Is there evidence of something beyond nature?

[Oncedeceived]

The so called lifeless stars and planets (if all planets are indeed lifeless which is not in evidence) is required for life on earth to exist. [/quote

No, they aren't. A planet in a galaxy 10 billion light years away is not needed for life on Earth.



"The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself."--Paul Davies, again.
Paul Davies: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it | Comment is free | The Guardian



Where does he say that life is tuned specifically for life?

Tell me if you are not trying to be dishonest, why you left out the part of my post about Davies? It clearly is dishonest and quote mining of my post, which said:

Paul Davies again: “Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Emphasis mine.

I want to clarify once again that Davies does not support ID or is he a proponent of it and he doesn't believe the universe was fixed by God. He however does believe that the universe if fine tuned for life.

 

[Loudmouth]

Tell me if you are not trying to be dishonest, why you left out the part of my post about Davies?

I've been down this road before. Just working my way ahead of traffic.

Next, you will be telling me that I am the one who disagrees with the scientists when in fact it is you who disagrees with the scientists.

I want to clarify once again that Davies does not support ID or is he a proponent of it and he doesn't believe the universe was fixed by God. He however does believe that the universe if fine tuned for life.

A universe would, by definition, be fine tuned for whatever you find in it. That's the whole point. You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I've been down this road before. Just working my way ahead of traffic.

Next, you will be telling me that I am the one who disagrees with the scientists when in fact it is you who disagrees with the scientists.



A universe would, by definition, be fine tuned for whatever you find in it. That's the whole point. You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.

So now you switch the focus of the post. Sinking fast Loudmouth.

 

[Loudmouth]

So now you switch the focus of the post. Sinking fast Loudmouth.

It has been the focus all along. I see that you can't counter my argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It has been the focus all along. I see that you can't counter my argument.

Why did you alter my post Loudmouth?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why did you alter my post Loudmouth?

And now for the usual diversions from Oncedeceived so she doesn't have to address the evidence . . .

 

[Oncedeceived]

And now for the usual diversions from Oncedeceived so she doesn't have to address the evidence . . .

Answer my question Loudmouth. Why did you alter my post?

 

[Loudmouth]

Answer my question Loudmouth. Why did you alter my post?

Already explained in previous post.

I've been down this road before. Just working my way ahead of traffic.

Next, you will be telling me that I am the one who disagrees with the scientists when in fact it is you who disagrees with the scientists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Already explained in previous post.

I've been down this road before. Just working my way ahead of traffic.

Next, you will be telling me that I am the one who disagrees with the scientists when in fact it is you who disagrees with the scientists.

That explains nothing. I think that it is obvious that you left off my disclaimer for Davies out of dishonesty. Do you not claim when others leave out the full quotes in context that they are being dishonest?

 

[EternalDragon]

I've been down this road before. Just working my way ahead of traffic.

Next, you will be telling me that I am the one who disagrees with the scientists when in fact it is you who disagrees with the scientists.

A universe would, by definition, be fine tuned for whatever you find in it. That's the whole point. You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.

What other universe and life are you comparing ours to?

 

[Loudmouth]

What other universe and life are you comparing ours to?

Any universe. No matter what constants a universe has, it will have features unique to that universe. Every universe will necessarily be fine tuned for what we find in that universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

That explains nothing. I think that it is obvious that you left off my disclaimer for Davies out of dishonesty. Do you not claim when others leave out the full quotes in context that they are being dishonest?

I'm sorry if you feel that I misrepresented your post. I fully apologize.

Now, can you address the topic?

 

[Loudmouth]

"I tried to explain to [William Lane Craig] that the Cosmological Constant, which is perhaps the most confusing finely tuned parameter we know of in the Universe, is fine tuned in a mathematical sense, compared to the naïve value we might expect on the basis of our current understanding of physical theory. While it is also true that if it were much larger, galaxies would not form, and therefore life forms that survive on solar power would not be likely to form with any significant abundance in the universe, I also explained that if the Cosmological Constant were in fact zero, which is what most theorists had predicted in advance, the conditions for life would be, if anything, more favorable, for the development and persistence of life in the cosmos."--Lawrence Krauss

Lawrence Krauss’ Response and Perspective | Reasonable Faith

 

[Oncedeceived]

Any universe. No matter what constants a universe has, it will have features unique to that universe. Every universe will necessarily be fine tuned for what we find in that universe.

Ok, since we don't have other universes to compare, and we don't know what features would be unique to that universe you are not arguing with empirical evidence against the fine tuning of this universe and the life on earth being permitted, but only casting speculation and assumptions. In fact, scientists believe that the values of this universe could be different but the chance of life being part of that would close to zero if not zero.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"I tried to explain to [William Lane Craig] that the Cosmological Constant, which is perhaps the most confusing finely tuned parameter we know of in the Universe, is fine tuned in a mathematical sense, compared to the naïve value we might expect on the basis of our current understanding of physical theory. While it is also true that if it were much larger, galaxies would not form, and therefore life forms that survive on solar power would not be likely to form with any significant abundance in the universe, I also explained that if the Cosmological Constant were in fact zero, which is what most theorists had predicted in advance, the conditions for life would be, if anything, more favorable, for the development and persistence of life in the cosmos."--Lawrence Krauss

Lawrence Krauss’ Response and Perspective | Reasonable Faith

Lawrence Krauss thinks nothing is something. His ideas have some real problems in reality.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/lawrence-krauss-response-and-perspective#ixzz3FOeSKqCJ

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm sorry if you feel that I misrepresented your post. I fully apologize.

Now, can you address the topic?

Thank you. Your apology is accepted.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lawrence Krauss thinks nothing is something. His ideas have some real problems in reality.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/lawrence-krauss-response-and-perspective#ixzz3FOeSKqCJ

You disagree with the scientists?

What about his claim with respect to the cosmological constant?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, since we don't have other universes to compare, and we don't know what features would be unique to that universe you are not arguing with empirical evidence against the fine tuning of this universe and the life on earth being permitted, but only casting speculation and assumptions. In fact, scientists believe that the values of this universe could be different but the chance of life being part of that would close to zero if not zero.

I don't need to compare. By their very nature, different constants will result in different universes. Or are you claiming that every universe will be like ours no matter what the constants are? Also, you keep ignoring the fact that fine tuning does not refer to life. Fine tuning, as a general term, means focusing in on a set number of values for an intended outcome. This can be anything, including universes devoid of life.

If universes would be different with different constants as you suggest, then by definition they have features that are found in one but not another. Therefore, they have unique features. By making the additional assumption that the universe was intended to be that way, it leads necessarily to the conclusion that the universe is fine tuned no matter what the universe is like.

 

[Gracchus]

Lawrence Krauss thinks nothing is something. His ideas have some real problems in reality.

As I understand it, his thought is more along the lines of, 'nothing' does not exist. There is no such thing as 'empty space'.

Did you know that black holes might 'bounce' at the instant they collapse? But because of time dilation due to the immense gravity, it may be a very long time from our point of view before we notice it.

 

[Loudmouth]

"The universe is very large, and perhaps infinite, so it should be no surprise that, among the enormous number of planets that may support only unintelligent life and the still vaster number that cannot support life at all, there is some tiny fraction on which there are living beings who are capable of thinking about the universe, as we are doing here. A journalist who has been assigned to interview lottery winners may come to feel that some special providence has been at work on their behalf, but he should keep in mind the much larger number of lottery players whom he is not interviewing because they haven't won anything. Thus, to judge whether our lives show evidence for a benevolent designer, we have not only to ask whether life is better than would be expected in any case from what we know about natural selection, but we need also to take into account the bias introduced by the fact that it is we who are thinking about the problem."--Steven Weinberg, "A Designer Universe?"
A Designer Universe?