show up in any of these processes.

Thousands joined and now that brotherhood chokes out any institution or any person that has anything to do with a Superior Being.

Ken Miller and Francis Collins. Both devout christians and both highly respected biologists. And there are many more off course. None of them are "choked out". So it seems as if you are spouting nonsense again.

Atheism fights with all it's might to keep any discussion of Intelligent Design out of the educational processes. It is all about godless (atheism).

ID isn't part of educational processes, because there is nothing there to educate about.
It shows up nowhere in the scientific literature and there literally is nothing to teach.

It's just religious nonsense, at best disguised in a lab coat.

ID isn't part of biology classes for the same reason that "intelligent falling" is part of physics classes as an "alternative" explanation for gravity.

What test has been devised to prove that a worm evolved into a laughing hiena. I would be interested in that test. So show me the internet address.

I don't know about that "worm" part, but I'll go ahead and assume that you are just arguing from ridicule here.

In any case, common ancestry of species can be tested purely by mapping out the DNA of both species and observing the nested hierarchical nature thereof.

If the Hyena DNA doesn't fit this nested structure, then evolution theory is falsified.

Now dear Watson, you are getting close. You have no idea and have no way to test for a reason how it all started, so why waste your time any further.

If everybody thought like that (why "waste your time"), we'ld still be living in caves, fighting over fire.

I don't think that engaging in scientific investigation to get answers to tough questions is "a waste of time".

That is exactly why my logic is every bit as logical as your logic.

LOL!!!!

We both cannot test our hypothesis's.

Wait... what "hypothesis" of "mine" are you talking about here? I'm afraid I'm not following.

ps: untestable ideas don't qualify for the term "hypothesis"....

So why don't we put our logics together and prove how a Superior Being used natural means to bring about the universe and life on earth.

Eum........ you just said that your god idea can't be tested....
Then how in the world would you "prove" it - which is quite a few steps further down the line from "testability".

Your beliefs are irrelevent too.

It's a good thing then, that I don't have "beliefs" in that sense.

But I would agree, off course. Beliefs, no matter who holds them, are irrelevant.

 

[Peter1000]

It's not about "liking" it. It's about it being "invalid". And more importantly, it's not just about a "superior being". It's about an undetectable, undemonstrable, unfalsifiable one that only shows up in a bronze age book.



No.



Positing undetectable super beings is never "more logical" then positing actual observable processes...



Millions of theistic scientists around the world who have no issues with the scientific context of the word "theory", disagree.




Not a religion, just like germ theory of desease isn't a religion.



1. evolution is a theory of biology and it has exactly zero to say about the universe
2. no "superior beings" are included in evolution (or any other scientific theory), because no "superior beings" show up in any of these processes.



Ken Miller and Francis Collins. Both devout christians and both highly respected biologists. And there are many more off course. None of them are "choked out". So it seems as if you are spouting nonsense again.




ID isn't part of educational processes, because there is nothing there to educate about.
It shows up nowhere in the scientific literature and there literally is nothing to teach.

It's just religious nonsense, at best disguised in a lab coat.

ID isn't part of biology classes for the same reason that "intelligent falling" is part of physics classes as an "alternative" explanation for gravity.


I don't know about that "worm" part, but I'll go ahead and assume that you are just arguing from ridicule here.

In any case, common ancestry of species can be tested purely by mapping out the DNA of both species and observing the nested hierarchical nature thereof.

If the Hyena DNA doesn't fit this nested structure, then evolution theory is falsified.



If everybody thought like that (why "waste your time"), we'ld still be living in caves, fighting over fire.

I don't think that engaging in scientific investigation to get answers to tough questions is "a waste of time".



LOL!!!!



Wait... what "hypothesis" of "mine" are you talking about here? I'm afraid I'm not following.

ps: untestable ideas don't qualify for the term "hypothesis"....

Eum........ you just said that your god idea can't be tested....
Then how in the world would you "prove" it - which is quite a few steps further down the line from "testability".

It's a good thing then, that I don't have "beliefs" in that sense.

But I would agree, off course. Beliefs, no matter who holds them, are irrelevant.

Eum........ you just said that your god idea can't be tested....
Then how in the world would you "prove" it - which is quite a few steps further down the line from "testability".

We start with the many precision constants that exist in this universe. Science cannot explain them. Science cannot explain how they come into existence. Science cannot explain how they maintain themselves with such precision over billions of years.

The only scientific explanation is 'random chance', or a real flimsy miltiverse explanation. This is all you have.

I have a Superior Being that has the knowledge and experience of billions of years of existence to see a universe into existence. The constants are the proof of Superior workmanship. The goldilocks effect is proof of Superior wormanship.

If you don't like a Superior Being booting up a universe, and you don't like the idea of a 'random chance event', or a multiverse concept, then tell me what you believe, like, or lean toward in your scientific world.

But understand the highest example of the use of scientific knowledge is that a Superior Being uses this extreme knowledge to bring a universe into existence and a beautiful world with teeming life to fruition. No other explanation comes close to this one.

Since you obviously don't agree, then give me another explanation?

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not a huge fan of fine-tuning arguments, but answering most of your objections seems do-able.

1.) Formally, the argument is a fallacy as mentioned above.

It is quite easy to present the argument in a non-fallacious way.

2.) We only fine tune things (cars, etc) because of uncompromising, external constraints; God has no uncompromising, external constraints that he must satisfy, so on a theistic worldview we do not expect to see a finely tuned universe.

A thing is "fine tuned," according to the argument, with respect to the final product. For example, a Lamborghini is fine-tuned with respect to the final product of a fast car. We are presented with a Lamborghini, and upon further investigation we note that many different aspects of the Lamborghini are ordered to the end of speed (and acceleration, handling, etc.).

3.) There is no evidence that the physical constants of our universe could have been anything other than what they are, so fine tuning has no case.

3.) We can mathematically model universes with different constants, and they generally are unstable or unsuitable for life. [Is this factually correct? Does anyone have sources?]

The presumption governing all things in the universe seems to be contingency. Trees, animals, physical constants, etc., all were presumably caused by things which could have been different and thus are contingent. So I'd say you have a sizeable burden of proof here.

4.) Many constants are certainly not finely tuned, such as the speed of light.

4.) Certain physical constants must be accurate to within 1 part in 10^(many) for life to be possible. [Is there a source for this? How can we be sure we're characterizing all possible forms of life?]

There are many things about a Lamborghini that are not ordered to speed (such as the color of the car, the material used in the interior, etc.). This doesn't undermine the fact that a Lamborghini is ordered to speed.

5.) Calculations concluding that the universe is finely tuned are fallacious because the physical constants were initially defined in the Big Bang. The Big Bang occurred on a scale so small that quantum mechanics must be considered; the Big Bang involved so much mass (all mass in the universe) that effects of relativity must be considered. As of yet we lack the physical language to unite quantum mechanics with relativity, so we lack the ability to describe the Big Bang and that is why we return absurd calculations which imply fine tuning.

The question at hand is about the contingency of universal constants. The source of the constants is irrelevant unless it bears on said contingency. Thus the objection is really not to the point. Rather we should ask: was the big bang contingent, and were its effects (such as universal constants) contingent? (This devolves to #3)

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm not a huge fan of fine-tuning arguments, but answering most of your objections seems do-able.



It is quite easy to present the argument in a non-fallacious way.



A thing is "fine tuned," according to the argument, with respect to the final product. For example, a Lamborghini is fine-tuned with respect to the final product of a fast car. We are presented with a Lamborghini, and upon further investigation we note that many different aspects of the Lamborghini are ordered to the end of speed (and acceleration, handling, etc.).



The presumption governing all things in the universe seems to be contingency. Trees, animals, physical constants, etc., all were presumably caused by things which could have been different and thus are contingent. So I'd say you have a sizeable burden of proof here.



There are many things about a Lamborghini that are not ordered to speed (such as the color of the car, the material used in the interior, etc.). This doesn't undermine the fact that a Lamborghini is ordered to speed.



The question at hand is about the contingency of universal constants. The source of the constants is irrelevant unless it bears on said contingency. Thus the objection is really not to the point. Rather we should ask: was the big bang contingent, and were its effects (such as universal constants) contingent? (This devolves to #3)

So then you don't know if the universe is finely tuned or not?

 

[Peter1000]

I'm not a huge fan of fine-tuning arguments, but answering most of your objections seems do-able.



It is quite easy to present the argument in a non-fallacious way.



A thing is "fine tuned," according to the argument, with respect to the final product. For example, a Lamborghini is fine-tuned with respect to the final product of a fast car. We are presented with a Lamborghini, and upon further investigation we note that many different aspects of the Lamborghini are ordered to the end of speed (and acceleration, handling, etc.).

The presumption governing all things in the universe seems to be contingency. Trees, animals, physical constants, etc., all were presumably caused by things which could have been different and thus are contingent. So I'd say you have a sizeable burden of proof here.

There are many things about a Lamborghini that are not ordered to speed (such as the color of the car, the material used in the interior, etc.). This doesn't undermine the fact that a Lamborghini is ordered to speed.



The question at hand is about the contingency of universal constants. The source of the constants is irrelevant unless it bears on said contingency. Thus the objection is really not to the point. Rather we should ask: was the big bang contingent, and were its effects (such as universal constants) contingent? (This devolves to #3)

The presumption governing all things in the universe seems to be contingency. Trees, animals, physical constants, etc., all were presumably caused by things which could have been different and thus are contingent. So I'd say you have a sizeable burden of proof here.

Would you explain what you mean by 'contingency'?

Thank you for your comments.

 

[zippy2006]

Would you explain what you mean by 'contingency'?

Thank you for your comments.

An event could be said to be contingent if it is possible but not necessary. For example, we could say that an oak tree is contingent because it was possible for a squirrel to have eaten the acorn before it grew into a tree.

When someone argues from a universal constant to fine tuning, they are implying that the universal constant could have been different than it is, and thus that the confluence of many such universal constants to help create the universe we inhabit is improbable when based on chance alone.

 

[Peter1000]

An event could be said to be contingent if it is possible but not necessary.

If this is the definition, then I would argue that the universe was not contingent, because it is possible and it is necessary.

When someone argues from a universal constant to fine tuning, they are implying that the universal constant could have been different than it is, and thus that the confluence of many such universal constants to help create the universe we inhabit is improbable when based on chance alone.

I am not implying that there are many universal constants and the confluence of these constants helped create the universe we inhabit today.

I am not implying that there are numberless universes that have numberless constants and just by chance this universe of numberless universes, has just the right constants to create a fine tuned and goldilock affected universe and earth.

I am just saying that a random chance happening that there are so many fine tuned constants in the universe and a goldilock bubble that covers the earth and allows for abundant life, is zero.

Therefore it is necessary to look in another direction. There is truly only one other direction to look and that is a Superior Being. One that has the knowledge to set the constants and bubble a planet for goldilock affects, etc..

To me it is random chance or Superior Being. The choice is easy. As a Catholic, I would expect you lean the same way I do?

 

[zippy2006]

When someone argues from a universal constant to fine tuning, they are implying that the universal constant could have been different than it is, and thus that the confluence of many such universal constants to help create the universe we inhabit is improbable when based on chance alone.

I am not implying that there are many universal constants and the confluence of these constants helped create the universe we inhabit today.

I am not implying that there are numberless universes that have numberless constants and just by chance this universe of numberless universes, has just the right constants to create a fine tuned and goldilock affected universe and earth.

I am just saying that a random chance happening that there are so many fine tuned constants in the universe and a goldilock bubble that covers the earth and allows for abundant life, is zero.

Therefore it is necessary to look in another direction. There is truly only one other direction to look and that is a Superior Being. One that has the knowledge to set the constants and bubble a planet for goldilock affects, etc..

If you read again what I wrote, especially the bolded, "...improbable when based on chance alone," you get the same answer you gave. You say that, "...the random chance... is zero." That's just another way of saying that it is improbable when based on chance alone. Note too that to call it zero in a strict sense is false, for there is always a chance that it could have happened randomly, even if it is exceedingly low.

Similarly, when I spoke of contingency, it was also in the scenario of "...based on chance alone." So if you set God aside, the fine tuned constants appear to be contingent. Further, most believers would not call the universe necessary because it is created by God, for God is thought to have freedom in his creation and not be constrained to create.

To me it is random chance or Superior Being. The choice is easy. As a Catholic, I would expect you lean the same way I do?

I think that is what the argument presents, as noted here.

I think the argument has some weight, but it will only hold weight for the unbeliever insofar as the constants are thought to be contingent, and thus are "fine-tuned." If the constants are just a necessary emanation from some prior event such as the big bang, then they cannot be said to be fine-tuned at all.

We might ask what the "range of possibility" is for a given universal constant. Suppose, for example, that a universal constant is 50. Suppose that it could have been--that the range of possibility is--any integer between 1 and 100. Then there is a 1/100 chance that it would randomly be 50. Suppose instead that it is any rational number rounded to the nearest tenth decimal point between 1 and 100 (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.). Now the odds are 1/1000. What if it is rounded instead to the nearest thousandth? Or what if the range is [0, 10000000]? This drastically changes the probability. Of course if the possible range is just 50, then the universal constant could be said to be necessary. If it is [49, 51] then it could be said to be relatively probable, etc. The range of possibility strongly determines the probability, and different people may have different beliefs about that range.

 

[zippy2006]

So would you not be willing to say that the incredible, precision constants in the universe and the goldilock effects that set our earth apart from trillions of other planets spinning around their suns is an indirect test that a Superior Being is in control of our universe and earth?

As a Mormon you focus in on the Earth more than the universe. Is that because of the Mormon belief that the God of the Bible is the God of our Earth and that other Gods created other planets, just as human beings will eventually become Gods with their own planets? If this is true, then I can't help but wonder what you make of the fine-tuning conclusions, which imply a creator/designer of the entire universe? Perhaps Mormon theology has been updated to say that each God receives his own universe?

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Peter1000]

As a Mormon you focus in on the Earth more than the universe. Is that because of the Mormon belief that the God of the Bible is the God of our Earth and that other Gods created other planets, just as human beings will eventually become Gods with their own planets? If this is true, then I can't help but wonder what you make of the fine-tuning conclusions, which imply a creator/designer of the entire universe? Perhaps Mormon theology has been updated to say that each God receives his own universe?

Thanks for the clarification.

First, the Mormon church does not speculate to far beyond the concept that there are Gods, rather than God. I know that is a bombshell to most Christians, but beyond the thought that Jesus had a Father, who is God the Father and that God the Father had a Father, etc., etc., etc., and that these Gods were obviously creator Gods, we do not speculate as to how or where or what they did and do.

Our focus is on our God, the God that created us and our earth, and our Son of God/Jesus. The church does not speculate nor has it been given much information about other Gods.

I on the other had do speculate on these thoughts, and so here is what I, individually think about the Gods.

I believe that over many billions of years, men and women learned the secrets of the universe and together with this knowledge, they also learned the best way to live together, and to be happy and to be full of joy.

If you think that is nonsense, take our own planet and over the last 5,000 years we have gone from learning how to write, to communicating with a craft that is heading out of our solar system. In just 5,000 years.
The Wright brother around 1900 learned how to fly and within 70 years from that time, we were walking on the moon.
Take medicine, take computer science, take communication devices, take knowledge of the atom, and the knowledge of our bodies, the knowledge of our earth and how it works. Even take the knowledge of life itself and the beginning and the extention of life.

Now take 10 billion years and where could we be? Will we even need machines to move around the universe?
Can life really be everlasting to everlasting? Can our minds be opened and expanded to be able to know everything that there is to know or have immediate access to all knowledge.

I believe that over billions of years there have been men and women who have reached that point. They would in essence be gods to us. How many billions of years would you think it would take unitl it is possible to even create.
But there is one aspect about these superior beings, and that is that they are also holy. They have figured out also that all knowledge is not enough, all knowledge in fact can be dangerous. In order to counteract this great knowledge and tremendous ego, they have learned the path that will keep their ego's checked in such a way that they can co-exist together in happiness, and have joy in their creations.
One of the secrets of the universe is that in order to be gods, there must be something to be gods over. Therefore, children are the secret source and center of their godhood.

All knowledge, the ability to create. All holiness and righteousness, the ability to live in happiness and joy.
Children to teach and bring into the family of the gods, to develop and train to be omnipotent, and omniscience, but yet humble and holy Fathers and Mothers.

I believe our God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ are in a long, long, long line of omnipotent, omniscience Superior Beings, that also know what it takes to maintain that power and knowledge and that is holiness and righteousness.

The starting point for our journey towards godhood started a long time ago, but our focus today is the 10 commandments, and the sermon on the mount.
It is my hope that I can learn what makes me ultimately happy and enjoy full joy, so that I can overcome the world and it's wickedness. Then having overcome the world, Jesus tells me I can sit with him in his throne. Armed with the knowledge of holiness and righteousness, how long do you think it would take for Jesus and his God, God the Father to teach us about the the universe and how to create?

 

[Yekcidmij]

Now take 10 billion years and where could we be? Will we even need machines to move around the universe?

Well, we will need to move away from earth by that point since it will be engulfed by the expanding sun about 3 billion years prior.

 

[Peter1000]

Well, we will need to move away from earth by that point since it will be engulfed by the expanding sun about 3 billion years prior.

You are right of course, but whether we are on this old earth or on a new earth, and in another heaven, (Revelations 21:1) time will keep ticking and our knowledge can keep growing until we are, in all practical matters omniscient, or having all knowledge of things having to do with science.

As a Calvinist, I would have expected that your language about the expanding sun would have included words similar to this:
Well, we will be find ourselves on a new earth and in a new heaven, because our God will allow our sun to engulf our old earth some time before 10B years have passed.

Remember, time past is the favorite weapon of atheist scientists to explain evolution.

Time future is the main source of assurance that we can learn to be holy, righteous, full of knowledge and power, and in essence become God's ourselves and take our place among the millions of other men and women that have achieved that status.

You made correct choices before you were even born on this earth, and kept your first estate, which was in the presence of our God and His Christ.

You are making correct choices here on earth, our second estate and if you continue to overcome this wicked world, you will have an opportunity to sit with Jesus in his throne.

In that setting, you will find yourself and those men and women that also followed the Savior, and are exalted to his throne, on a fast-track to learn all that God and His Son Jesus Christ know.

They know how to create. They know how to bring universes into existence. They know what is necessary to bring forth an earth that can be home to their immortal creation of men. They are always expanding, They are always increasing. For
eternity upon eternity, billions upon billions of years, They are creating Gods.

You are a God in embryo, but if you overcome this wicked world, you will be moved to a new earth and a new heaven and there you will also have the opportunity to expand and increase forever, and ever. You to can learn to create.

That is what I look forward to. That is why I am studying the bible and other books of scritpture, and other good books, even written by men, so that I can overcome this wicked world and be with my God and Jesus Christ for the next X billions of years and become like They are. It motivates me to be a follower of Jesus Christ here on earth.

The day to day struggle to be more like Jesus is where the battle lies, but I have an advantage over satan, because I know what the future holds for me and I want it.
So get behind me satan, and take me into thy arms, Jesus.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We start with the many precision constants that exist in this universe. Science cannot explain them. Science cannot explain how they come into existence. Science cannot explain how they maintain themselves with such precision over billions of years.

Well, to be honest, science can explain quite a bit more concerning the origins of the universe, then you are implying here. Sure, the origins of the universe are, for all intents and purposes, unknown. But it's not like we are drowning in total ignorance either.

But I'll agree to this premise, that for all practical intents and purposes, these things are unknown, yes.

I sense an argument from ignorance in the making...

I have a Superior Being that has the knowledge and experience of billions of years of existence to see a universe into existence. The constants are the proof of Superior workmanship.

No. You have a belief that posits such a being. A belief which you can not support or demonstrate.

When there is no explanation, then there is no explanation. And when something is unknown, your particular faith based beliefs do not gain any credibility.
See, here we have it... that argument from ignorance.

"Science doesn't know - therefor, my god of choice."

If you don't like a Superior Being booting up a universe, and you don't like the idea of a 'random chance event', or a multiverse concept, then tell me what you believe, like, or lean toward in your scientific world.

I have no beliefs about things that are completely unknown. Nore do I have any "preferences" or do I think that my "preference" has any relevance to what is actually true.

I'm quite comfortable saying that I don't know, when I don't know. I do not feel the need to just invent something, or just believe something, just to be able to pretend that I do know, while I actually don't.

But understand the highest example of the use of scientific knowledge is that a Superior Being uses this extreme knowledge to bring a universe into existence and a beautiful world with teeming life to fruition. No other explanation comes close to this one.

Faith based beliefs aren't explanations.
You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable

Since you obviously don't agree, then give me another explanation?

The premise of your post was that there is no explanation at this time. It is unknown.

The conversation ends there.

 

[Peter1000]

Well, to be honest, science can explain quite a bit more concerning the origins of the universe, then you are implying here. Sure, the origins of the universe are, for all intents and purposes, unknown. But it's not like we are drowning in total ignorance either.

But I'll agree to this premise, that for all practical intents and purposes, these things are unknown, yes.

I sense an argument from ignorance in the making...




No. You have a belief that posits such a being. A belief which you can not support or demonstrate.

When there is no explanation, then there is no explanation. And when something is unknown, your particular faith based beliefs do not gain any credibility.
See, here we have it... that argument from ignorance.

"Science doesn't know - therefor, my god of choice."




I have no beliefs about things that are completely unknown. Nore do I have any "preferences" or do I think that my "preference" has any relevance to what is actually true.

I'm quite comfortable saying that I don't know, when I don't know. I do not feel the need to just invent something, or just believe something, just to be able to pretend that I do know, while I actually don't.




Faith based beliefs aren't explanations.
You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable



The premise of your post was that there is no explanation at this time. It is unknown.

The conversation ends there.

My premise when I speak to atheists is that the only explanation they have for the universe coming into existence is: random chance.

I feel that you have a better understanding of the probability of a random chance happening, so you are smart and comfortable with, 'I don't know', which is a better position than arguing random chance.

OTOH, I feel that the incredible fine tuned constants of our universe and our fined tuned solar system and our fine tuned earth points a finger directly at a Superior Being.

The concept of a Superior Being with the scientific knowledge to fine tune the constants, is much superior to anything that has been presented to me thus far in my life.

Add that fine tuned constant logical thought to what it says in the bible, and add that to the testimony of men in our time that have (at least said they have) seen and received instruction from this Superior Being, it is more than enough for me to have at least a faith based assesment that there is a Superior Being.

I too am comfortable with my position.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My premise when I speak to atheists is that the only explanation they have for the universe coming into existence is: random chance.

As an atheist, I feel obligated to inform you that that is a false premise. And perhaps also that I am not aware of any atheists who make such an argument.

However, I AM aware of MANY theists who argue this strawman...

OTOH, I feel that the incredible fine tuned constants of our universe and our fined tuned solar system and our fine tuned earth points a finger directly at a Superior Being.

Your "feelings" will not convince me of the truth / accuracy of your claims.

The concept of a Superior Being with the scientific knowledge to fine tune the constants, is much superior to anything that has been presented to me thus far in my life.

I don't, because it is an indefensible claim.

Add that fine tuned constant logical thought to what it says in the bible, and add that to the testimony of men in our time that have (at least said they have) seen and received instruction from this Superior Being, it is more than enough for me to have at least a faith based assesment that there is a Superior Being.

Yes, humans have a tendency to be superstitious.

I too am comfortable with my position.

To bad that it's not a rational position.

 

[Peter1000]

As an atheist, I feel obligated to inform you that that is a false premise. And perhaps also that I am not aware of any atheists who make such an argument.

However, I AM aware of MANY theists who argue this strawman...




Your "feelings" will not convince me of the truth / accuracy of your claims.



I don't, because it is an indefensible claim.



Yes, humans have a tendency to be superstitious.



To bad that it's not a rational position.

Given the incredible fine tuned constants and the goldilocks solar system and earth we live in, it is the only rational position to take.

Give me another rantional position?