How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[Hollie]

Ah, the "finely tuned universe". Really boss, why could you not have been honest and just admitted that you're shilling for your Jehovah's Witness cult.

Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. This is not disputable. Even the atheist astrophysicist is perplexed by this. It is why they have now developed this "multi-verse" theory, in order to explain a finely tuned universe.

The force of gravity must be precisely as it is or the universe would not exist. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Now any objective person knows that Stephen Hawking is not Jehovah's Witness, he's not even religious.

Actually, your baseless claim: "Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned." is simply nonsense.

I understand you're desperate for some measure of credibility to prop up your claims to gawds and spirit realms, but your desperation isn't served by inventing nonsensical claims wherein you presume to impose those nonsensical claims on the science community.

Really, boss, you're getting quite hysterical. The "finely tuned universe" meme is right out of the Jehovah's Witness playbook.

 

[Hollie]

This is brilliant.

We exist in a physical state of reality that shouldn't logically exist. The cosmological constant, if any aspect were off by .0000000000001 the universe would have no stars or planets, and certainly, no life. It's not only finely tuned, it is the epitome of finely tuned. We see people just casually dismiss this as "oh, it just so happens..." That's an illogical answer.

There is no such thing as universal reality. We are all experiencing the same dimension of time together but our realities are individual. We can experience the same exact event standing beside each other holding hands and our perception of that moment may be entirely different.

We exist in a superposition, multiple things at once. Individuals. Facets of a whole. Spirit. Animal. Light. Matter. Cells of the bio-sphere (Gaia). Hosts of a trillion cells.

Regarding Ed Cayce, he brings another analogy to mind. We think of our brains as the source of ideas and concepts. Brains generate consciousness? Perhaps a better analogy is to think of a brain as a type of radio which condenses consciousness from without. Ed Cayce had a powerful antennae. Or perhaps there are orders of consciousness. Cayce was said to be able to access universal consciousness.

It makes me think of bees, and how they can all decide something at the same time. They'll lose their hive and all swarm on a tree branch. Suddenly, a message is received and all receive it instantaneously (or more instantaneously than can be explained by physical transference). They exist as if in a state of quantum entanglement.

"If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there." (Psalm 139:8)

Good gawd, man. A tinfoil hat is not an antennae.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Ah, the "finely tuned universe". Really boss, why could you not have been honest and just admitted that you're shilling for your Jehovah's Witness cult.

Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. This is not disputable. Even the atheist astrophysicist is perplexed by this. It is why they have now developed this "multi-verse" theory, in order to explain a finely tuned universe.

The force of gravity must be precisely as it is or the universe would not exist. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Now any objective person knows that Stephen Hawking is not Jehovah's Witness, he's not even religious.

Actually, your baseless claim: "Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned." is simply nonsense.

can you quote one who says it isn't?.......

 

[Boss]

Really, boss, you're getting quite hysterical. The "finely tuned universe" meme is right out of the Jehovah's Witness playbook.

Well I just presented it to you from Stephen Hawking who isn't JW, as far as I am aware.

 

[Inevitable]

This is incorrect. Things effect us all the time without our perception. I've presented examples of this but you then want to abandon the definition of perception and make your own apply.

Your examples were poor as I explained. People can perceive that they are sick. Just because they didn't completely understand micro organisms doesn't mean they didn't perceive them. I also stated that dictionary definitions only explain how the weird is generally used. Are you saying you can't perceive betting sick unless you draw blood and look at it under a microscope? Because if that's the case, I must be some super intelligent being. I was sick this morning, and I never looked at my blood under the microscope. Hum, how did I know I was sick. I even knew what I was sick with. It was a migraine. I perceived constructing blood vessels in my head but I didn't see touch, taste, smell, or hear them.

Dictionaries define the meaning of words we use to communicate.

No they don't. It's a lexicon. People define the meaning of words and write a dictionary to tell others how the words are used.

When someone just openly rejects the concept of language and claims words are only defined generally, we can pretty much establish this person can't be communicated with, they have mental retardation issues.

I didn't reject anything. I simply said that the dictionary is a tool to understand the meaning of a word. It isn't the ultimate in all matters. Think about it. Do you know when you are sick? And if so, how? Is it because you see your blood under a microscope?

I've never said that something has to be seen to be perceived. It does have to be realized through our senses. That's the definition. That's what the word means.

You can't touch hunger, you can't see it, hear it, taste it, or smell it. So do people just not perceive hunger? If it had to be something you only get through the five senses clearly we don't perceive hunger, enjoyment, love, and other such things because they cannot be perceived by the five senses.

You are just going to ignore this and insist I'm retarded because it really points out how you are wrong. Save face at all costs.

Hunger falls under our sense of touch. You become hungry and your stomach growls, you feel this, it gives you the perception you are hungry.

I've never touched hunger. I've felt it, but feeling isn't touch. Touch is how you tell if something is hot

Love is something beyond our ability to perceive.

Not beyond my perception.

It is an intuition based on our emotions.

Its not instituted. If so what institutes it?

You cannot physically prove someone loves you or that you love somebody, or how much love exists or doesn't exist. It's an emotional speculation. Speculation is never perception. Words have meanings. Non-retards understand this.

I didn't say I could prove it. I can perceive it though. Perception isn't proof kiddo.

Even retards understand the difference between proof and perception.

 

[Inevitable]

Well I just presented it to you from Stephen Hawking who isn't JW, as far as I am aware.

I wasn't aware Stephen Hawking believed in Astral projection,
Transcendental meditation, ESP and telepathy, Ghost stories, and other unexplained supernatural phenomenon.
Spells, curses and black magic.

It's like saying he believes in hobgoblins and unicorns.

 

[Boss]

Your examples were poor as I explained. People can perceive that they are sick. Just because they didn't completely understand micro organisms doesn't mean they didn't perceive them. I also stated that dictionary definitions only explain how the weird is generally used. Are you saying you can't perceive betting sick unless you draw blood and look at it under a microscope? Because if that's the case, I must be some super intelligent being. I was sick this morning, and I never looked at my blood under the microscope. Hum, how did I know I was sick. I even knew what I was sick with. It was a migraine. I perceived constructing blood vessels in my head but I didn't see touch, taste, smell, or hear them.

I'm still lost as to what kind of point you hope to make. The only point I see is that you believe someone granted you permission to define and redefine words as you please. The problem with that concept is communicating with other intelligent beings. In order to do that, we have to all be using the same definitions.

I've never said that something has to be seen to be perceived. It does have to be realized through our senses. That's the definition. That's what the word means.

You can't touch hunger, you can't see it, hear it, taste it, or smell it. So do people just not perceive hunger?

I've already told you, it falls under sense of touch. You feel hunger pains. That's our perception of hunger. Of course, hunger is not pain, and hunger pains are only a symptom of what is actually happening. Your body is not obtaining the nutritional resources to thrive as an organism. Interestingly enough, your hunger pains will subside after several days of hunger and you have no perception your body is starving. Dehydration is closely associated to hunger and people often become dehydrated without any perception of it whatsoever.

I've never touched hunger. I've felt it, but feeling isn't touch. Touch is how you tell if something is hot...

Do you not understand how treacherously stupid you sound?

Love is something beyond our ability to perceive.

Not beyond my perception.

It is an intuition based on our emotions.

Its not instituted. If so what institutes it?

Are you drunk or fucked up on meth? Or is this just normal retard thinking for you?

I didn't say "institute" regarding anything. Love is an emotional intuition, not a perception. Again, this stems back to your stubborn refusal to accept the definition of words and insist on creating your own as you go.

intuition: A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

Now we can perceive love in a cartoon character, they have little hearts floating out of their head and their eyes turn into hearts. We don't have this perception in real life, at least, most of us don't... you may be different.

I didn't say I could prove it. I can perceive it though. Perception isn't proof kiddo.
Even retards understand the difference between proof and perception.

No, you really can't perceive it. You can have intuition of it and believe you perceive it. Lots of people do this every day, it's why there is so much heartbreak.

And why can't perception be proof? If dictionaries are only general ideas of words and we can redefine them to mean whatever we please. then I can make perception mean proof. (tongue in cheek, of course.)

Our prevailing perceptions have often caused us to balk at scientific evidence. For instance, Aristotle's perception of gravity and levity was the prevailing "science" for over 2,000 years. Our perceptions told us that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. But Calculus was beyond our perception at the time, it had not yet been invented by Newton and there wasn't Newtonian physics and Laws of Motion. .....Pay close attention because I know you're retarded.... that doesn't mean that Newtonian physics weren't happening in the universe around us before he discovered it. Newton's discoveries opened a new perspective, and we gained a new perception.

 

[Hollie]

Ah, the "finely tuned universe". Really boss, why could you not have been honest and just admitted that you're shilling for your Jehovah's Witness cult.

Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. This is not disputable. Even the atheist astrophysicist is perplexed by this. It is why they have now developed this "multi-verse" theory, in order to explain a finely tuned universe.

The force of gravity must be precisely as it is or the universe would not exist. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

Now any objective person knows that Stephen Hawking is not Jehovah's Witness, he's not even religious.

Actually, your baseless claim: "Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned." is simply nonsense.

can you quote one who says it isn't?.......

I was expecting that you could support the nonsensical Boss'ism wherein he claimed: "Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned.".

I haven't seen such statements. This is the danger you YEC'ists and fundamentalist cranks create for yourselves. You make statements that are false in the hope it will lend weight to your fears, superstitions and magical spirit realms.

 

[Boss]

Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. ~Boss

Find one who disputes it.

 

[Hollie]

Really, boss, you're getting quite hysterical. The "finely tuned universe" meme is right out of the Jehovah's Witness playbook.

Well I just presented it to you from Stephen Hawking who isn't JW, as far as I am aware.

You make the mistake of the typical religious zealot in that you selectively cut and paste edited and parsed snippets of an alleged statement and then present that as suggesting it means what you want it to mean.

So, I'm waiting for your comprehensive list of all astrophysicists who believe in your "finely tuned universe".

As you stated: "Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned."

I accept such a statement as false, a lie, and a desperate claim that is unsupportable. However, you can prove you're not a pompous blowhard with a comprehensive list of all the astrophysicists who believe as you claim they do.

Where's your list?

 

[Hollie]

Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. ~Boss

Find one who disputes it.

You're desperate, right? You know your statement is false and a bald faced lie.

Give us a list of every astrophysicist who believes as you say.

It's your claim. You support it.

 

[Boss]

Really, boss, you're getting quite hysterical. The "finely tuned universe" meme is right out of the Jehovah's Witness playbook.

Well I just presented it to you from Stephen Hawking who isn't JW, as far as I am aware.

You make the mistake of the typical religious zealot in that you selectively cut and paste edited and parsed snippets of an alleged statement and then present that as suggesting it means what you want it to mean.

So, I'm waiting for your comprehensive list of all astrophysicists who believe in your "finely tuned universe".

As you stated: "Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned."

I accept such a statement as false, a lie, and a desperate claim that is unsupportable. However, you can prove you're not a pompous blowhard with a comprehensive list of all the astrophysicists who believe as you claim they do.

Where's your list?

I don't need a list, I made a definitive statement. ALL astrophysicists on the planet agree the universe is finely tuned. You need one who claims otherwise, and I'm not seeing that.

If you want to prove my statement wrong, you need to post the name of an astrophysicist who is duly recognized as such in his field, and who also claims the universe is not finely tuned.

Squawk all you like... screech and scream... be an absolute unhinged bitch about it! Them's the facts.

 

[Hollie]

Really, boss, you're getting quite hysterical. The "finely tuned universe" meme is right out of the Jehovah's Witness playbook.

Well I just presented it to you from Stephen Hawking who isn't JW, as far as I am aware.

You make the mistake of the typical religious zealot in that you selectively cut and paste edited and parsed snippets of an alleged statement and then present that as suggesting it means what you want it to mean.

So, I'm waiting for your comprehensive list of all astrophysicists who believe in your "finely tuned universe".

As you stated: "Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned."

I accept such a statement as false, a lie, and a desperate claim that is unsupportable. However, you can prove you're not a pompous blowhard with a comprehensive list of all the astrophysicists who believe as you claim they do.

Where's your list?

I don't need a list, I made a definitive statement. ALL astrophysicists on the planet agree the universe is finely tuned. You need one who claims otherwise, and I'm not seeing that.

If you want to prove my statement wrong, you need to post the name of an astrophysicist who is duly recognized as such in his field, and who also claims the universe is not finely tuned.

Squawk all you like... screech and scream... be an absolute unhinged bitch about it! Them's the facts.

You make many statements that are false and unsupported.

Your "because I say so" nonsense is unsupportable.

Support your nonsense claim that "ALL astrophysicists on the planet agree the universe is finely tuned".

You must have something, right? Isn't there a governing body of astrophysicists that grants you exclusive rights to speak on behalf of all astrophysicists?

BTW, bossy. all astrophysicists agree that your specific statement is false and utter nonsense.

If you want to prove my statement wrong, you need to post the name of an astrophysicist who is duly recognized as such in his field, and who disputes that.

See how that works?

 

[PostmodernProph]

in other words, she doesn't know what astrophysicists think and doesn't know where to look to find out.......

 

[Hollie]

in other words, she doesn't know what astrophysicists think and doesn't know where to look to find out.......

In reality, you don't understand the concept of burden of proof.

 

[Boss]

In reality, you don't understand the concept of burden of proof.

Reality? You mean the perceptions we have of 4% of the universe? Largely based on math and physics which are finely tuned mechanisms making the whole thing work, cosmological constants which apply to everything from the most distant galaxies to genetic reproduction of life.

A reality we experience through our five senses, none of which we are superior at among the species on our own planet. The most important sense we have is sight, it is where observation comes from and this often confirms discovery. Sight is simply our perception of something we call "light" reflecting off objects and appearing as particles when observed or waves when not. Spooky!

But the real kicker is this... You can't prove reality exists. You can only prove that it once existed.

 

[Inevitable]

Your examples were poor as I explained. People can perceive that they are sick. Just because they didn't completely understand micro organisms doesn't mean they didn't perceive them. I also stated that dictionary definitions only explain how the weird is generally used. Are you saying you can't perceive betting sick unless you draw blood and look at it under a microscope? Because if that's the case, I must be some super intelligent being. I was sick this morning, and I never looked at my blood under the microscope. Hum, how did I know I was sick. I even knew what I was sick with. It was a migraine. I perceived constructing blood vessels in my head but I didn't see touch, taste, smell, or hear them.

I'm still lost as to what kind of point you hope to make. The only point I see is that you believe someone granted you permission to define and redefine words as you please. The problem with that concept is communicating with other intelligent beings. In order to do that, we have to all be using the same definitions.

I've never said that something has to be seen to be perceived. It does have to be realized through our senses. That's the definition. That's what the word means.

You can't touch hunger, you can't see it, hear it, taste it, or smell it. So do people just not perceive hunger?

I've already told you, it falls under sense of touch. You feel hunger pains. That's our perception of hunger. Of course, hunger is not pain, and hunger pains are only a symptom of what is actually happening. Your body is not obtaining the nutritional resources to thrive as an organism. Interestingly enough, your hunger pains will subside after several days of hunger and you have no perception your body is starving. Dehydration is closely associated to hunger and people often become dehydrated without any perception of it whatsoever.

I've never touched hunger. I've felt it, but feeling isn't touch. Touch is how you tell if something is hot...

Do you not understand how treacherously stupid you sound?

Love is something beyond our ability to perceive.

Not beyond my perception.

It is an intuition based on our emotions.

Its not instituted. If so what institutes it?

Are you drunk or fucked up on meth? Or is this just normal retard thinking for you?

I didn't say "institute" regarding anything. Love is an emotional intuition, not a perception. Again, this stems back to your stubborn refusal to accept the definition of words and insist on creating your own as you go.

intuition: A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

Now we can perceive love in a cartoon character, they have little hearts floating out of their head and their eyes turn into hearts. We don't have this perception in real life, at least, most of us don't... you may be different.

I didn't say I could prove it. I can perceive it though. Perception isn't proof kiddo.
Even retards understand the difference between proof and perception.

No, you really can't perceive it. You can have intuition of it and believe you perceive it. Lots of people do this every day, it's why there is so much heartbreak.

And why can't perception be proof? If dictionaries are only general ideas of words and we can redefine them to mean whatever we please. then I can make perception mean proof. (tongue in cheek, of course.)

Our prevailing perceptions have often caused us to balk at scientific evidence. For instance, Aristotle's perception of gravity and levity was the prevailing "science" for over 2,000 years. Our perceptions told us that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects. But Calculus was beyond our perception at the time, it had not yet been invented by Newton and there wasn't Newtonian physics and Laws of Motion. .....Pay close attention because I know you're retarded.... that doesn't mean that Newtonian physics weren't happening in the universe around us before he discovered it. Newton's discoveries opened a new perspective, and we gained a new perception.

All you are doing is repeating the same nonsense.

Dictionaries don't define words they are a lexicon. They give general usages. We invented the language than wrote the dictionaries.

But go ahead and cling to your ignorance. It's all you really have.

 

[Inevitable]

Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. ~Boss

Find one who disputes it.

Victor Strenger and Fred C Adams don't. In fact they argue against it. They are both astrophysics.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. ~Boss

Find one who disputes it.

Victor Strenger and Fred C Adams don't. In fact they argue against it. They are both astrophysics.

though they admittedly have to presume non-carbon based life forms to get around its necessity.......

 

[Inevitable]

Every astrophysicist on the planet agrees the universe is finely tuned. ~Boss

Find one who disputes it.

Victor Strenger and Fred C Adams don't. In fact they argue against it. They are both astrophysics.

though they admittedly have to presume non-carbon based life forms to get around its necessity.......

Okaaaaaay.