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.
I am not sure what you mean by simply they are what they are. We know that atoms are what they are but we don't leave it at that. We know that black holes are what they are but we don't leave it at that. Why do you assume that there is no reason for them to be what they are?No, they simply are as they are. You've presented no reason to think there was any possibility for them to be anything else.
Why? There conclusions on the unlikeliness of the universe is based on facts that are measured and observed. Evidence.....evidence....evidence. There conclusion that God doesn't exist is not based on evidence.You seemed to place so much on their conclusions that certain events are unlikely. But no weight on their conclusions that gods are imaginary. Seems a bit selective to me.
In my own thinking about design I would say that an elegant one planet universe or a universe where every planet is suitable for life would look more like design. If God created it all he didn't need a super old universe, supernovae to create heavy elements etc. Heck he didn't even need atoms to behave the way they do or gravity to work the way it does. He could have made life despite any change in the constants we now observe. I find it telling that we observe a universe where life arising by chance is possible with only natural processes. I guess it just doesn't look designed to me and even if it did there is no need for all of that on the god hypothesis.Why?
Sure, insert books in there and respond to the argument as if I had used books instead of pasta.I think that if you had used books it might be more in line with evolution. Pasta? Not near as interesting.
Yet, if God wished to have us understand that He created the universe and that we could have evidence that would show how unlikely it would happen by sheer chance this is a very good model to do so. While we don't know everything about the universe we do know that Earth is a pretty special place.In my own thinking about design I would say that an elegant one planet universe or a universe where every planet is suitable for life would look more like design. If God created it all he didn't need a super old universe, supernovae to create heavy elements etc. Heck he didn't even need atoms to behave the way they do or gravity to work the way it does. He could have made life despite any change in the constants we now observe. I find it telling that we observe a universe where life arising by chance is possible with only natural processes. I guess it just doesn't look designed to me and even if it did there is no need for all of that on the god hypothesis.
All creative endeavors of mankind stem from the very order within the universe. Pasta to books are reflections of man's thoughts and personal implements from a sense of intelligence that no other creature here on earth nor anywhere we know of in the universe exhibit. Which again fits best with theism rather than naturalism.Sure, insert books in there and respond to the argument as if I had used books instead of pasta.
Why? There conclusions on the unlikeliness of the universe is based on facts that are measured and observed.
I am not sure what you mean by simply they are what they are.
We know that atoms are what they are but we don't leave it at that. We know that black holes are what they are but we don't leave it at that.
Why do you assume that there is no reason for them to be what they are?
I am not a physicist. So I am not sure what you are saying.
it seems odd to me that in order to demonstrate himself cleary that he would choose a method that is compatible with naturalism and doesn't give any indication of his specific personhood.It seems to me that God making Earth a rare place, and its life including life that can ponder such wonders is a very good way to make His presence known
This doesn't a dress the fact that clearly the universe had to be even more fine tuned for books than for humans. Therfore the purpose of the universe must be to permit the advent of books.Pasta to books are reflections of man's thoughts and personal implements from a sense of intelligence that no other creature here on earth nor anywhere we know of in the universe exhibit. Which again fits best with theism rather than naturalism.
We live in the natural world, what else would there be?it seems odd to me that in order to demonstrate himself cleary that he would choose a method that is compatible with naturalism and doesn't give any indication of his specific personhood.
Explain how the universe had to be more fine tuned for books than for humans?This doesn't a dress the fact that clearly the universe had to be even more fine tuned for books than for humans. Therfore the purpose of the universe must be to permit the advent of books.
No, you asked me for MY work. That was in response to that.Not sure why you'd need to be a physicist to understand what I'm saying.
I don't understand what you mean by they are what they are? Trees are what they are, plants are what they are and on and on.What don't you understand?
You are begging the question.Yes, but those are cases where we can effectively research using actual science. Admitting we don't have answers in cases where we actually don't isn't a flaw - no matter how much it means your apologetics are now dead in the water.
To say they are what they are to me connotes no reason for them.I do what now?
I gave you Penrose remember.What facts? I thought you had given up looking for actual science which backed up this claim.
I don't see how this adresses the objection I made that the universe looks suspiciously like the kind of universe you would need in order to produce life by chance and that there is no reason for God to create the universe this way.We live in the natural world, what else would there be?
To get humans you need a certain set of values etc. But to get books you need those particular values plus even more specific conditions that would give rise to humans that would make books.Explain how the universe had to be more fine tuned for books than for humans?
You said that you didn't believe it was due to chance? Are you rethinking your point of view?I don't see how this adresses the objection I made that the universe looks suspiciously like the kind of universe you would need in order to produce life by chance and that there is no reason for God to create the universe this way.
I understand what you are saying but you are not giving any reasoning for it.To get humans you need a certain set of values etc. But to get books you need those particular values plus even more specific conditions that would give rise to humans that would make books.
I don't see how this question answers the objection I was proposing.You said that you didn't believe it was due to chance? Are you rethinking your point of view?
You are saying that it is obvious to you the the purpose of the universe was to give rise to intelligent life. Your evidence is the amount of apprentice fine tuning required for this to happen. By that logic it is clear that the purpose of the universe is actually books (or some other example) because for books to exist requires an even greater amount of fine tuning than intelligent life. This would undermine your claim that the purpose of the universe was intelligent life and it uses the exact same evidence.I understand what you are saying but you are not giving any reasoning for it.
The statement was in regard to the universe existing by chance, which you had already said you didn't think was feasible.I don't see how this question answers the objection I was proposing.
I don't know what you mean by apprentice fine tuning in the first place.You are saying that it is obvious to you the the purpose of the universe was to give rise to intelligent life. Your evidence is the amount of apprentice fine tuning required for this to happen. By that logic it is clear that the purpose of the universe is actually books (or some other example) because for books to exist requires an even greater amount of fine tuning than intelligent life. This would undermine your claim that the purpose of the universe was intelligent life and it uses the exact same evidence.
I understand the question I just don't see that it addresses the objection I was raising.The statement was in regard to the universe existing by chance, which you had already said you didn't think was feasible.
Oops that was supposed to be *apparent fine tuning.I don't know what you mean by apprentice fine tuning in the first place.Secondly, You are not showing how by that logic the purpose is actually books or whatever or how it requires even more fine tuning.
The objection you were presenting was the universe appearing to be by chance but that is not a reality of which you even observe.I understand the question I just don't see that it addresses the objection I was raising.
Oops that was supposed to be *apparent fine tuning.
What are you claiming is the plus Y? Why is there any plus Y?For intelligent life to exist the universe needs to be fine tuned to degree X. But to produce a specific life form with the intelligence, desire and opportunity to make books requires X plus Y. But X +Y just gets you potential books to actually get books you need fine tuning of X+Y+Z. Clearly such an unlikely combination can't have happened by chance and since the existence of books requires even more fine tuning than either intelligent life or people, the purpose of all those fine tuned parameters must be books.
When you point to fine tuning as proof that the universe was made with the purpose of creating humans this is the argument you are making. I am just extending it one step farther so that the flaw becomes more obvious.
I don't think the universe looks designed for us but that wasn't my point. The point was that the only kind of universe that could create life by chance just happens to be the kind of universe we observe. God didn't have to make it that way. You think it is a proof of his power that shows he made it but I see it as rather second rate. If God wanted to show that he made it a single planet that allows life in a brand new universe that would look like design.The objection you were presenting was the universe appearing to be by chance but that is not a reality of which you even observe.
What are you claiming is the plus Y? Why is there any plus y
Y could include any number of things like evolving a human that wants to share their thoughts, a group that learn to write, a group that both wants to and has the ability to writ all of these require more specific conditions that just an intelligent life form..ie more "fine tuning".
So are you claiming that we can't recognize design? What would the appearance of design then mean to you and what would it look like in your subjective opinion?
We understand that design has certain aspects that non-design doesn't. The universe has these certain aspects that design does.
Nope, it is your assertion based on your anti-religious belief.
What evidence do they use to refute the claim?
You: What about physicists that went from christian to atheist?
Me: It wasn't due to a lack of evidence or evidence against God.
Me: It wasn't due to a lack of evidence or evidence against God.
You: Says who? You?
Now this lead me to believe you thought they had evidence. If not, fine. But then what did you mean?
We don't need to KNOW the origins to know that they are fine tuned for life on earth.
There is no reason to believe at this time they couldn't be different.
It is, and it doesn't matter whether or not you agree. You might not like that fine tuning is evidence for a fine tuner but that doesn't make it less valid.
And like I've been trying to tell you all these pages is that Design is just as valid as any of the other explanations being worked on presently.
The fact that you don't like it really doesn't mean it isn't a valid conclusion.
Strange that the scientists who are working on this think it is a valid argument
and so much so that they are considering multiverses to explain it away.
I never claimed we know. I said that I think that design is the best explanation for the fine tuning we observe in the universe.
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?