How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[Hollie]

I don't understand what you are trying to say about random odds. Letting me know the universe is tuned as it is because it needs to be, is not a scientific explanation. Anything we know as a being can't evolve in a universe with no material reality, no stars or planets, no chemistry or gravity. These are made possible through a series of constants, ratios, weights and forces. It's not that the universe is suited to our existence, the universe is suited to ANY existence in material reality.

I'm saying your argument is circular. You start out with the assumption that physical reality is created by applying the word "tuned" (implying a "tuner"). It's really just another version of the watchmaker argument. You're saying that the fact that we ended up in, of all possible universes, the one that enables our existence is evidence of intent. But where's the connection? Again, all you're really saying is "if things were different, they'd be different" (and we'd likely not exist). But so what? Why does that imply a creator?

My argument is not circular, that was your argument that the universe is finely tuned "because it has to be." My argument has nothing to do with applying words, we use words to convey what we want to say because they work better than grunting noises.

There are numerous empirical physical constants. It's not in dispute. We know these exist, we make astrological calculations with them all the time. There is no scientific reason these constants have to be as they are, nothing says they can't be different. If some of these were off by a hair, no life could exist in this universe. If others were off, nothing material could exist. That's not my opinion, that's simply physics.

Now, because all of these various constants are precisely as they need to be in order for material things and life to be present in the universe, we use a grunting noise which sounds like "finely tuned" to describe it.

Generally speaking, verbs with the suffix "-ed" always implies an undisclosed "-er" who is responsible. Examples: If something is "welded" it implies there was a "welder." If something is "baked" it implies a "baker." And IF something is "tuned" it implies a "tuner."

So this debate is actually two parts, first one is whether we have a finely tuned universe. Atheist science deniers want to reject this because a tuned universe implies a tuner. And that is the second part. How did the universe become finely tuned?

Now, us cavemen, we understand what a guitar is, right? We realize a guitar has to be properly tuned to play music correctly. Some people can tune their guitar by ear, others can use a tuner device... No one would consider the option of throwing the guitar in the dryer and let it bang around randomly in there for a while with the expectation of getting a tuned instrument. THAT just defies too many odds to be realistic. If the guitar is in tune, it wasn't because the drier did it.

Even by the standards of pointless attempts at analogy spewed by you ICR groupies, that was horrible.

 

[Boss]

Even by the standards of pointless attempts at analogy spewed by you ICR groupies, that was horrible.

TRANSLATION: That was absolutely brilliant, Boss! Well done!

 

[Votto]

Here let's see if I can break it down:

Astral projection experiences - hallucination of the mind
Near-death experiences - hallucination of the mind
Transcendental meditation - just smoke weed. It's easier.
ESP and telepathy - as you put it... "hooey"
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences - also "hooey"
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon - more hooey
Spells, curses and black magic - a buttload of hooey
Edgar Cayce - see "Miss Cleo"
Nostradamus - hooey
Prophecy in general - hooey

You mean kinda like this.

Hope and change: Hallucination of the mind

Collective salvation: Just smok'in more weed

Equality for all: "hooey"

Economic stimulus: "hoeoey" money for corporate America.

Corporate bail outs: Smok'in weed followed by hallucination of the mind and ending with "hooey".

 

[TheOldSchool]

Here let's see if I can break it down:

Astral projection experiences - hallucination of the mind
Near-death experiences - hallucination of the mind
Transcendental meditation - just smoke weed. It's easier.
ESP and telepathy - as you put it... "hooey"
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences - also "hooey"
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon - more hooey
Spells, curses and black magic - a buttload of hooey
Edgar Cayce - see "Miss Cleo"
Nostradamus - hooey
Prophecy in general - hooey

You mean kinda like this.

Hope and change: Hallucination of the mind

Collective salvation: Just smok'in more weed

Equality for all: "hooey"

Economic stimulus: "hoeoey" money for corporate America.

Corporate bail outs: Smok'in weed followed by hallucination of the mind and ending with "hooey".

Shut the fuck up bitch,
Eat a dick bitch,
Eat a bowl of shit bitch,
Munch on a mouthful of balls, in halls and malls
Just shut the fuck up bitch and work your jaws.
Take a pill bitch, chill bitch.
Jerk your jaws

- Kurupt "Your Girlfriend"

 

[Votto]

Here let's see if I can break it down:

Astral projection experiences - hallucination of the mind
Near-death experiences - hallucination of the mind
Transcendental meditation - just smoke weed. It's easier.
ESP and telepathy - as you put it... "hooey"
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences - also "hooey"
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon - more hooey
Spells, curses and black magic - a buttload of hooey
Edgar Cayce - see "Miss Cleo"
Nostradamus - hooey
Prophecy in general - hooey

You mean kinda like this.

Hope and change: Hallucination of the mind

Collective salvation: Just smok'in more weed

Equality for all: "hooey"

Economic stimulus: "hoeoey" money for corporate America.

Corporate bail outs: Smok'in weed followed by hallucination of the mind and ending with "hooey".

Please don't audit me.
Shut the fuck up bitch,
Eat a dick bitch,
Eat a bowl of shit bitch,
Munch on a mouthful of balls, in halls and malls
Just shut the fuck up bitch and work your jaws.
Take a pill bitch, chill bitch.
Jerk your jaws

- Kurupt "Your Girlfriend"

Forgive me for questioning your gods.

Please don't have the IRS audit me!

I recant, i recant!!

 

[dblack]

I don't understand what you are trying to say about random odds. Letting me know the universe is tuned as it is because it needs to be, is not a scientific explanation. Anything we know as a being can't evolve in a universe with no material reality, no stars or planets, no chemistry or gravity. These are made possible through a series of constants, ratios, weights and forces. It's not that the universe is suited to our existence, the universe is suited to ANY existence in material reality.

I'm saying your argument is circular. You start out with the assumption that physical reality is created by applying the word "tuned" (implying a "tuner"). It's really just another version of the watchmaker argument. You're saying that the fact that we ended up in, of all possible universes, the one that enables our existence is evidence of intent. But where's the connection? Again, all you're really saying is "if things were different, they'd be different" (and we'd likely not exist). But so what? Why does that imply a creator?

My argument is not circular, that was your argument that the universe is finely tuned "because it has to be." My argument has nothing to do with applying words, we use words to convey what we want to say because they work better than grunting noises.

There are numerous empirical physical constants. It's not in dispute. We know these exist, we make astrological calculations with them all the time. There is no scientific reason these constants have to be as they are, nothing says they can't be different. If some of these were off by a hair, no life could exist in this universe. If others were off, nothing material could exist. That's not my opinion, that's simply physics.

Now, because all of these various constants are precisely as they need to be in order for material things and life to be present in the universe, we use a grunting noise which sounds like "finely tuned" to describe it.

Generally speaking, verbs with the suffix "-ed" always implies an undisclosed "-er" who is responsible. Examples: If something is "welded" it implies there was a "welder." If something is "baked" it implies a "baker." And IF something is "tuned" it implies a "tuner."

So this debate is actually two parts, first one is whether we have a finely tuned universe. Atheist science deniers want to reject this because a tuned universe implies a tuner. And that is the second part. How did the universe become finely tuned?

Now, us cavemen, we understand what a guitar is, right? We realize a guitar has to be properly tuned to play music correctly. Some people can tune their guitar by ear, others can use a tuner device... No one would consider the option of throwing the guitar in the dryer and let it bang around randomly in there for a while with the expectation of getting a tuned instrument. THAT just defies too many odds to be realistic. If the guitar is in tune, it wasn't because the drier did it.

 

[dblack]

I don't understand what you are trying to say about random odds. Letting me know the universe is tuned as it is because it needs to be, is not a scientific explanation. Anything we know as a being can't evolve in a universe with no material reality, no stars or planets, no chemistry or gravity. These are made possible through a series of constants, ratios, weights and forces. It's not that the universe is suited to our existence, the universe is suited to ANY existence in material reality.

I'm saying your argument is circular. You start out with the assumption that physical reality is created by applying the word "tuned" (implying a "tuner"). It's really just another version of the watchmaker argument. You're saying that the fact that we ended up in, of all possible universes, the one that enables our existence is evidence of intent. But where's the connection? Again, all you're really saying is "if things were different, they'd be different" (and we'd likely not exist). But so what? Why does that imply a creator?

My argument is not circular, that was your argument that the universe is finely tuned "because it has to be." My argument has nothing to do with applying words, we use words to convey what we want to say because they work better than grunting noises.

There are numerous empirical physical constants. It's not in dispute. We know these exist, we make astrological calculations with them all the time. There is no scientific reason these constants have to be as they are, nothing says they can't be different. If some of these were off by a hair, no life could exist in this universe. If others were off, nothing material could exist. That's not my opinion, that's simply physics.

Now, because all of these various constants are precisely as they need to be in order for material things and life to be present in the universe, we use a grunting noise which sounds like "finely tuned" to describe it.

Generally speaking, verbs with the suffix "-ed" always implies an undisclosed "-er" who is responsible. Examples: If something is "welded" it implies there was a "welder." If something is "baked" it implies a "baker." And IF something is "tuned" it implies a "tuner."

So this debate is actually two parts, first one is whether we have a finely tuned universe. Atheist science deniers want to reject this because a tuned universe implies a tuner. And that is the second part. How did the universe become finely tuned?

Now, us cavemen, we understand what a guitar is, right? We realize a guitar has to be properly tuned to play music correctly. Some people can tune their guitar by ear, others can use a tuner device... No one would consider the option of throwing the guitar in the dryer and let it bang around randomly in there for a while with the expectation of getting a tuned instrument. THAT just defies too many odds to be realistic. If the guitar is in tune, it wasn't because the drier did it.

You really don't see the circularity in that? You admit that the word 'tuned' implies a 'tuner'. Injecting the conclusion as the premise is the definition of a circular argument.

 

[Boss]

The reason the universe is perfectly suited to our existence is that our existence is wholly dependent on the universe being perfectly suited to our existence.

May I have permission to submit this to Wikipedia under the definition of "Circular Reasoning?"

 

[dblack]

The reason the universe is perfectly suited to our existence is that our existence is wholly dependent on the universe being perfectly suited to our existence.

May I have permission to submit this to Wikipedia under the definition of "Circular Reasoning?"

Sure. I was mirroring your argument to make a point. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm pointing out how your argument fails to do so. If you want to state the the universe is "tuned", you first have to prove that the specific state we observe is a result of some deliberate intent. Simply observing that it suits our existence doesn't establish that.

 

[Boss]

You admit that the word 'tuned' implies a 'tuner'.

Yes, generally speaking, in English grammar, a verb ending in the suffix "-ed" implies a noun sometimes with the prefix "-er" as it's subject. Fucked<>Fucker... Owned<>Owner... Trolled<>Troller... Diverted<>Diverter...

Therefore, TUNED implies a TUNER.

 

[dblack]

You admit that the word 'tuned' implies a 'tuner'.

Yes, generally speaking, in English grammar, a verb ending in the suffix "-ed" implies a noun sometimes with the prefix "-er" as it's subject. Fucked<>Fucker... Owned<>Owner... Trolled<>Troller... Diverted<>Diverter...

Therefore, TUNED implies a TUNER.

So, you agree? Your argument is circular?

 

[dblack]

To put it another way, Boss. All you've done - so far - is shown that the universe is 'in tune with our existence'. Which isn't necessarily the same as 'tuned for our existence'

 

[Boss]

If you want to state the the universe is "tuned", you first have to prove that the specific state we observe is a result of some deliberate intent.

No, I don't have to prove anything we observe is by deliberate intent. I cannot prove that, not physically, anyway. All I can go by is the state we observe, that is true, but what we observe can't exist in a randomly tuned universe. Unless you accept the "fairy tales" of a giant universe making machine outside our cosmos. I have to accept truths the same as Newton and Einstein, that our universe has certain empirical physical constants. Everything in our physics, geometry and chemistry is dependent on these constants to work.

What we can comprehend as material reality is not possible without this fine tuning. Physics doesn't work. Gravity doesn't work. Chemistry doesn't happen. Light can't exist. On and on and on... Nothing we can imagine as anything could exist. Could something completely beyond our comprehension exist instead? You mean, like Spiritual Nature?

 

[dblack]

If you want to state the the universe is "tuned", you first have to prove that the specific state we observe is a result of some deliberate intent.

No, I don't have to prove anything we observe is by deliberate intent. I cannot prove that, not physically, anyway. All I can go by is the state we observe, that is true, but what we observe can't exist in a randomly tuned universe. Unless you accept the "fairy tales" of a giant universe making machine outside our cosmos. I have to accept truths the same as Newton and Einstein, that our universe has certain empirical physical constants. Everything in our physics, geometry and chemistry is dependent on these constants to work.

What we can comprehend as material reality is not possible without this fine tuning. Physics doesn't work. Gravity doesn't work. Chemistry doesn't happen. Light can't exist. On and on and on... Nothing we can imagine as anything could exist. Could something completely beyond our comprehension exist instead? You mean, like Spiritual Nature?

"Fine tuning", or "just the way it is"?

 

[Hollie]

If you want to state the the universe is "tuned", you first have to prove that the specific state we observe is a result of some deliberate intent.

No, I don't have to prove anything we observe is by deliberate intent. I cannot prove that, not physically, anyway. All I can go by is the state we observe, that is true, but what we observe can't exist in a randomly tuned universe. Unless you accept the "fairy tales" of a giant universe making machine outside our cosmos. I have to accept truths the same as Newton and Einstein, that our universe has certain empirical physical constants. Everything in our physics, geometry and chemistry is dependent on these constants to work.

What we can comprehend as material reality is not possible without this fine tuning. Physics doesn't work. Gravity doesn't work. Chemistry doesn't happen. Light can't exist. On and on and on... Nothing we can imagine as anything could exist. Could something completely beyond our comprehension exist instead? You mean, like Spiritual Nature?

Which of the gawds are responsible for a "randomly tuned" universe vs. a "finely tuned" one.

What are the differences?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Setting aside the various criticisms of religious beliefs for a moment, and pretending the whimsical dismissal of God is perfectly 'natural' for man and all... how do the non-spiritualists explain the following....

Astral projection experiences.
Near-death experiences.
Transcendental meditation.
ESP and telepathy.
Ghost stories and paranormal experiences.
Other unexplained supernatural phenomenon.
Spells, curses and black magic.
Edgar Cayce.
Nostradamus.
Prophecy in general.

Is every single bit of it a bunch of hooey caused by our fears and imagination?

To me, it just seems as if there might be something more here. Especially in the case of people like Edgar Cayce. If you've never studied up on him, it's worth a search and read... fascinating man. His uncanny ability to predict the future was beyond anything we've ever known. He gave over 14k readings but that includes a brief period where he didn't do them because he was getting headaches. People were exploiting his power to win horse races and trade stock and he believed this was why he was getting the headaches. After some time, he did more readings but only his trusted wife was allowed to ask him questions.

Can our physical sciences understand this?

No, but supporters cannot prove any of these "spiritual" events are probative. I refer the reader to Michael Shermer's book, Why People Believe Weird Things (Part 2, Pseudoscience and Superstition). Edgar Cayce is explained therein.

 

[Boss]

You admit that the word 'tuned' implies a 'tuner'.

Yes, generally speaking, in English grammar, a verb ending in the suffix "-ed" implies a noun sometimes with the prefix "-er" as it's subject. Fucked<>Fucker... Owned<>Owner... Trolled<>Troller... Diverted<>Diverter...

Therefore, TUNED implies a TUNER.

So, you agree? Your argument is circular?

No, my argument is not circular. YOUR argument is circular. You reason the universe exists as it does because it has to exist as it does.

My argument is, it's finely tuned. Atheists reject this because it implies a tuner. I don't make any argument for a tuner, nor do I need to in order to argue the universe is finely tuned. The tuner doesn't need to be identified in order to acknowledge the universe is finely tuned. I can pick up a guitar and tell you it is in tune, I don't have to identify who/what tuned it.

The follow-up question is regarding the Tuner. There are basically four possibilities. The answer is one of the following:

1. Necessity- (this is your view) That our universe is finely tuned because it has to be. It is the poster child for circular reasoning. Nothing in Science says it has to be because it has to be.

2. Creation- (my view) That our finely tuned universe is spiritually and divinely inspired and created by something greater than physical nature.

3. Chance- We've been through the odds of chance producing this finely tuned universe. Some are now hitching hopes to Multiverse theory.... or, The Flying Spaghetti Monster spitting out billions of universes somewhere.

4. Something unknown to us at this time. Perhaps it's a combination of the three things but we've not pieced it all together? Perhaps there are missing pieces we can't comprehend yet? Or maybe, ever? I admit this is a possibility, but my personal spiritual connection holds sway with what I believe.

 

[Boss]

"Fine tuning", or "just the way it is"?

"Just the way it is" has as much science to it as "God did it!"

If the gravitational constant were slightly different, gravity fails to function as it does in our material reality. Electrons go spinning off into space instead of revolving around their proton or neutron. There can be no atoms. So... change the parameter of this constant and nothing in our understanding exists.

So yeah.... Just the way it is, no DUH!

The question is, WHY?

 

[edthecynic]

Therefore, TUNED implies a TUNER.

A universe tuned by gravity.

 

[dblack]

You admit that the word 'tuned' implies a 'tuner'.

Yes, generally speaking, in English grammar, a verb ending in the suffix "-ed" implies a noun sometimes with the prefix "-er" as it's subject. Fucked<>Fucker... Owned<>Owner... Trolled<>Troller... Diverted<>Diverter...

Therefore, TUNED implies a TUNER.

So, you agree? Your argument is circular?

No, my argument is not circular. YOUR argument is circular. You reason the universe exists as it does because it has to exist as it does.

We went over this. I'm not making an argument. I'm not trying to explain why the universe exists. You are. And you're failing to make a coherent case fur your position.