How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[Boss]

But your argument requires exactness. You can't talk about a fine tuned universe if you do not know the exact values of the constants for that fine tuning.

You don't need to be able to measure exact value to know a value is constant. IF a plastic cup can only hold 16 oz. of water, it makes no difference whether we are able to measure ounces accurately, the amount the cup will hold doesn't change.

Let's take our analogy to a higher level to represent the universe and uncertainty principle. We have a pool in the back yard... the value of water in ounces that pool can hold is constant. We understand this from the start, the pool can't gain or lose capacity. When it comes down to defining an actual set number of ounces the pool can hold, it is difficult to measure because of other variables which are not constant, floating around while we're trying to measure a result. Air pressure on the surface of the water is fluctuating in different parts of the pool, we see the water on the surface making ripples and waves... Some of the water we've measured has evaporated since we began the measuring, the temperature fluctuates and water molecules expand and contract, sediments in the air and impurities are constantly displacing molecules of water in the pool.... SO we can't ever know the exact precise number of ounces the pool will hold, but that constant value exists and we know that it does in spite of variable uncertainty. We even have a formula to determine a fairly accurate constant value. A standard 25m x 50m Olympic pool holds 660,000 US gal. Times 128 ounces per gallon, equals 84,480,000 ounces. Our formula results in an approximate value. We cannot measure the value any more accurately because of other floating variables happening as we try to measure. This does not change the true precise capacity of the pool.

Now, to put the final touch on this analogy, imagine if our pool could not have the capacity of one drop of water, more or less, or it can't physically exist?

That was another atrocious waste of your time. The fact remains that we still need to get you supernaturalists/spirit realm'ists/advocates of ID'iot creationism to show that your hypothesis for various gawds are testable and propose some means by which we could either accept or reject them. I mean, Shirley proponents of mainstream, testable scientific theory shouldn’t be the ones who have the burden of proof of coming up with ways to test for one or more of the thousands of asserted gawds , right? The people who are proposing "the gawds did it" model should be the ones presenting the tests for their gawds. So, it remains for the ID'iot creationists: what specific tests would confirm or falsify ID'iot creationism as pwoof of one or more gawds? As soon as you can answer this question, we can begin.

What you keep stomping your feet demanding is something we both should understand is not possible. You want physical proof of a spiritual thing. You expect someone to be able to physically examine a spiritual thing, to test it physically and objectively evaluate it on a physical basis. I hope we are both mature enough to know that isn't possible or realistic. Physical science can only examine physical nature.

So you want to shift the debate over to Origin of Life now? Okay... fine... Science hasn't answered that question either. Show me a fucking peer-reviewed and published example of scientists creating life from inorganic material! There is no such example! Life comes from Life! It doesn't spontaneously generate. You can believe they might one day find a 'physical science' answer, but that is blind faith.

 

[Hollie]

But your argument requires exactness. You can't talk about a fine tuned universe if you do not know the exact values of the constants for that fine tuning.

You don't need to be able to measure exact value to know a value is constant. IF a plastic cup can only hold 16 oz. of water, it makes no difference whether we are able to measure ounces accurately, the amount the cup will hold doesn't change.

Let's take our analogy to a higher level to represent the universe and uncertainty principle. We have a pool in the back yard... the value of water in ounces that pool can hold is constant. We understand this from the start, the pool can't gain or lose capacity. When it comes down to defining an actual set number of ounces the pool can hold, it is difficult to measure because of other variables which are not constant, floating around while we're trying to measure a result. Air pressure on the surface of the water is fluctuating in different parts of the pool, we see the water on the surface making ripples and waves... Some of the water we've measured has evaporated since we began the measuring, the temperature fluctuates and water molecules expand and contract, sediments in the air and impurities are constantly displacing molecules of water in the pool.... SO we can't ever know the exact precise number of ounces the pool will hold, but that constant value exists and we know that it does in spite of variable uncertainty. We even have a formula to determine a fairly accurate constant value. A standard 25m x 50m Olympic pool holds 660,000 US gal. Times 128 ounces per gallon, equals 84,480,000 ounces. Our formula results in an approximate value. We cannot measure the value any more accurately because of other floating variables happening as we try to measure. This does not change the true precise capacity of the pool.

Now, to put the final touch on this analogy, imagine if our pool could not have the capacity of one drop of water, more or less, or it can't physically exist?

That was another atrocious waste of your time. The fact remains that we still need to get you supernaturalists/spirit realm'ists/advocates of ID'iot creationism to show that your hypothesis for various gawds are testable and propose some means by which we could either accept or reject them. I mean, Shirley proponents of mainstream, testable scientific theory shouldn’t be the ones who have the burden of proof of coming up with ways to test for one or more of the thousands of asserted gawds , right? The people who are proposing "the gawds did it" model should be the ones presenting the tests for their gawds. So, it remains for the ID'iot creationists: what specific tests would confirm or falsify ID'iot creationism as pwoof of one or more gawds? As soon as you can answer this question, we can begin.

What you keep stomping your feet demanding is something we both should understand is not possible. You want physical proof of a spiritual thing. You expect someone to be able to physically examine a spiritual thing, to test it physically and objectively evaluate it on a physical basis. I hope we are both mature enough to know that isn't possible or realistic. Physical science can only examine physical nature.

So you want to shift the debate over to Origin of Life now? Okay... fine... Science hasn't answered that question either. Show me a fucking peer-reviewed and published example of scientists creating life from inorganic material! There is no such example! Life comes from Life! It doesn't spontaneously generate. You can believe they might one day find a 'physical science' answer, but that is blind faith.

What an odd admission. You admit your spirit realms/gawds/supernatural entities are absent proof, demonstration, validation, etc., but here you are stomping your feet, insisting they are true and using arguments from fundamentalist Christian websites long ago dismissed as pointless.

You should avoid your silly biogenesis argument which you have taken from the Watchtower Bible Tract Society.

 

[dblack]

The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.

Nope... The problem is you are unable to maintain perspective.

I guess. I just don't see the connection between the argument, and the conviction that a designer is responsible.

 

[Boss]

The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.

Nope... The problem is you are unable to maintain perspective.

I guess. I just don't see the connection between the argument, and the conviction that a designer is responsible.

Well, if the universe is finely tuned it (and it is), how can that avoid implying a tuner? Exactly who or what that is, we can only speculate. There is not an explanation in science which has been substantiated by evidence. All you have in science are theories and we can't test them.

So we have faith in theories or faith in God. It's still faith, right?

 

[Boss]

What an odd admission. You admit your spirit realms/gawds/supernatural entities are absent proof, demonstration, validation, etc., but here you are stomping your feet, insisting they are true.....yayayayahh

Yes, if anything 'spiritual' is ever proven, demonstrated or validated through physical science, it will forever henceforth be 'physical' and not 'spiritual' in nature.

I do admit that.

The problem here is, you are confusing physical proof with things which are true.

 

[Taz]

I lean towards reincarnation. I'm agnostic, I see no proof that reincarnation is run by a god, nor do I see proof for the need for reincarnation to be run by a god in the first place.

I see a computer in front of me. I am obviously the only person running it. I've looked inside the box and there is no little human in there running the computer. I am the one pushing the keys, opening the windows, executing applications. This is MY computer, I see no evidence any other human is involved. That is my observation.

Now.... All that said, a person with any common sense will understand, some human must have created the computer I am running. At some point, many humans are responsible for this computer being here. Engineers, programmers, technicians, designers.... they all played a role in making this computer happen. I can sit here in naive stupidity and refuse to acknowledge their contributions, stubbornly insisting I don't need any explanation involving other humans. Does that make me right?

Hey... I have no problem with the concept of reincarnation, but I think it only adds another complicated layer of awe-inspiring phenomenon that simply doesn't seem possible as the result of randomness and chance. So there is no "master plan" here? Our spiritual beings are flowing from one physical life to the next and there is no guiding force or intelligent design to the system? It just so happens to be that way? Bizarre!

You see, I don't have to build a shrine and worship Bill Gates to acknowledge people had something to do with my computer's existence. There is a broad range between worshiping Bill Gates and acknowledging Bill Gates must exist. My refusing to acknowledge Bill Gates is never going to make Bill Gates unreal. Insisting my computer can and does exist as a matter of random circumstance and not because it was designed and created, does not change the truth.

The people who made your computer actually do exist and we can visit them and touch them. Your god? Not so much. Total speculation. Or wishful thinking. There MAY be a Master with his plan, but such a thing or person has yet to be proven.

 

[amrchaos]

However, your argument for the fine tuned universe requires an accuracy for the known value of the gravitational constant that current science do not possess.

Wrong! My argument has absolutely nothing to do with our ability to measure something accurately. I don't know why you want to make YOUR argument into MINE now?

If the true value of the gravitational constant (whatever it is) had been greater or less than it is, nothing material exists. This constant is to within .000000000000000000000002 of what it must be, for anything remotely similar to our comprehension of a universe to exist. I'd say that is finely tuned.

But Boss, You can't just make that assumption

In fact,it begs the question of how do you know when the information to establish this point is not known --i.e. the exact values of the physical constants

 

[dblack]

The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.

Nope... The problem is you are unable to maintain perspective.

I guess. I just don't see the connection between the argument, and the conviction that a designer is responsible.

Well, if the universe is finely tuned it (and it is), how can that avoid implying a tuner? Exactly who or what that is, we can only speculate. There is not an explanation in science which has been substantiated by evidence. All you have in science are theories and we can't test them.

Well, your phrasing is the only thing that imposes the implication ("tuned" implying a "tuner"). But recognizing that existing conditions are rare and specific - which is really all that your evidence supports - doesn't imply anything.

 

[edthecynic]

G is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces...

You began this argument claiming gravity was the strongest force.

"Speak for YOUR own stupidity. Gravity is actually the strongest force on a UNIVERSAL scale!" - EdtheIlliterate (post #1054)

You just can't stop yourself from lying. It's your spirituality that makes you lie! But then spirituality might just be making you stupid, after all you said you have no idea what "astronomical scale" means.

 

[edthecynic]

Published values of G have varied rather broadly.

This is a misleading statement which is causing your retard brain to short out. The value of G is never-changing, it is constant. ...If the gravitational constant actually varied or fluctuated, nothing in physics would work. Whether or not we have developed an accurate way to measure, or whether or not we published that, has no effect on the true value of the gravitational constant.

Again, we are not arguing G, we are arguing your "fine tuned" bullshit. Whether "physics would work" has been calculated over time with widely different values for G and none of those past or present values for G produced a universe where "physics would not work."
Get it FOOL?

 

[Boss]

I lean towards reincarnation. I'm agnostic, I see no proof that reincarnation is run by a god, nor do I see proof for the need for reincarnation to be run by a god in the first place.

I see a computer in front of me. I am obviously the only person running it. I've looked inside the box and there is no little human in there running the computer. I am the one pushing the keys, opening the windows, executing applications. This is MY computer, I see no evidence any other human is involved. That is my observation.

Now.... All that said, a person with any common sense will understand, some human must have created the computer I am running. At some point, many humans are responsible for this computer being here. Engineers, programmers, technicians, designers.... they all played a role in making this computer happen. I can sit here in naive stupidity and refuse to acknowledge their contributions, stubbornly insisting I don't need any explanation involving other humans. Does that make me right?

Hey... I have no problem with the concept of reincarnation, but I think it only adds another complicated layer of awe-inspiring phenomenon that simply doesn't seem possible as the result of randomness and chance. So there is no "master plan" here? Our spiritual beings are flowing from one physical life to the next and there is no guiding force or intelligent design to the system? It just so happens to be that way? Bizarre!

You see, I don't have to build a shrine and worship Bill Gates to acknowledge people had something to do with my computer's existence. There is a broad range between worshiping Bill Gates and acknowledging Bill Gates must exist. My refusing to acknowledge Bill Gates is never going to make Bill Gates unreal. Insisting my computer can and does exist as a matter of random circumstance and not because it was designed and created, does not change the truth.

The people who made your computer actually do exist and we can visit them and touch them. Your god? Not so much. Total speculation. Or wishful thinking. There MAY be a Master with his plan, but such a thing or person has yet to be proven.

You were talking about the need for a god in order to have reincarnation. Now you are back to rejecting God based on lack of physical proof. Did you stop believing in reincarnation in the midst of your argument?

 

[Boss]

However, your argument for the fine tuned universe requires an accuracy for the known value of the gravitational constant that current science do not possess.

Wrong! My argument has absolutely nothing to do with our ability to measure something accurately. I don't know why you want to make YOUR argument into MINE now?

If the true value of the gravitational constant (whatever it is) had been greater or less than it is, nothing material exists. This constant is to within .000000000000000000000002 of what it must be, for anything remotely similar to our comprehension of a universe to exist. I'd say that is finely tuned.

But Boss, You can't just make that assumption

In fact,it begs the question of how do you know when the information to establish this point is not known --i.e. the exact values of the physical constants

Again, I gave you an example to illustrate how "exact value" doesn't have to be known to know something is constant. This constant, regardless of value or our ability to measure it, can't be out of whack or fucking gravity don't work, baby!

 

[Boss]

Again, we are not arguing G, we are arguing your "fine tuned" bullshit.

Well Big G is finely tuned. That IS the argument.

 

[Boss]

...none of those past or present values for G produced a universe where "physics would not work."

None of them produced a universe.

Formulas for measuring do not produce universes.

If the empirical physical constant known as the 'gravitational constant' were off by a hair, gravity doesn't work.

 

[edthecynic]

If the empirical physical constant known as the 'gravitational constant' were off by a hair, gravity doesn't work.

Gawwwwd-da has spoken.

 

[BreezeWood]

You want physical proof of a spiritual thing. You expect someone to be able to physically examine a spiritual thing, to test it physically and objectively evaluate it on a physical basis. I hope we are both mature enough to know that isn't possible or realistic. Physical science can only examine physical nature.

.
the interaction between the physical and incorporeal is what proves their existence, the distinction of each living being proves the existence of Spirituality the same as the influence exerted by gravity on heavenly bodies.

.

 

[Hollie]

Again, we are not arguing G, we are arguing your "fine tuned" bullshit.

Well Big G is finely tuned. That IS the argument.

It's not an argument. It's your specious claim, totally absent meaningful support.

Back to trolling the ICR for you.

 

[Boss]

If the empirical physical constant known as the 'gravitational constant' were off by a hair, gravity doesn't work.

Gawwwwd-da has spoken.

Not God, Physics.

 

[Boss]

Again, we are not arguing G, we are arguing your "fine tuned" bullshit.

Well Big G is finely tuned. That IS the argument.

It's not an argument. It's your specious claim, totally absent meaningful support.

Back to trolling the ICR for you.

It's not my specious claim, it's Physics. Meaningfully supported by every scientist who ever used G in a formula.

 

[Boss]

the interaction between the physical and incorporeal is what proves their existence, the distinction of each living being proves the existence of Spirituality the same as the influence exerted by gravity on heavenly bodies.

Nothing is proven, not even reality.