Quote:My argument is the other way around. It is those forces that led to life that are inherent to the universe. Given the evidence that they cannot be changed or altered, the reasonable conclusion is that it is because they are a part of nature of existence. It is you who is claiming that they could've been something other than what they are and were specifically chosen to be what they are without any evidence.
I agree it doesn't appear the laws of physics can be altered after the big bang. My position is its not an established fact either way. It is an established fact that at least half a dozen constants have to be within an astounding degree of tolerance for a universe with stars, planets, galaxies and ultimately humans to exist. Its no less peculiar if for some unknown reason the laws of physics had to be in a configuration that supports life. You don't believe nature cared if humans came about, if stars came about or if planets came about or if the the laws of physics were such that stars created new elements by fusion that ultimately became the stuff planets are made of. You don't believe there was plan or design involved so even if the laws of nature had to be as they are (for some unknown reason) its still by happenstance that they had to be as we observe them. If it wasn't by happenstance then it was by design or plan.
Quote:Earth doesn't need protection from the harmful effects of sun. Neither does all life. Your argument that the earth's core was designed to protect life to which some aspects of sun's rays would necessarily be harmful fails before being born.
Earth doesn't need protection from the sun but our atmosphere does. This is one of the reasons Mars no longer has an atmosphere because it has a very weak magnetic field.
You don't honestly believe that some necessity of nature causes a spinning iron core to produce magnetic waves that fortuitously shields the earth do you?
Quote:Of course I do. The material left over from sun's formation condensed in different areas to form proto-planets and the only ones stable enough to do so at close range would be heavy metals such as iron. That explains the iron core. The spinning is the result of laws of physics acting upon the body. Electrons flowing in circular motions lead to a magnetic field. The terrestrial earth had to be the way it is.
But you don't believe it was by plan or design that the laws of physics as observed happen to be in a configuration that allows human life to exist. If it wasn't by plan or design that the laws of nature for some unknown reason had to be as they are then its still fortuitous that the conditions that allowed life and sentience to exist obtained. You don't really have any other choice in the matter, if it wasn't by plan or design then it was happenstance.
Quote:Also, I do not consider it fortuitous. In fact, I find it quite unfortunate. If the earth's magnetic field had not shielded us, life here would've evolved to be resistant to that radiation and thus it would've reduced potential problems for space travel.
There is now way to know that's what would have happened or that life would have begun to exist under such circumstances.
To say that the existence of human life is the neccesary consequence of the nature existence is to promote the very concept of the anthropomorphic principal you reject as a fallacy.
Quote:No, its not. And if you think that, clearly, you don't understand the anthropic principle to begin with.
In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1]
I'll let the readers decide for themselves what it means.
I can use semantics to turn a positive claim into an absence of belief. I can say I lack belief that mindless natural forces apart from plan or design could cause a universe to come into existence with just the right characteristics to produce life and sentience thus the burden of proof lies with those who claim that is how it happened. I can also just assert out of thin air that the default assumption is that we owe our existence to a Creator unless proven otherwise. Why not?
Quote:You can play all the semantic gymnastics you like and pull as many "default" positions out of your ass - that wouldn't shift the burden of proof. The premises agreed upon in this debate is that "forces of nature do exist and are responsible for formation of life". You are the one adding something extra (via argument from incredulity) that they would require a plan or design to do so. Cutting away all the semantics - you are the one making the positive claim. Similarly, the world we can perceive is taken as an accepted premise and therefore is the default position. The one adding a creator to it is making the positive claim.
I have no more burden of proof in this debate than atheists do. This notion of a postive vs a negative is atheist clap trap that you buy into hook line and sinker. As I demonstated above I have no problem framing the debate as a lack of belief I can say I lack belief that mindless natural forces apart from plan or design could cause a universe to come into existence with just the right characteristics to produce life and sentience thus the burden of proof lies with those who claim that is how it happened. Do you dare to think beyond the atheist sound bites you've been indoctrinated with? If atheists don't believe something happened, they refer to it as being skeptical and freethinking. If theists are skeptical of something you call it an argument from incredulity.
If you really want to cut the semantics here is what the debate is about. You believe the existence of the universe and humans was caused by natural mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend our existence to occur. I believe our existence and that of the universe was caused, planned and designed by a personal transcendent agent commonly referred to as God.
Quote: The most basic philosophical question that can be asked is: Is our existence and the existence of the universe the consequence of mindless forces that unintentionally produced life and sentient beings who could ponder the question? Or are we the result of a Creator who intentionally caused and designed the universe and sentient life to exist?
Quote:WRONG. That is not the most basic philosophical question and it shows the depth of your ignorance of the subject that you would consider it so. Those questions assume too many concepts and principles as given to be basic. They assume the existence of universe, existence of life, our existence, possibility of intention and purpose and existence of causality. The questions regarding these concepts would - by definition - be more basic to the ones you pulled out of your ass.
This is a pathetic response. Rather than address the issue raised you want to argue whether these are the most basic philosophical questions that can be asked. Pathetic but not unexpected.
Quote:Nowhere in the argument there is any evidence of this "narrow" range you keep blabbering about
The whole point of the book was to give a reason why he believes this is one of an infinitude of universes with different characteristics which is the only naturalist explanation he can think of as to why we find ourselves in a universe with nearly precisely the characteristics needed not only for life, but for planets, stars and galaxies to exist. He responds to the rebuttal some propose that the constants are the way they are because of some unknown law of physics. He counters it by saying its still inexplicable that if a universe comes into existence it has to have the characteristics to support life as we know it. How can one say on the one hand nature doesn't care and didn't intend for humans to exist or care if planets and stars exist but at the same time claim there is an unknown law of nature that demands these things exist. Not to mention it invokes the anthropic principal you deny.
Quote:I'm curious, did you actually read his book or just thought that the preface seemed to support your argument?
I have read it and have a copy but I don't think the managment of this board would approve if I copied the entire contents to this forum.
