Evidence says there is one, as there is no evidence that provides that there are any others. However, there could possibly be others but there is nothing that points to there being others.
Upvote
0
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.
Evidence says there is one, as there is no evidence that provides that there are any others. However, there could possibly be others but there is nothing that points to there being others.Now that's not quite true, is it? What scientific techniques could one employ to determine that there are no others? The truth is that evidence says there is at least one.
Ok, so you don't believe the universe is fine tuned but those who actually know the universe is 99% plasma still believe it is fine tuned. Why do you suppose they do?
I am always arguing for the Biblical God. That being said, I will be arguing for God as an Intelligent Being. Intelligence being behind everything in existence.This is actually fairly important. Of you are arguing for some undefined creative force and giving it the label "God" then we have a very different set of premeses than if you are arguing that the specific deity Yaweh did it. Which one did you want to go with?
yes.I think you are saying we look at the data and compare the explanatory models. Is that right?
Correct.If you are arguing for a undefined creative force then we would have no reason to expect it to grate a universe of any kind so we can't say that fine tuning is probable or improbable. If you are arguing specifically for Yaweh then you are assuming that what the Bible says about his existence and his intent to create is correct and that has yet to be demonstrated.
Future models?This is just plain false. Under the multiverse hypothesis or the mega verse hypothesis, the fine tubing we observe has a probability approaching 1.0 and this doesn't even take into account future possible models.
What is the evidence that there is only one, rather than evidence that there is at least one?Evidence says there is one, as there is no evidence that provides that there are any others. However, there could possibly be others but there is nothing that points to there being others.
Now that's not quite true, is it? What scientific techniques could one employ to determine that there are no others? The truth is that evidence says there is at least one.
What is the evidence that there is only one, rather than evidence that there is at least one?
Future models?
I didn't say that the evidence said only one. I said the evidence is for one.What is the evidence that there is only one, rather than evidence that there is at least one?
I didn't say that the evidence said only one. I said the evidence is for one.
We don't know everything that is for certain, but we do know quite a bit. And with what we know, we wouldn't be here if it were not for the precise structure of the parameters of the universe. Which I feel is one of the best evidences there is for the God of the Bible.Yes, future, because they know all their present ones don't work. But of course always insist it will all be worked out in some future model that they have no clue as to what it will be, but of course it will support their current models
We don't know everything that is for certain, but we do know quite a bit. And with what we know, we wouldn't be here if it were not for the precise structure of the parameters of the universe. Which I feel is one of the best evidences there is for the God of the Bible.
So moving forward we are talking about an unknown intelligent something that created the uinverse? Meaning the only two properties we know beyond that it exists in some sense, are that this thing is intelligent (how do we define this?) and can create universes?I am always arguing for the Biblical God. That being said, I will be arguing for God as an Intelligent Being. Intelligence being behind everything in existence.
Are you granting my objection to premise 1?Correct
I though you might go there. ..Future models?
Thanks for chiming inAgreed, there is nothing random at all in how the universe operates. Since God is energy and everything comes from energy, contains energy and returns to energy, it's rather self-evident. God is Mind, Knowledge, Wisdom, and without that energy coursing through our brains and the entire universe - there would be no thought. It's knowledge that is the image we were created in. But one must first understand the things that are made to understand the invisible aspects of God. Romans 1:20
I believe that when God said the heavens declare His glory, He meant it. I believe that we get the ability to understand the universe because we think His thought after Him.Agreed, there is nothing random at all in how the universe operates. Since God is energy and everything comes from energy, contains energy and returns to energy, it's rather self-evident. God is Mind, Knowledge, Wisdom, and without that energy coursing through our brains and the entire universe - there would be no thought. It's knowledge that is the image we were created in. But one must first understand the things that are made to understand the invisible aspects of God. Romans 1:20
Thanks for chiming in
That said it seems like your post is full of unjustified assertions that even were they the case are off topic. Or maybe I missed your list completely (i have been known to do this) how does what you are saying relate to the debate we are having?
I believe that when God said the heavens declare His glory, He meant it. I believe that we get the ability to understand the universe because we think His thought after Him.
I know of no evidence that implies more than one. What is quite certain is that the evidence is that there is at least one. If you wish to restrict that merely to "one" you need to show evidence that excludes, for example, "two".Can it even be said that the evidence might even imply more than one?
Are you denying that energy is what made everything, is in everything and that everything returns to energy? Are you denying that only energy can neither be created nor destroyed - so must always have existed? Are you denying that your brain does not work without energy - after all, your heart can stop beating, but you are not dead until all electrical activity in your brain stops. Is there something I said that you specifically object to as unscientific?
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?