Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How do you know? All we can say from that is that life like ours wouldn't exist and so what? That argument already supposes that the Universe has a purpose and that purpose is to sustain our type of life.If the charge between electrons and protons were not exactly opposite, the universe could have been created in exactly the same way yet would be devoid of life.
If the charges between a proton and an electron were not exactly the same all the matter in the universe would repel all the other matter, and so the universe would expand, just as it is believed to do. The trouble with that idea is that yes, the universe would expand, but -- short of extraordinary special dispensations - it would not do anything else. Even so small a difference in electric charge would be enough to overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together; and so we should have no planets, no stars, no galaxies.How do you know? All we can say from that is that life like ours wouldn't exist and so what? That argument already supposes that the Uinverse has a purpose and that purpose is to sustain our type of life.
Then it is akin to religion, it can't be proven or disproven so one has only faith to guide his way.Which is why that is the realm of philosophy and not science. It can't be tested.
I feel like I've tested it. I was one way before, now I'm another way now.Then it is akin to religion, it can't be proven or disproven so one has only faith to guide his way.
Again so what? The fact that you exist isn't proof that the Universe or some other force conspired for you to exist. Those are two different arguments. I agree that a change in the election mass means we wouldn't be here. I don't see that as evidence of a universe created for the purpose of sustaining us. It's perfectly reasonable for our existence and for life itself to be happenstance.If the charges between a proton and an electron were not exactly the same all the matter in the universe would repel all the other matter, and so the universe would expand, just as it is believed to do. The trouble with that idea is that yes, the universe would expand, but -- short of extraordinary special dispensations - it would not do anything else. Even so small a difference in electric charge would be enough to overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together; and so we should have no planets, no stars, no galaxies.
The same for the sizes of the particles and the distance between the particles. If they were slightly different the universe could have been created in the exact same way but would be devoid of life. The structure of matter and energy are literally tuned for life.
Maybe they worked through the questions and realized there is insufficient information to do anything more than speculate, imagine, and wish.That's not what I said. What I said is that I see undeserved intellectual superiority from atheists who think that just because they don't believe in anything more than a material existence, they must be more intelligent than those that don't. What I see is an intellectual dead end for not engaging in working through the origin questions.
Which is why that is the realm of philosophy and not science. It can't be tested.
Huh?I feel like I've tested it. I was one way before, now I'm another way now.
Feel free to share.That would require you to dismiss a lot of data and evidence.
It takes an incredible something but I put my money on time and space. I'd say given infinite space and time anything is possible. I see no evidence that the universe has any goal in mind.You don't think it takes incredible intelligence to create a universe that through the laws of nature becomes self aware?
The structure of matter and energy is tuned for life. Make any slight change and it would not be so.Again so what? The fact that you exist isn't proof that the Universe or some other force conspired for you to exist. Those are two different arguments. I agree that a change in the election mass means we wouldn't be here. I don't see that as evidence of a universe created for the purpose of sustaining us. It's perfectly reasonable for our existence and for life itself to be happenstance.
I have. You dismissed it all.Feel free to share.
First of all space and time are not infinite. Secondly you know what something is by how it ends. In this case, the universe is an intelligence creating machine. Which that potential existed before space and time were created.It takes an incredible something but I put my money on time and space. I'd say given infinite space and time anything is possible. I see no evidence that the universe has any goal in mind.
That's not right. You haven't proven that matter and energy were tuned for life. That implies intent and foresight which you have presented no evidence of. We don't even know how life began so we can't say for sure that it couldn't exist with other physics. All we can say is that it wouldn't look like ours. Furthermore the Universe can sustain life now. There were points in time previously and points in time predicated in the future where it couldn't and won't be able to sustain our type of life.The structure of matter and energy is tuned for life. Make any slight change and it would not be so.
I literally just did. The charge, size and distance of the particles that make up an atom are tuned for life. Change any of it and the universe could have been created the exact same way but would be lifeless. I even gave you a link from a Nobel Laureate who said the exact same thing.That's not right. You haven't proven that matter and energy were tuned for life. That implies intent and foresight which you have presented no evidence of. We don't even know how life began so we can't say for sure that it couldn't exist with other physics. All we can say is that it wouldn't look like ours. Furthermore the Universe can sustain life now. There were points in time previously and points in time predicated in the future where it couldn't and won't be able to sustain our type of life.
Wasn't the Universe lifeless for a great portion of its existence so far? At least as far as we know? And isn't it predicted to be lifeless for a lot longer than it's predicted to sustain life? To me that doesn't suggest a Universe that was created for the purpose of sustaining life. Again, the fact that life exists, currently, isn't evidence that the Universe was created to sustain it.I literally just did. The charge, size and distance of the particles that make up an atom are tuned for life. Change any of it and the universe could have been created the exact same way but would be lifeless. I even gave you a link from a Nobel Laureate who said the exact same thing.
Do you have a link from a subject matter authority that refutes that?
Yes, the universe probably was lifeless at least until the first waves of stars died out and were spread like seeds in the wind. So what? You aren't building a house without laying out the foundation first.Wasn't the Universe lifeless for a great portion of its existence so far? At least as far as we know?
Sure, so what? You don't build a factory capable of producing AI droids to crush gravel. By any objective measure if you want to find out what the purpose of something is you look at the most complex thing it produced, not the least complex thing that it produced.And isn't it predicted to be lifeless for a lot longer than it's predicted to sustain life?
It is if the universe was created by intelligence to create intelligence. Which is the nature of intelligence. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like consciousness without form would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for consciousness without form to do than to create a universe where beings with form can create smart things too.To me that doesn't suggest a Universe that was created for the purpose of sustaining life.
It is if it is so implausible that it could only have been done intentionally. Consider a top heavy vase sitting on a table next to a busy intersection. At the end of the day you would expect to find the vase either exactly where it was or on its side, possibly on the floor. But you would't expect to find it perched with half the vase on the table and half of the vase off of the table. If you found the vase like that, you would conclude that someone set it there. That's our universe.Again, the fact that life exists, currently, isn't evidence that the Universe was created to sustain it.
Your religion is your science. You're stuck somewhere between the Genesis fairy tale for children and evolution.There's no religion in my science. Just because you say there is doesn't make it so.
That's a long way from saying that religion contributed something outside of space and time.I think a better way of saying that is what exists outside of space and time is undefined.
Your religion is your science. You're stuck somewhere between the Genesis fairy tale for children and evolution.
Your like FF, you don't add much to these conversations.That's a long way from saying that religion contributed something outside of space and time.
That's o.k!
Is it a house though? That's a nice metaphor but is it a good description of reality? At some point you finish building the house and what you're left with is a structure fit for living in. The law of entropy suggest a different fate for our Universe.Yes, the universe probably was lifeless at least until the first waves of stars died out and were spread like seeds in the wind. So what? You aren't building a house without laying out the foundation first.
You're trying to connect facts to separate and irrelevant points. It's true our type of life requires certain conditions. That doesn't mean these conditions were engineered to produce our type of life.For some light reading, research how elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are produced by stars and which elements are needed for life.
Your sloppy metaphor is actually a point in my favor. You build a factory to produce a certain product. If your factory spends the vast majority of its time not making that product then it's a poorly designed factory. The argument that our Universe is finely tuned for life is refuted by the fact that it actually isn't. You could tune it a lot better than it actually is. You could tune it so life begins earlier or so that space doesn't keep expanding until light can't cross the distance between stars and atoms are eventually torn apart. The argument that all this was created to produce life when it will only produce life for a brief moment in its existence is irrational.Sure, so what? You don't build a factory capable of producing AI droids to crush gravel. By any objective measure if you want to find out what the purpose of something is you look at the most complex thing it produced, not the least complex thing that it produced.
Logic doesn't take leaps. It procedes step by step. If you can't tell me how you got from one step to the next that isn't logic or rationality, that's guess work.It is if the universe was created by intelligence to create intelligence. Which is the nature of intelligence. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like consciousness without form would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for consciousness without form to do than to create a universe where beings with form can create smart things too.
I don't even know where to begin with this convulted mess.It is if it is so implausible that it could only have been done intentionally. Consider a top heavy vase sitting on a table next to a busy intersection. At the end of the day you would expect to find the vase either exactly where it was or on its side, possibly on the floor. But you would't expect to find it perched with half the vase on the table and half of the vase off of the table. If you found the vase like that, you would conclude that someone set it there. That's our universe.
