How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[Boss]

Repeating your lie does not make it any less of a lie. But at least you dropped the "page 1" bluff part of your lie, of course, after I posted enough of the book to expose it as a lie, even a God like you had to back down.

Why don't you revert to arguing semantics over whether a radio is a tuner some more? I think that one really demonstrates your overall level of anxiety and desperation to win an argument here.

As for Stenger's argument, I have read most of his book and I am not impressed. As I said, he begins by tacking on the caveat of "tuned by God" and his entire diatribe is centered on refuting that. He cannot avoid the fact of a finely tuned universe... no one can. At least not honest people.

 

[edthecynic]

Not because it has to be but because of your ".... because I say so" nonsense.

No that is Stenger's argument and it's circular reasoning. Stating the universe is finely tuned because it has to be is no different than saying because God did it.

Lying about Stenger's argument does NOT make it circular, it only makes you a liar.

 

[edthecynic]

As for Stenger's argument, I have read most of his book

Yeah, sure you did, that explains why you didn't even know what was on page 1 but tried to bluff you way into a pontification.

 

[Boss]

As for Stenger's argument, I have read most of his book

Yeah, sure you did, that explains why you didn't even know what was on page 1 but tried to bluff you way into a pontification.

Look idiot, "page one" is what is known as "a figure of speech." I didn't memorize the book, I don't know the specific page he laid out his goofy premise, but the gist of his argument was as I stated. He actually states his idiotic non-point on the cover, BEFORE page one, in the title of the book!

The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us

Now I don't fucking know who God fine tuned the universe for. It may have been for us, it may have been because God was bored, it may have been some reason only God knows. Maybe God is just extremely fucking lucky? --My argument is the universe is finely tuned. (not by who or for what) Stenger cannot avoid this fact so he tacks on the caveat of "for us" and proceeds to give his opinion why that's not the case.

It's just another Atheist attempting to use science to try and refute God. Faced with the immutable fact of a fine tuned universe, he sidles around the argument by applying false caveats to whack religious people in the head. When I challenge you pinheads to give me an example of a physicist who doesn't believe the universe is finely tuned, this is your lone example. I posted the words of some of the most profound physicists in the world to support my claim, and all you can come up with is one lone hack who admits the universe is fine tuned, just not for us or by God.

Pitiful!

 

[Hollie]

As for Stenger's argument, I have read most of his book

Yeah, sure you did, that explains why you didn't even know what was on page 1 but tried to bluff you way into a pontification.

Look idiot, "page one" is what is known as "a figure of speech." I didn't memorize the book, I don't know the specific page he laid out his goofy premise, but the gist of his argument was as I stated. He actually states his idiotic non-point on the cover, BEFORE page one, in the title of the book!

The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us

Now I don't fucking know who God fine tuned the universe for. It may have been for us, it may have been because God was bored, it may have been some reason only God knows. Maybe God is just extremely fucking lucky? --My argument is the universe is finely tuned. (not by who or for what) Stenger cannot avoid this fact so he tacks on the caveat of "for us" and proceeds to give his opinion why that's not the case.

It's just another Atheist attempting to use science to try and refute God. Faced with the immutable fact of a fine tuned universe, he sidles around the argument by applying false caveats to whack religious people in the head. When I challenge you pinheads to give me an example of a physicist who doesn't believe the universe is finely tuned, this is your lone example. I posted the words of some of the most profound physicists in the world to support my claim, and all you can come up with is one lone hack who admits the universe is fine tuned, just not for us or by God.

Pitiful!

Where are these "immutable facts of a find tuned universe".

You're getting quite desperate, bossy. Your "because I say so", arguments have that odor of desperation that defines the arguments of the hyper-religious.

 

[Boss]

Where are these "immutable facts of a find tuned universe".

You're getting quite desperate, bossy. Your "because I say so", arguments have that odor of desperation that defines the arguments of the hyper-religious.

*sigh* How many times do I need to post these?

Coupling constant for the strong nuclear force.
Cosmological constant, which acts to accelerate the expansion of the universe.
The initial density of the universe relative to the critical density.
Universal gravitational constant.
Mass of a proton relative to the mass of a neutron.
Fine structure constant.
Speed of light.

Those are the main ones, there are about 30 more. If the physical universe had not hit the lotto on these, nailing the one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion value it needed on each one precisely, the physical universe could not, and would not exist.

 

[Hollie]

Where are these "immutable facts of a find tuned universe".

You're getting quite desperate, bossy. Your "because I say so", arguments have that odor of desperation that defines the arguments of the hyper-religious.

*sigh* How many times do I need to post these?

Coupling constant for the strong nuclear force.
Cosmological constant, which acts to accelerate the expansion of the universe.
The initial density of the universe relative to the critical density.
Universal gravitational constant.
Mass of a proton relative to the mass of a neutron.
Fine structure constant.
Speed of light.

Those are the main ones, there are about 30 more. If the physical universe had not hit the lotto on these, nailing the one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion value it needed on each one precisely, the physical universe could not, and would not exist.

Nothing of your citing of natural forces suggests involvement by your gawds. You, and your pals at the ICR are making no connection between natural forces and magical gawds.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Scientists have never been able to produce life from inorganic material. All life comes from life.

But all life is made up from naturally occurring inorganic molecules, so all life comes from inorganic material.

Life comes from life. Provide evidence to the contrary.

Life comes from organic organisms. There are a number of pathways that science has discovered whereby the elements of life that are abundant in the universe could spark life.

Identify how your gawds suddenly *poofed* life into existence.

organic chemicals are not organic organisms.....if it is an organism it is already alive.....organic chemicals are called the building blocks of life....they are never called the builders of life.......

Your Sunday school lessons are a poor substitute for formal biology classes.

and your posts are a poor substitute for debate......do you deny that an organism is already alive?.....

 

[edthecynic]

He actually states his idiotic non-point on the cover, BEFORE page one, in the title of the book!

The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us

Now I don't fucking know who God fine tuned the universe for. It may have been for us, it may have been because God was bored, it may have been some reason only God knows. Maybe God is just extremely fucking lucky? --My argument is the universe is finely tuned. (not by who or for what) Stenger cannot avoid this fact so he tacks on the caveat of "for us" and proceeds to give his opinion why that's not the case.

No, he says the universe is NOT fine tuned, PERIOD. You are a pathological liar.

Here is a quote:

"I have made a modest attempt to obtain some feeling for what a universe with different constants would be like. Press and Lightman (1983) have shown that the physical properties of matter, from the dimensions of atoms to the order of magnitude of the lengths of the day and year, can be estimated from the values of just four fundamental constants (this analysis is slightly different from Carr and Rees [1979 ]). Two of these constants are the strengths of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions. The other two are the masses of the electron and proton. Although the neutron mass does not enter into these calculations, it would still have a limited range for there to be neutrons in stars, as discussed earlier. I find that long-lived stars that could make life more likely will occur over a wide range of these parameters. For example, if we take the electron and proton masses to be equal to their values in our universe, an electromagnetic force strength having any value greater than its value in our universe will give a stellar lifetime of more than 680 million years. The strong interaction strength does not enter into this calculation. If we had an electron mass 100,000 times lower, the proton mass could be as much as 1,000 times lower to achieve the same minimum stellar lifetime. This is hardly fine-tuning."

 

[Hollie]

But all life is made up from naturally occurring inorganic molecules, so all life comes from inorganic material.

Life comes from life. Provide evidence to the contrary.

Life comes from organic organisms. There are a number of pathways that science has discovered whereby the elements of life that are abundant in the universe could spark life.

Identify how your gawds suddenly *poofed* life into existence.

organic chemicals are not organic organisms.....if it is an organism it is already alive.....organic chemicals are called the building blocks of life....they are never called the builders of life.......

Your Sunday school lessons are a poor substitute for formal biology classes.

and your posts are a poor substitute for debate......do you deny that an organism is already alive?.....

Your posts are a poor representation of a thinking human. Nowhere does "the gawds did it" answer anything.

 

[Taz]

How so?

Well, it's obvious isn't it? What the hell are we "reincarnating" if not the spirit? The physical body is dead... it doesn't reanimate. New people don't sprout up out of the ground where we bury dead people, so what kind of reincarnation were you thinking about? I assumed you meant our spirit, soul, the essence of who we are... but those are all non-physical (i.e.; spiritual) things.

I never said that a spirit reincarnates. If a spirit itself reincarnated wouldn't that spirit have access to all its past lives and experiences? Which is currently not the case.

I guess we need to have you define what you think "reincarnation" means?

Then, we need to find out what kind of science you are using to determine what spirits can or can't do, have access to, or what is and isn't the current case.

There is no proof of a spirit that goes from life to life as a single entity. There could be simply a life energy that continues, possibly even related to dark matter, but that would just be a guess on my part at this point. Such a life energy is maybe a natural force of the universe, like gravity. Plants and other animals are alive and are aware of their surroundings as well. So it's probably part of the same natural force.

Well technically, there is no "proof" for anything, including reality. Why does the lack of physical proof mean anything to a spiritual entity or state? I have never understood that. We don't entertain the argument that lack of liquid proof must mean ice is not frozen water. We understand lack of liquid proof doesn't apply to ice because it's in a different state. Spirituality is nature in a different state than physical, and yes... I agree, dark energy and matter may very well have something to do with it.

This is why I constantly reject the inference that "spiritual" is "supernatural" ...it's very much a part of nature, not supernatural.

But we are getting far away from your previous admission regarding "reincarnation." The only thing you can possibly mean with regard to this is the spiritual aspects of who we are. However you want to couch that and reference it, doesn't matter, it conveys the exact same thing. A spiritual self. There is no such thing as non-metaphysical reincarnation.

Life energy could be like gravity, not specific to each person. Meaning, that there's no proof that a spirit stays whole and goes from life to life intact.

 

[Boss]

He actually states his idiotic non-point on the cover, BEFORE page one, in the title of the book!

The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us

Now I don't fucking know who God fine tuned the universe for. It may have been for us, it may have been because God was bored, it may have been some reason only God knows. Maybe God is just extremely fucking lucky? --My argument is the universe is finely tuned. (not by who or for what) Stenger cannot avoid this fact so he tacks on the caveat of "for us" and proceeds to give his opinion why that's not the case.

No, he says the universe is NOT fine tuned, PERIOD. You are a pathological liar.

Here is a quote:

"I have made a modest attempt to obtain some feeling for what a universe with different constants would be like. Press and Lightman (1983) have shown that the physical properties of matter, from the dimensions of atoms to the order of magnitude of the lengths of the day and year, can be estimated from the values of just four fundamental constants (this analysis is slightly different from Carr and Rees [1979 ]). Two of these constants are the strengths of the electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions. The other two are the masses of the electron and proton. Although the neutron mass does not enter into these calculations, it would still have a limited range for there to be neutrons in stars, as discussed earlier. I find that long-lived stars that could make life more likely will occur over a wide range of these parameters. For example, if we take the electron and proton masses to be equal to their values in our universe, an electromagnetic force strength having any value greater than its value in our universe will give a stellar lifetime of more than 680 million years. The strong interaction strength does not enter into this calculation. If we had an electron mass 100,000 times lower, the proton mass could be as much as 1,000 times lower to achieve the same minimum stellar lifetime. This is hardly fine-tuning."

In NONE of his assertions is there ANY evidence. He is merely taking the constants apart with speculative analysis that can't be tested. His argument against a fine tuned universe amounts to "nuh uh, is not!"

As I correctly pointed out, he does not bother to deny these irrefutable constants. He admits these exist, he just thinks they aren't all that important in the scheme of things, but he isn't offering ANY evidence other than his opinion, as far as I can tell.

He makes statements about what "could be" if the values are different but there is not even a formula shown to see where he came to this conclusion. I don't believe he is a 'clairvoyant psychic' physicist, so where the hell are his mathematical formulas to support his theory?

 

[BreezeWood]

If the physical universe had not hit the lotto on these ... the physical universe could not, and would not exist.

.
your own statement gives the physical its proper role in the development of the universe, the Spiritual would follow as a random variable enabling the occurrence for Life to then emerge - from the inert physical.

.

 

[Boss]

Life energy could be like gravity, not specific to each person. Meaning, that there's no proof that a spirit stays whole and goes from life to life intact.

Now you are trying to explain your way around the previous comment you made about reincarnation. There is no proof of spirits, whole, intact or not! What does it even mean that a "spirit stays whole or intact?" --'the fuck are you talking about here? Spirits aren't physical so how would you determine if one was whole or intact? I mean, even as speculation, this does not make a lick of sense.

Of course, we can sit here all day long and let our imaginations run wild with how spiritual nature may work, I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove you're right. Any speculation on the nature of spiritual nature is really beside the point. If you believe it's possible spiritual nature exists, then it is logical it would have a guiding mechanism like physics to physical nature. Whether spirits remain intact or assimilate themselves on the fly as needed, something has to control this process.

 

[Boss]

If the physical universe had not hit the lotto on these ... the physical universe could not, and would not exist.

.
your own statement gives the physical its proper role in the development of the universe, the Spiritual would follow as a random variable enabling the occurrence for Life to them emerge - from the inert physical.

.

Possibly.

 

[Boss]

No, he says the universe is NOT fine tuned, PERIOD. You are a pathological liar.

No, the title of his book is: The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us

He simply tacks on the concept of God at the end then presents his speculative opinion on why there is no God. He can't explain away the fine tuned universe! No one can! Every theoretical physicist and astrophysicist acknowledges the fine tuning of the universe, including this clown who simply pontificates his opinion as if it were science.

 

[Hollie]

Where are these "immutable facts of a find tuned universe".

You're getting quite desperate, bossy. Your "because I say so", arguments have that odor of desperation that defines the arguments of the hyper-religious.

*sigh* How many times do I need to post these?

Coupling constant for the strong nuclear force.
Cosmological constant, which acts to accelerate the expansion of the universe.
The initial density of the universe relative to the critical density.
Universal gravitational constant.
Mass of a proton relative to the mass of a neutron.
Fine structure constant.
Speed of light.

Those are the main ones, there are about 30 more. If the physical universe had not hit the lotto on these, nailing the one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion value it needed on each one precisely, the physical universe could not, and would not exist.

*sigh*

How many more times are you going to fail in your attempts to use natural forces as a blanket "pwoof" for your gawds?

It really is a desperate and dishonest tactic to suggest that completely natural phenomenon somehow prove your spirit realms.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Life comes from life. Provide evidence to the contrary.

Life comes from organic organisms. There are a number of pathways that science has discovered whereby the elements of life that are abundant in the universe could spark life.

Identify how your gawds suddenly *poofed* life into existence.

organic chemicals are not organic organisms.....if it is an organism it is already alive.....organic chemicals are called the building blocks of life....they are never called the builders of life.......

Your Sunday school lessons are a poor substitute for formal biology classes.

and your posts are a poor substitute for debate......do you deny that an organism is already alive?.....

Your posts are a poor representation of a thinking human. Nowhere does "the gawds did it" answer anything.

do you deny that an organism is already alive......

 

[Boss]

Where are these "immutable facts of a find tuned universe".

You're getting quite desperate, bossy. Your "because I say so", arguments have that odor of desperation that defines the arguments of the hyper-religious.

*sigh* How many times do I need to post these?

Coupling constant for the strong nuclear force.
Cosmological constant, which acts to accelerate the expansion of the universe.
The initial density of the universe relative to the critical density.
Universal gravitational constant.
Mass of a proton relative to the mass of a neutron.
Fine structure constant.
Speed of light.

Those are the main ones, there are about 30 more. If the physical universe had not hit the lotto on these, nailing the one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion value it needed on each one precisely, the physical universe could not, and would not exist.

*sigh*

How many more times are you going to fail in your attempts to use natural forces as a blanket "pwoof" for your gawds?

It really is a desperate and dishonest tactic to suggest that completely natural phenomenon somehow prove your spirit realms.

Well maybe that has something to do with your insisting that spiritual nature is supernatural? The forces of nature are finely tuned, that is our debate here. Regardless of a God or the nature of spiritual nature, the forces of physical nature are finely tuned or physical nature couldn't exist.

I'm not trying to prove my spirit realms, you don't have to believe spiritual nature exists. Your point is proven, so why are you still arguing? I can't show you physical proof of spiritual things. I won't be able to do that tomorrow or the next day. Physical science doesn't understand how to examine or observe spiritual nature, just like it doesn't understand the finely tuned universe, dark matter and dark energy, what's inside of a black hole, how quantum entanglement works, what gravity is!

 

[Hollie]

Where are these "immutable facts of a find tuned universe".

You're getting quite desperate, bossy. Your "because I say so", arguments have that odor of desperation that defines the arguments of the hyper-religious.

*sigh* How many times do I need to post these?

Coupling constant for the strong nuclear force.
Cosmological constant, which acts to accelerate the expansion of the universe.
The initial density of the universe relative to the critical density.
Universal gravitational constant.
Mass of a proton relative to the mass of a neutron.
Fine structure constant.
Speed of light.

Those are the main ones, there are about 30 more. If the physical universe had not hit the lotto on these, nailing the one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion value it needed on each one precisely, the physical universe could not, and would not exist.

*sigh*

How many more times are you going to fail in your attempts to use natural forces as a blanket "pwoof" for your gawds?

It really is a desperate and dishonest tactic to suggest that completely natural phenomenon somehow prove your spirit realms.

Well maybe that has something to do with your insisting that spiritual nature is supernatural? The forces of nature are finely tuned, that is our debate here. Regardless of a God or the nature of spiritual nature, the forces of physical nature are finely tuned or physical nature couldn't exist.

I'm not trying to prove my spirit realms, you don't have to believe spiritual nature exists. Your point is proven, so why are you still arguing? I can't show you physical proof of spiritual things. I won't be able to do that tomorrow or the next day. Physical science doesn't understand how to examine or observe spiritual nature, just like it doesn't understand the finely tuned universe, dark matter and dark energy, what's inside of a black hole, how quantum entanglement works, what gravity is!

Actually, it is you who has configured your religion of spirit realms as supernatural. It's convenient that you configured your new fangled religion be exempt from investigation by rational science but that's typical for all religions. You just copied the template in the creation of your Religion of Magical Spirit Realms.

And no, science, at least legitimate science doesn't buy in to the religious fundamentalist conception of your gawdly tuned universe because it's a silly notion that is unsupportable.