Is there evidence of something beyond nature?

[Gracchus]

Oh, right! The creation was so perfectly designed that it could be damaged by a simple act, and conditions that must have been anticipated by the designer.

That was the plan, yes. Sin is very serious. If you read Revelations, it sort of gives away the ending.

If what you believe were true, I would have to believe that such a god was criminally insane. Of course if humans were created in his image and likeness, it would explain a lot. In such a system, the sins of reason and mercy would be the only honorable recourse.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That was the plan, yes. Sin is very serious. If you read Revelations, it sort of gives away the ending.

Setting up people to fail like that and punishing them for the failure that was purposely made to happen isn't exactly benevolent

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know I, at least, have.

That is good to know.

Appearances can be deceiving, and often are.

Agreed. However, there are appearances and then there are appearances. There is the appearance of design in a natural bridge and then there are appearances of design in watches, cars and computers. There are appearances of bunnies in clouds and there are appearances of patterns in toast but the appearance of design in the fine tuning of the values of the universe are based on the very real connection of what we recognize as design and is not based on something that appears as something without any real basis. Fine tuning appearing to be design is a very real and completely fact based scenario that the scientific world is spending a great deal of thought and time in explaining.

And is an incessantly repeated if otherwise unsupported claim.

The claim that the universe seems fine tuned for life and appears designed is supported by Scientists all over the world. Are you claiming they are wrong in their assessment and if you feel they are wrong on what evidence do you counter it.

If the universe was designed then everything in it would be part of the design. Thus, there would be nothing un-designed.

You have gone from the appearance of design to actual design which is not my claim. I am claiming that the appearance of design supports that design is a possible conclusion based on the data gathered from scientists on the values and precision of those values to allow life as we know it on earth.

So if you have a theistic worldview, then it is reasonable to suppose a creator god. This may not be circular reasoning, but it is certainly continuously cyclic.

Put that way I would agree. However, if one comes from a position of not knowing whether God exists to having evidence in their lives for God's existence and then adding the appearance of design in the universe as another piece of evidence of His existence is only a reasonable conclusion to come to and is not circular in nature but following evidence where it leads.

What evidence is there of alternate tuning? Maybe, since it does appear to follow mathematical laws, it has to have the constants that it does.
In other words, you have concluded based on your world-view that your world-view is correct.

The scientists that have researched this phenomena have concluded that the universe could have been different. It could have had multitudes of different values.

Some perhaps do. Some don't. Order can spontaneously arise without design. (e.g. Rivers sort sediments by size without purpose or design.)
Unless it were designed so as not to appear designed. And if it simply formed according to inevitable physical laws it might appear designed.
That is probably because you don't see or pay attention to the chaotic bits.

Do you really believe that astrophysicists/cosmologists/physicists ignore bits of information that may be chaotic to conclude that the universe has the appearance of design? Does this mean that you having the worldview that you do ignore what these scientists are claiming because it is not what you wish to believe? Are you not doing the same that you accuse the believer of?

It is not reasonable to conclude that. It is reasonable to keep an open mind until convincing evidence is found.

Convincing evidence of what? The convincing evidence has been found and now the scientific world is trying to explain it in naturalistic terms.

You started with a theistic world-view. From this you concluded that a theistic world-view was reasonable.

No, I didn't start that way. When I did have evidence in my life for God that created a theistic worldview. The fine tuning issue has confirmed that God left evidence of His creating the universe as claimed in Christian theology which in turn makes my conclusions that the appearance of design is actual reasonable. Now actual design is not my claim, my claim is that the appearance of design (which is supported by the evidence gathered by scientists) supports my conclusions that the design is actual. It does not provide actual proof of design but that design is a reasonable conclusion.

Assuming your world-view supports your world-view. That is nearly as "cohesive" as a tautology. You are simply saying your opinions support your opinions.

I disagree. See above.

 

[Loudmouth]

Too bad the more we learn about that "face image on Mars" the less it's looks like a face yet the more we learn about the living cell the strong the appearance of design even surpassing human design.

Yet more empty assertions.

The fine-tuned universe is not enough to create stars, galaxies, our solar system and physical life on it's own.

Then it isn't fine tuned.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would agree that the appearance of the face on Mars is not an actual face,

Then the appearance of design is not evidence of actual design.

Regardless, you have claimed that the fine tuning of such an element as the face is the same for life. Please elaborate as to what factors or values would be necessary for the face and how that equates to life on earth.

They require all of the same values. For example,

"Omega (&#937, also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed."
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the universe collapsed, no Face on Mars.

If the universe did not form stars, no heavier elements to make Mars from, no geology, and therefore, no Face on Mars.

Are you claiming that most scientists do not agree that the universe is fine tuned for life which gives the appearance of design?

When you are ready to be an honest person, let me know.

 

[EternalDragon]

Setting up people to fail like that and punishing them for the failure that was purposely made to happen isn't exactly benevolent

If that is what you believe happened then you don't understand anything.
Call on Jesus to save you and let the holy spirit guide you as you study the scriptures. The answers are there.

 

[EternalDragon]

If what you believe were true, I would have to believe that such a god was criminally insane. Of course if humans were created in his image and likeness, it would explain a lot. In such a system, the sins of reason and mercy would be the only honorable recourse.

I don't understand that reasoning at all. God did not commit any crime.

 

[Split Rock]

Are you looking at God's perfect creation or did something happen to damage it? You are looking at a damaged, cursed, sin ravaged creation. Take the blinders off already.

That was the plan, yes. Sin is very serious. If you read Revelations, it sort of gives away the ending.

Let's look at this great plan, shall we?

1. Create perfect world.
2. Create Perfect Adam.
3. Create perfect Eve from perfect Adam, knowing she will successfully tempt into sin.
4. Create Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
5. Plant Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil next to Adam.
6. Send Satan down to Adam and Eve so he can tempt them as a serpent, knowing he will succeed.
7. Tell Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, knowing already that he will do so.
8. Give perfect creation to Adam, knowing he will sin and give it all away to Satan.
9. Blame Adam for being tempted by the wife you created for him, who was tempted by the fallen angel you send down to her, to eat from the tree you planted so Adam would be tempted to sin.
10. Take thousands of years to "fix" the resulting perfect fallen creation.

Pretty pathetic plan, don't you think?

 

[EternalDragon]

Let's look at this great plan, shall we?

1. Create perfect world.
2. Create Perfect Adam.
3. Create perfect Eve from perfect Adam, knowing she will successfully tempt into sin.
4. Create Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
5. Plant Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil next to Adam.
6. Send Satan down to Adam and Eve so he can tempt them as a serpent, knowing he will succeed.
7. Tell Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, knowing already that he will do so.
8. Give perfect creation to Adam, knowing he will sin and give it all away to Satan.
9. Blame Adam for being tempted by the wife you created for him, who was tempted by the fallen angel you send down to her, to eat from the tree you planted so Adam would be tempted to sin.
10. Take thousands of years to "fix" the resulting perfect fallen creation.

Pretty pathetic plan, don't you think?

Yes, because what you stated is incorrect.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then the appearance of design is not evidence of actual design.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

They require all of the same values. For example,

"Omega (&#937, also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed."
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the universe collapsed, no Face on Mars.

If the universe did not form stars, no heavier elements to make Mars from, no geology, and therefore, no Face on Mars.

In that sense that they are part of the universe and the universe must be fine tuned to exist I agree.

When you are ready to be an honest person, let me know.

When you stop projecting your own dishonesty on others let me know.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes, because what you stated is incorrect.

Show me where I am incorrect. Please.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are comparing apples to oranges.

How so?

In that sense that they are part of the universe and the universe must be fine tuned to exist I agree.

Then the universe is as fine tuned for geology as it is biology. That makes it impossible to say that the universe is fine tuned specifically for life.

When you stop projecting your own dishonesty on others let me know.

Show me where I have been dishonest.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How so?

The appearance of the face is just seeing something that looks like something that in actuality is not.

Then the universe is as fine tuned for geology as it is biology. That makes it impossible to say that the universe is fine tuned specifically for life.

Really, perhaps you would like to debate Davies and others on their take that it is.

Show me where I have been dishonest.

There are numerous times you have twisted my words to fit your agenda.

 

[Loudmouth]

The appearance of the face is just seeing something that looks like something that in actuality is not.

The same applies for the appearance of design.

Really, perhaps you would like to debate Davies and others on their take that it is.

I certainly would like that debate. I have a strong suspicion that they would agree with me.

There are numerous times you have twisted my words to fit your agenda.

Give me an example.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The same applies for the appearance of design.

That is where you are wrong, there is data as evidence and scientific consensus that disagrees with you.

I certainly would like that debate. I have a strong suspicion that they would agree with me.

I hate to say that they already disagree with you.

Give me an example.

This is the first I came to:

LOUDMOUTH: You haven't shown that anything fine tuned the universe.
​

ME: Take it up with the astrophysicists and astrobiologists that claim it is.

Here you can clearly see that my answer was that the astrophysicists and astrobiologists say the universe is fine tuned. I must have missed the part where you said anything fine tuned it. So rather than correct me, because I had previously commented that the scientists did not believe God was involved, you responded:

ME: Take it up with the astrophysicists and astrobiologists that claim it is.
​

LOUDMOUTH: Show me a single astrophysicist or astrobiologist who is claiming to have evidence that a deity fine tuned our universe.

I responded:

Stop twisting my words. I didn't say that. If you continue to be dishonest there is no point in discussing this with you further. You will just continue to make up strawman arguments.

And this:

You: You claim that God fine tuned the universe.
​

Me: No, I claimed that the fine tuning of the universe supports God's existence. You continue to misquote me.

You: You claim that God is responsible for the beginning of the universe.
​

Me: No, I claim that the fact that the universe had a beginning supports what Scripture claims about the universe which in turn supports God's existence.

You: Where is the evidence that supports these claims?
​

Me: You are changing my claims, that is dishonest.

You: I never stated how many universes there are. You are claiming that there is just one universe. You need to support this claim.
​

Me: I never claimed there was just one. Again, you are making up claims and saying I made them. That is dishonest.


This is just a few posts in one thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is where you are wrong, there is data as evidence and scientific consensus that disagrees with you.

There is not a scientific consensus that the appearance of design is conclusive evidence for actual design.

I hate to say that they already disagree with you.

Then show me where they disagree. Show me where they state that the universe is fine tuned specifically for life, and for nothing else.

This is the first I came to:

LOUDMOUTH: You haven't shown that anything fine tuned the universe.
​

ME: Take it up with the astrophysicists and astrobiologists that claim it is.

You don't claim that God fine tuned the universe? That is what you are claiming, is it not?

let's start with that one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is not a scientific consensus that the appearance of design is conclusive evidence for actual design.

It is just not in you to be honest is it! I have clearly, repeatedly and completely stressed that the scientific consensus is on the appearance of design and not for actual design. You are very dishonest and so much so that it is impossible to carry on a conversation of any kind without you dishonestly twisting words to fit your agenda.

The sad thing is that everyone can see that you are doing this and they remain silent.

Then show me where they disagree. Show me where they state that the universe is fine tuned specifically for life, and for nothing else.

Ditto...not my claim.

You don't claim that God fine tuned the universe? That is what you are claiming, is it not?

My claim has been repeated and repeated and yet you continue to be dishonest and change my claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is just not in you to be honest is it! I have clearly, repeatedly and completely stressed that the scientific consensus is on the appearance of design and not for actual design.

And then you turn around and claim that actual design is supported by the appearance of design.

You are very dishonest and so much so that it is impossible to carry on a conversation of any kind without you dishonestly twisting words to fit your agenda.

I think everyone who has read these posts can see who is the dishonest one.

Ditto...not my claim.

LM: Then the universe is as fine tuned for geology as it is biology. That makes it impossible to say that the universe is fine tuned specifically for life.

OD: Really, perhaps you would like to debate Davies and others on their take that it is.


It is your claim. You are implying that scientists would disagree with my position that the universe is NOT specifically fine tuned for just life. You quite obviously imply that Davies and others do believe that the universe was fine tuned specifically for life. Who is being dishonest now?

My claim has been repeated and repeated and yet you continue to be dishonest and change my claims.

Then your claim is that God did not fine tune the universe?

 

[justlookinla]

It is just not in you to be honest is it! I have clearly, repeatedly and completely stressed that the scientific consensus is on the appearance of design and not for actual design. You are very dishonest and so much so that it is impossible to carry on a conversation of any kind without you dishonestly twisting words to fit your agenda.

The sad thing is that everyone can see that you are doing this and they remain silent.


Ditto...not my claim.




My claim has been repeated and repeated and yet you continue to be dishonest and change my claims.

Typical for them.

 

[EternalDragon]

Let's look at this great plan, shall we?

1. Create perfect world.
2. Create Perfect Adam.
3. Create perfect Eve from perfect Adam, knowing she will successfully tempt into sin.
4. Create Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
5. Plant Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil next to Adam.
6. Send Satan down to Adam and Eve so he can tempt them as a serpent, knowing he will succeed.
7. Tell Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, knowing already that he will do so.
8. Give perfect creation to Adam, knowing he will sin and give it all away to Satan.
9. Blame Adam for being tempted by the wife you created for him, who was tempted by the fallen angel you send down to her, to eat from the tree you planted so Adam would be tempted to sin.
10. Take thousands of years to "fix" the resulting perfect fallen creation.

Pretty pathetic plan, don't you think?

Of course Adam would sin. He had free will to do so. It is inevitable with free will and a fallen angel tempting people. It is not possible to create humans with free will and not have sin.

God did not send satan to do anything.

Of course we blame Adam and Eve. They are the ones who disobeyed
one simple rule.

Thousands of years is not an issue. That is what is required to collect God's word (bible), spread that gospel around the world and works into God's plan.

I suppose you are wiser than God and have a better plan? You wouldn't even be able to see what was going to happen. Just because you don't understand it fully doesn't mean it isn't a prefect plan.