How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[sealybobo]

Your just ignorant.

Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas. I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so.

You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.

Just keep in mind hollie and I aren't being close minded. You theists just don't realize you aren't presenting any good evidence for the existence of god. The same arguments you're making were the arguments men made 10,000 years ago.

Just be honest you believe because you can't imagine otherwise or you want to believe or you've been brainwashed and don't want to go to hell.

Oh, you and Hollie are extremely closed minded. You have created your own reality of certainty with regard to questions unanswered. Your mind is closed to any other possibility.

There was no good evidence of quarks before we observed them. We had to develop the capability to be able to do this, it hasn't just always been. There was no good evidence for Jupiter before some old guy looked in a contraption he called a telescope and saw it. So the fact there isn't good evidence for something, especially something that is purported to not be physical in nature, is no big deal. But you seem to think this answers all doubts... we don't have physical evidence of a spiritual being, therefore one doesn't exist. The flaw of that argument is obvious.

Oh... THE ARGUMENT has been made for 100k+ years, however long there has been homo sapiens walking upright. Humans have always believed in some power greater than self, something beyond the physical. It's an intrinsic and unique characteristic of human beings and our most defining attribute as a species.

We don't have physical evidence and that bothered theists so they lied and said he visited.

Listen. Humans a long time ago came up with "must be a god" for everything they didn't know. They decided they were special and so must be this gods chosen animal.

I know fully what you believe. None of it is convincing me. Not cause I'm close minded but because its not evidence and it can all be explained.

 

[sealybobo]

Your just ignorant.

Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas. I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so.

You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.

No, you are unwilling to accept the right answers. You ask a lot of questions but don't like the answers. You even think you are smarter than this guy:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all species are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins

 

[Hollie]

Your just ignorant.

Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas. I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so.

You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.

Just keep in mind hollie and I aren't being close minded. You theists just don't realize you aren't presenting any good evidence for the existence of god. The same arguments you're making were the arguments men made 10,000 years ago.

Just be honest you believe because you can't imagine otherwise or you want to believe or you've been brainwashed and don't want to go to hell.

Oh, you and Hollie are extremely closed minded. You have created your own reality of certainty with regard to questions unanswered. Your mind is closed to any other possibility.

There was no good evidence of quarks before we observed them. We had to develop the capability to be able to do this, it hasn't just always been. There was no good evidence for Jupiter before some old guy looked in a contraption he called a telescope and saw it. So the fact there isn't good evidence for something, especially something that is purported to not be physical in nature, is no big deal. But you seem to think this answers all doubts... we don't have physical evidence of a spiritual being, therefore one doesn't exist. The flaw of that argument is obvious.

Oh... THE ARGUMENT has been made for 100k+ years, however long there has been homo sapiens walking upright. Humans have always believed in some power greater than self, something beyond the physical. It's an intrinsic and unique characteristic of human beings and our most defining attribute as a species.

It's not being closed minded to challenge your specious claims to magical spirit realms and supernatural gawds you have created in your mind.

 

[Hollie]

Why?

because the possible number of planets capable of supporting life that could orbit any star would be zero, one, or two (two would require planets in totally opposite and synchronized orbits that could never collide.....if you start with an average of five planets orbiting a star and 4 to 5 of them cannot support life and 0 to 1 can, simple math tells you that there is no life on most planets.........

It's laughable when you goofy YEC'ists rattle on with juvenile "math" that you steal from the Institute for Creation Research.

I can see where you might find it easier to laugh than to actually read my posts......after all, laughing doesn't require any intelligent thought, and you obviously find that challenging.....

Laughter is often the only available response to your silly tripe.

 

[PostmodernProph]

okay....multiply billions of planets times zero......what do you get?......you cannot base "probability" on that type of math.....it is possible there are billions.....it is also possible there is only one.....coming to a conclusion either way is not science........

Possibility and probability are not the same. While it is possible that the Earth is the only life bearing object in the universe, it is not probable given the tenacious nature of life. There are bacteria that live under the most inhospitable conditions here on Earth, deep underground with no O2 and eating rock for food, to bacteria deep in the ocean eating sulfur from volcanic heat vents. The Earth may be the only place with "human" life, but the PROBABILITY is there is life in some form elsewhere in the universe.

you are arguing the wrong issue.....sillybobo did not argue the probability there is life in some form elsewhere in the universe....he argued the probability that life in the universe is not a rare occurance.....that is a possibility, but not a probability.....and yes, there is a difference.....

 

[Boss]

The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe.

First of all, you are adding "to life" onto the argument of a finely tuned universe. The things I have been arguing are the cosmological constant, gravitational constant, forces, weights and ratios which are set precisely so that a universe could exist in any material state.... with or without life. It's obvious to me, life as anything like we understand life to be, can't very well exist in a universe with no stars, planets or water.

So let's stop trying to conflate the arguments by introducing new levels of criteria and the false evaluation of conformity. I didn't suggest the universe intended itself to be created for the purpose of life. Only that it does exist in a finely tuned state where life is possible.

The above values are precise and constant. If ANY of these values were off by just a hair, there could be no interacting life of any kind, anywhere.

You always do this, when you have to eat YOUR words, you deny ever saying them. YOU introduced "life" into the argument, and now you attribute your actions to me.

The fact remains, life conforms to the universe, the universe does not conform to life. If the universe was different, life would also be different. It is much more logical that the universe "tunes" itself than some undefined "spirit" tunes the universe. IOW, it is the basic NATURE of energy to form a universe with the constants that exist in this universe, not the work of some spiritual entity.

Well, I am not having to eat my words. I am having to argue with a juvenile about the words I used and what order they were in. Yesterday, I argued with a juvenile who makes up his own arbitrary meaning for words as he goes because he thinks dictionaries are mere suggestions. Another juvenile here thinks words like "suggest" mean "proved conclusively" in science and that his opinions are facts. And yet another juvenile thinks calling me a religious fanatic over and over is getting under my skin.

If the universe was different, life would also be different.

You have offered NO evidence for this statement. Since we are unable to observe and evaluate a different universe, it is impossible to know this. While I respect your wild speculation, it is not a fact... far from it.

Now let's go back to my original statement. The universe is fine tuned. Forget about the "for life" part because it's causing you to miss the greater point. The universe is fine tuned to exist in the state we observe it to exist. If any of over a dozen variables were off by a fraction, there would be no physical material universe as we know it. That means there is no stars or planets... therefore, no life. Or, at least not planetary life as we know it.

Obviously life has conformed to the universe it was given to exist in but this does not automatically mean life would have conformed to any old universe. Again... life as we understand it, can't exist in a universe with no stars, planets, chemistry or water.

It is also obvious that I have never claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist. That changes none of the following facts: The universe exists. It exists in a finely tuned state. The finely tuned state permits life to emerge.

Now Eddy.... You can accept those facts and acknowledge them, or you can continue trying to be cute and misleading about things I've said, pretending that I've said something crazy you can attack and ridicule, while yucking it up with your anti-religious buddies. That actually suits me fine because I can continue to expose your dishonesty and make a total fool of you.

 

[Boss]

We don't have physical evidence and that bothered theists so they lied and said he visited.

Again, you are stating your opinion as if it is some sort of documented fact.

I don't accept your opinion for one primary reason. Lies can't withstand 100k years of human evolution and scrutiny. If there were nothing to human spirituality, it would have died out long ago in man.... like Milli Vinilli!

Now... Whether something "visited" or whether God manifest Himself in human form as Jesus Christ.... Those are philosophical and theological questions and are subject to faith-based beliefs. I'm not a Religious person, I don't have a favorite legend or dogma from antiquity. I think all religions are merely symbols of human spiritual expression.

I can actually see where a time will come that we don't have religions anymore. We'll still be spiritual and believe in God, it just won't be through religious avenues. The majority of us will share a universal spiritualism which doesn't need religion, or the bad parts of religion... the judgment, retribution, guilt. But yet, maintains the good things about religion... hope, love and charity... art, beauty, teamwork. We'll still have spiritual-based organizations, but they will be non-denominational.

The point is, human spirituality is not ever going to stop, no matter how mad you are at Christians and Jews. It's an intrinsic part of our nature as human beings and it's not going anywhere.

 

[Hollie]

The universe is not fine tuned to life, life is fine tuned by the universe.

First of all, you are adding "to life" onto the argument of a finely tuned universe. The things I have been arguing are the cosmological constant, gravitational constant, forces, weights and ratios which are set precisely so that a universe could exist in any material state.... with or without life. It's obvious to me, life as anything like we understand life to be, can't very well exist in a universe with no stars, planets or water.

So let's stop trying to conflate the arguments by introducing new levels of criteria and the false evaluation of conformity. I didn't suggest the universe intended itself to be created for the purpose of life. Only that it does exist in a finely tuned state where life is possible.

The above values are precise and constant. If ANY of these values were off by just a hair, there could be no interacting life of any kind, anywhere.

You always do this, when you have to eat YOUR words, you deny ever saying them. YOU introduced "life" into the argument, and now you attribute your actions to me.

The fact remains, life conforms to the universe, the universe does not conform to life. If the universe was different, life would also be different. It is much more logical that the universe "tunes" itself than some undefined "spirit" tunes the universe. IOW, it is the basic NATURE of energy to form a universe with the constants that exist in this universe, not the work of some spiritual entity.

Well, I am not having to eat my words. I am having to argue with a juvenile about the words I used and what order they were in. Yesterday, I argued with a juvenile who makes up his own arbitrary meaning for words as he goes because he thinks dictionaries are mere suggestions. Another juvenile here thinks words like "suggest" mean "proved conclusively" in science and that his opinions are facts. And yet another juvenile thinks calling me a religious fanatic over and over is getting under my skin.

If the universe was different, life would also be different.

You have offered NO evidence for this statement. Since we are unable to observe and evaluate a different universe, it is impossible to know this. While I respect your wild speculation, it is not a fact... far from it.

Now let's go back to my original statement. The universe is fine tuned. Forget about the "for life" part because it's causing you to miss the greater point. The universe is fine tuned to exist in the state we observe it to exist. If any of over a dozen variables were off by a fraction, there would be no physical material universe as we know it. That means there is no stars or planets... therefore, no life. Or, at least not planetary life as we know it.

Obviously life has conformed to the universe it was given to exist in but this does not automatically mean life would have conformed to any old universe. Again... life as we understand it, can't exist in a universe with no stars, planets, chemistry or water.

It is also obvious that I have never claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist. That changes none of the following facts: The universe exists. It exists in a finely tuned state. The finely tuned state permits life to emerge.

Now Eddy.... You can accept those facts and acknowledge them, or you can continue trying to be cute and misleading about things I've said, pretending that I've said something crazy you can attack and ridicule, while yucking it up with your anti-religious buddies. That actually suits me fine because I can continue to expose your dishonesty and make a total fool of you.

As you have been instructed, there is nothing to suggest the universe is "finely tuned". That's just so silly when we know for a fact that the universe is a violent and chaotic place.

Take a look at photos of the surface of the moon. What do you think that cratering is all about?

 

[Steven_R]

Your just ignorant.

Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas. I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so.

You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.

Just keep in mind hollie and I aren't being close minded. You theists just don't realize you aren't presenting any good evidence for the existence of god. The same arguments you're making were the arguments men made 10,000 years ago.

Just be honest you believe because you can't imagine otherwise or you want to believe or you've been brainwashed and don't want to go to hell.

Oh, you and Hollie are extremely closed minded. You have created your own reality of certainty with regard to questions unanswered. Your mind is closed to any other possibility.

There was no good evidence of quarks before we observed them. We had to develop the capability to be able to do this, it hasn't just always been. There was no good evidence for Jupiter before some old guy looked in a contraption he called a telescope and saw it. So the fact there isn't good evidence for something, especially something that is purported to not be physical in nature, is no big deal. But you seem to think this answers all doubts... we don't have physical evidence of a spiritual being, therefore one doesn't exist. The flaw of that argument is obvious.

Oh... THE ARGUMENT has been made for 100k+ years, however long there has been homo sapiens walking upright. Humans have always believed in some power greater than self, something beyond the physical. It's an intrinsic and unique characteristic of human beings and our most defining attribute as a species.

That's not how it works. A scientist sees something he can't explain, says to himself "that's weird" and then looks for a natural explanation to explain that which already exists. He doesn't start with a conclusion, in this case that there is some supernatural cause for the universe, and go from there. We figured out quarks because we saw something new. Galileo figured out Jupiter had moons because we saw some strange lights orbiting Jupiter. There is simply no evidence for the supernatural and scientists are happy to say "we don't know right now and we're looking for an answer."

Get in a lab and say "I can't figure this out, therefore God/Odin/The Force/[Insert Supernatural Entity Here]" or "I believe in X and I'm going to cherry pick the evidence to prove it" and you'll be out of a job.

 

[Boss]

As you have been instructed, there is nothing to suggest the universe is "finely tuned". That's just so silly when we know for a fact that the universe is a violent and chaotic place.

Take a look at photos of the surface of the moon. What do you think that cratering is all about?

As you have been instructed... you don't get to instruct me or make up your own facts.

"Finely tuned" does not mean the universe is docile, orderly, stable, non-chaotic. You are quite literally misinterpreting the meaning of "finely tuned" whether unintentionally or on purpose.

"Finely tuned" describes the various constants, ratios, weights and forces.

We've discovered at least 40 of these so far. Here is a list if you want to review them all. There are also a number of credible physicists and cosmologists who have written books on the subject of a finely tuned universe.

I'll give you a sample, since you were whining for one yesterday:

Freeman John Dyson FRS is a British-American theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering (Disturbing the Universe): “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”

Sir Fred Hoyle, Cambridge Astrophysicist (“The Universe: Past and Present Reflections”): “From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of Carbon 12 to the 7.12 Mev level in Oxygen 16. if you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose (The Nature of Space and Time) “Why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically accurately. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been less by one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would have collapsed after a few million years. If it had been greater by one part in 10 to the power of 10, the universe would have been essentially empty after a few million years. In neither case would it have lasted long enough for life to develop. Thus one either has to appeal to the anthropic principle or find the physical explanation of why the universe is the way it is.”

George Ellis (British Astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Paul Davies (Physicist and Philosopher, Professor at Arizona State University): “Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth – the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient “coincidences” and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs (of which there are 40) must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile. Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn’t exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleus and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life.”

Alister McGrath Specialist in Science & Theology (A Fine-Tuned Universe. p. 141-2): “Our attention focuses on one critical aspect of the biochemical processes that are thought to have led to life. The fundamental properties of the chemical elements, which are exploited but not created by biological processes, have to be such that these metabolic pathways are possible in the first place. Equally, if Darwinian evolution is to take place and to be regarded as essential to a definition of life, the chemistry of nature must be such that replication is possible–in other words, such that DNA or its functional equivalent can exist…. The origins of life are thus unquestionably anthropic…. On the basis of the know biochemical systems, biological evolution remains dependent upon chemical processes which were ultimately determined in the primordial state of the universe.”

McGrath (A Fine-Tuned Universe, p. 164): “Chemical reality constrains evolution: these processes can occur only because the chemistry of certian metals, predetermined by quantum mechanical parameters, permits them to do so. If this were not the case, evolution could not have found its way to such solutions as photsynthesis, nitrogen fixing, or oxygen transport. Evolution can only fine-tune itself because of the predetermined properties of chemical elements. Had they been significantly different, this fine-tuning within nature could not take place.”

 

[edthecynic]

I have never claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist.

First of all, you can take your "juvenile" crap and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, but of course, you can't debate without insults.

I never said you "claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist" and you know that, it is just one of your typically necessary Straw Men, Your obvious contention is some unnamed and undefined invisible SPIRITUAL entity tuned the universe for life, otherwise you have no arguable relationship between spirituality and the universe. Your argument holds water, if and only if, the universe was tuned for life and not life was tuned by the universe.

 

[Boss]

Your just ignorant.

Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas. I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so.

You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.

Just keep in mind hollie and I aren't being close minded. You theists just don't realize you aren't presenting any good evidence for the existence of god. The same arguments you're making were the arguments men made 10,000 years ago.

Just be honest you believe because you can't imagine otherwise or you want to believe or you've been brainwashed and don't want to go to hell.

Oh, you and Hollie are extremely closed minded. You have created your own reality of certainty with regard to questions unanswered. Your mind is closed to any other possibility.

There was no good evidence of quarks before we observed them. We had to develop the capability to be able to do this, it hasn't just always been. There was no good evidence for Jupiter before some old guy looked in a contraption he called a telescope and saw it. So the fact there isn't good evidence for something, especially something that is purported to not be physical in nature, is no big deal. But you seem to think this answers all doubts... we don't have physical evidence of a spiritual being, therefore one doesn't exist. The flaw of that argument is obvious.

Oh... THE ARGUMENT has been made for 100k+ years, however long there has been homo sapiens walking upright. Humans have always believed in some power greater than self, something beyond the physical. It's an intrinsic and unique characteristic of human beings and our most defining attribute as a species.

That's not how it works. A scientist sees something he can't explain, says to himself "that's weird" and then looks for a natural explanation to explain that which already exists. He doesn't start with a conclusion, in this case that there is some supernatural cause for the universe, and go from there. We figured out quarks because we saw something new. Galileo figured out Jupiter had moons because we saw some strange lights orbiting Jupiter. There is simply no evidence for the supernatural and scientists are happy to say "we don't know right now and we're looking for an answer."

Get in a lab and say "I can't figure this out, therefore God/Odin/The Force/[Insert Supernatural Entity Here]" or "I believe in X and I'm going to cherry pick the evidence to prove it" and you'll be out of a job.

I never said science starts with conclusions. In fact, I will tell you flat out, once you've determined a conclusion.... on anything... science hits the time clock and goes for a beer! It's done, the work is complete, there is nothing more science can ever do... a conclusion has taken it's place and all conclusion is faith-based. It might very well be faith based on great science work, but science can only ask questions and determine probability, it doesn't make conclusions, people do.

YES... People eventually figured out MANY things that were previously unknown and had no scientific evidence to support. So the fact that we have no evidence to support something, doesn't mean it can't exist. We can't observe spiritual nature at this time, we don't have that kind of telescope or microscope, man hasn't evolved to the level of being able to examine spiritual nature.

 

[edthecynic]

As you have been instructed, there is nothing to suggest the universe is "finely tuned". That's just so silly when we know for a fact that the universe is a violent and chaotic place.

Take a look at photos of the surface of the moon. What do you think that cratering is all about?

Exactly, I call the universe a "Perpetual Commotion Machine" with an entropy of zero.

 

[Boss]

I have never claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist.

First of all, you can take your "juvenile" crap and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, but of course, you can't debate without insults.

I never said you "claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist" and you know that, it is just one of your typically necessary Straw Men, Your obvious contention is some unnamed and undefined invisible SPIRITUAL entity tuned the universe for life, otherwise you have no arguable relationship between spirituality and the universe. Your argument only holds water, if and only if, the universe was tuned for life and not life was tuned by the universe.

Life would not be possible in a universe not fine tuned for life. At least not planetary life forms as we know them. Again... the finely tuned universe must be the way it is or there is no platform for life.

I've not presented any contention whatsoever. There are two possibilities for a finely tuned universe, chance and design. I am willing to debate those two possibilities but we're stuck on accepting the reality that we have a finely tuned universe.

Now I wouldn't have a problem with your contention that life was tuned by the universe, but it's just not the truth. Life may adapt to nature but nature exists as a result of the universe which exists because of the 40 finely-tuned constants, ratios, weights and forces which make it possible. AND... Life itself is completely dependent on these same constants of fine tuning which enabled the chemistry to make life. So both the universe and life could not exist if there were any deviation in any one of about 40 parameters which are finely tuned.

 

[edthecynic]

I have never claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist.

First of all, you can take your "juvenile" crap and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, but of course, you can't debate without insults.

I never said you "claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist" and you know that, it is just one of your typically necessary Straw Men, Your obvious contention is some unnamed and undefined invisible SPIRITUAL entity tuned the universe for life, otherwise you have no arguable relationship between spirituality and the universe. Your argument only holds water, if and only if, the universe was tuned for life and not life was tuned by the universe.

Life would not be possible in a universe not fine tuned for life. At least not planetary life forms as we know them. Again... the finely tuned universe must be the way it is or there is no platform for life.

I've not presented any contention whatsoever. There are two possibilities for a finely tuned universe, chance and design. I am willing to debate those two possibilities but we're stuck on accepting the reality that we have a finely tuned universe.

Now I wouldn't have a problem with your contention that life was tuned by the universe, but it's just not the truth. Life may adapt to nature but nature exists as a result of the universe which exists because of the 40 finely-tuned constants, ratios, weights and forces which make it possible. AND... Life itself is completely dependent on these same constants of fine tuning which enabled the chemistry to make life. So both the universe and life could not exist if there were any deviation in any one of about 40 parameters which are finely tuned.

Life is much more adaptable than you give it credit for. As I pointed out there are bacteria that can live deep in the bowels of the Earth without O2 and break down rock for food, as well as bacteria that can live under the crushing pressure of the deep ocean and eat the sulfur from the vents of volcanos. Who are YOU to put YOUR limitations on life???

 

[dblack]

I have never claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist.

First of all, you can take your "juvenile" crap and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, but of course, you can't debate without insults.

I never said you "claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist" and you know that, it is just one of your typically necessary Straw Men, Your obvious contention is some unnamed and undefined invisible SPIRITUAL entity tuned the universe for life, otherwise you have no arguable relationship between spirituality and the universe. Your argument only holds water, if and only if, the universe was tuned for life and not life was tuned by the universe.

Life would not be possible in a universe not fine tuned for life. At least not planetary life forms as we know them. Again... the finely tuned universe must be the way it is or there is no platform for life.

I've not presented any contention whatsoever. There are two possibilities for a finely tuned universe, chance and design. I am willing to debate those two possibilities but we're stuck on accepting the reality that we have a finely tuned universe.

Now I wouldn't have a problem with your contention that life was tuned by the universe, but it's just not the truth. Life may adapt to nature but nature exists as a result of the universe which exists because of the 40 finely-tuned constants, ratios, weights and forces which make it possible. AND... Life itself is completely dependent on these same constants of fine tuning which enabled the chemistry to make life. So both the universe and life could not exist if there were any deviation in any one of about 40 parameters which are finely tuned.

There's no denying, if things were different, things would be different.

 

[Steven_R]

Your just ignorant.

Maybe, but at least I don't demonstrate it proudly for the world to see like you. I'm not afraid to ask questions, to explore possibilities, to try and understand new ideas. I am here trying to engage you in a meaningful intelligent conversation, but I am having to fight your banal juvenile tendencies in order to do so.

You only seem to want to use the USMB forum to politically masturbate. To come here, state your opinions as facts, be as rude and obnoxious as you please to those you don't like, refuse to be objective or reasonable, and blow your load of leftist lunacy all over our pretty faces. I don't let you get away with it, I'm the one pointing out how goofy and pathetic you look. I'm your Mistress Helga and you're my bitch boy.

Just keep in mind hollie and I aren't being close minded. You theists just don't realize you aren't presenting any good evidence for the existence of god. The same arguments you're making were the arguments men made 10,000 years ago.

Just be honest you believe because you can't imagine otherwise or you want to believe or you've been brainwashed and don't want to go to hell.

Oh, you and Hollie are extremely closed minded. You have created your own reality of certainty with regard to questions unanswered. Your mind is closed to any other possibility.

There was no good evidence of quarks before we observed them. We had to develop the capability to be able to do this, it hasn't just always been. There was no good evidence for Jupiter before some old guy looked in a contraption he called a telescope and saw it. So the fact there isn't good evidence for something, especially something that is purported to not be physical in nature, is no big deal. But you seem to think this answers all doubts... we don't have physical evidence of a spiritual being, therefore one doesn't exist. The flaw of that argument is obvious.

Oh... THE ARGUMENT has been made for 100k+ years, however long there has been homo sapiens walking upright. Humans have always believed in some power greater than self, something beyond the physical. It's an intrinsic and unique characteristic of human beings and our most defining attribute as a species.

That's not how it works. A scientist sees something he can't explain, says to himself "that's weird" and then looks for a natural explanation to explain that which already exists. He doesn't start with a conclusion, in this case that there is some supernatural cause for the universe, and go from there. We figured out quarks because we saw something new. Galileo figured out Jupiter had moons because we saw some strange lights orbiting Jupiter. There is simply no evidence for the supernatural and scientists are happy to say "we don't know right now and we're looking for an answer."

Get in a lab and say "I can't figure this out, therefore God/Odin/The Force/[Insert Supernatural Entity Here]" or "I believe in X and I'm going to cherry pick the evidence to prove it" and you'll be out of a job.

I never said science starts with conclusions. In fact, I will tell you flat out, once you've determined a conclusion.... on anything... science hits the time clock and goes for a beer! It's done, the work is complete, there is nothing more science can ever do... a conclusion has taken it's place and all conclusion is faith-based. It might very well be faith based on great science work, but science can only ask questions and determine probability, it doesn't make conclusions, people do.

YES... People eventually figured out MANY things that were previously unknown and had no scientific evidence to support. So the fact that we have no evidence to support something, doesn't mean it can't exist. We can't observe spiritual nature at this time, we don't have that kind of telescope or microscope, man hasn't evolved to the level of being able to examine spiritual nature.

We have nothing to support the spiritual world. Until someone invents a PKE Meter, carries an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back, and drives Ecto 1, science has zero reason to even consider the ghost world. There's simply nothing to support it and the more we learn about the physical universe, the less room the spiritual universe has to play in. It's the God of the Gaps problem with different name.

 

[sealybobo]

I have never claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist.

First of all, you can take your "juvenile" crap and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, but of course, you can't debate without insults.

I never said you "claimed the universe intentionally created itself for life to exist" and you know that, it is just one of your typically necessary Straw Men, Your obvious contention is some unnamed and undefined invisible SPIRITUAL entity tuned the universe for life, otherwise you have no arguable relationship between spirituality and the universe. Your argument only holds water, if and only if, the universe was tuned for life and not life was tuned by the universe.

Life would not be possible in a universe not fine tuned for life. At least not planetary life forms as we know them. Again... the finely tuned universe must be the way it is or there is no platform for life.

I've not presented any contention whatsoever. There are two possibilities for a finely tuned universe, chance and design. I am willing to debate those two possibilities but we're stuck on accepting the reality that we have a finely tuned universe.

Now I wouldn't have a problem with your contention that life was tuned by the universe, but it's just not the truth. Life may adapt to nature but nature exists as a result of the universe which exists because of the 40 finely-tuned constants, ratios, weights and forces which make it possible. AND... Life itself is completely dependent on these same constants of fine tuning which enabled the chemistry to make life. So both the universe and life could not exist if there were any deviation in any one of about 40 parameters which are finely tuned.

Let's give boss this so he moves on! A whole fucking day arguing if the universe is fine tuned? If it is. If we give you this. What do you think it proves? Get to your fucking point already.

 

[Boss]

Life is much more adaptable than you give it credit for. As I pointed out there are bacteria that can live deep in the bowels of the Earth without O2 and break down rock for food, as well as bacteria that can live under the crushing pressure of the deep ocean and eat the sulfur from the vents of volcanos. Who are YOU to put YOUR limitations on life???

It's not about adaptability just like it's not about conformity. You're missing the larger point. The chemical bonds and elements needed to form any carbon-based life are dependent upon this precisely fine tuned collection of variables. Atomic weights and ratios of the nucleus to electrons in atoms, constants which are essential in formation of material things like suns and planets.

Without suns and planets, I hardly see how we can debate any possibility of life as we know it. Where would it exist? How could it have formed without carbon, oxygen and light? Not to mention water. All of these things exist because the universe is finely tuned for them to exist.

 

[Steven_R]

I'd still like to know if the universe is so finely tuned (presumably by Someone/Something) why is pretty much everything in the universe set up to wipe out life?