(November 9, 2016 at 2:44 am)Astreja Wrote: *facepalm* Dear, Sweet Uncle Loki -- Not the fucking Fine Tuning Argument.

Look, Snowtracks, it's very simple:  In any universe where the various constants did not support stability and the chemistry necessary for life, we simply would not be here talking about it.  Discussions such as these can only occur in a life-supporting universe, so all you are seeing is merely the illusion of design.

I do not see evidence that any god caused the Big Bang, but I'm reasonably sure that the god described in the Bible is much too stupid to have done it.  IIRC, it got blindsided by a Talking Snake™ 3 chapters into Genesis, and it didn't do a particularly good approximation of pi, either.  Trying to design atomic valence is way above its pay grade.

The sample size is one; infinite multiverse is only a metaphysical speculation. Randomness doesn't support the probabilities (10^120) - 10 followed by 120 zeros. Somehow, this one event got it right, 1 out of 1; of course if there is evidences of other universe's that didn't get right, the odds would have to be revised --- should the odds be revised?

(November 11, 2016 at 11:34 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(November 9, 2016 at 2:44 am)Astreja Wrote: *facepalm* Dear, Sweet Uncle Loki -- Not the fucking Fine Tuning Argument.

Look, Snowtracks, it's very simple:  In any universe where the various constants did not support stability and the chemistry necessary for life, we simply would not be here talking about it.  Discussions such as these can only occur in a life-supporting universe, so all you are seeing is merely the illusion of design.

I do not see evidence that any god caused the Big Bang, but I'm reasonably sure that the god described in the Bible is much too stupid to have done it.  IIRC, it got blindsided by a Talking Snake™ 3 chapters into Genesis, and it didn't do a particularly good approximation of pi, either.  Trying to design atomic valence is way above its pay grade.

The sample size is one; infinite multiverse is only a metaphysical speculation. Randomness doesn't support the probabilities (10^120) - 10 followed by 120 zeros. Somehow, this one event got it right, 1 out of 1; of course if there is evidences of other universe's that didn't get right, the odds would have to be revised --- should the odds be revised?

The sample size is 1; the probability at this point is not 1/10^120; it is 1.0.  Universe is already here; therefore the odds of it being here are 100%.

We have no way of knowing how many failed universes preceded this one due to constants being out of bounds; therefore, we shouldn't even be using a probability calculation because we have insufficient data.

(November 11, 2016 at 11:47 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(November 11, 2016 at 11:34 pm)snowtracks Wrote: The sample size is one; infinite multiverse is only a metaphysical speculation. Randomness doesn't support the probabilities (10^120) - 10 followed by 120 zeros. Somehow, this one event got it right, 1 out of 1; of course if there is evidences of other universe's that didn't get right, the odds would have to be revised --- should the odds be revised?

The sample size is 1; the probability at this point is not 1/10^120; it is 1.0.  Universe is already here; therefore the odds of it being here are 100%.

We have no way of knowing how many failed universes preceded this one due to constants being out of bounds; therefore, we shouldn't even be using a probability calculation because we have insufficient data.

Odds are not about the universe existing*, but about it existing not as 1. black holes or neutron stars or  2. radiation and gases, but as a razor's edge balance between gravity and dark energy that resulted in the universe's configuration. No, there wasn't a trillion trillion other universes that failed on balancing gravity and dark energy and this particular one out that group just happened to get it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*As posted - The universe's expansion rate has been balanced at just the right rate to make advanced life possible. If the expansion rate were to rapid, stars and planets would not form since gravity wouldn't have adequate time to pull together the gases and dust that make up these bodies. If the expansion rate weren't rapid enough, the stars formed would rapidly collapse and become black holes or neutron stars. What determines this expansion rate is gravity and dark energy (a property that stretches the universe's space/time surface. In the book 'The Grand Design' by Hawking, Modinow, of which I have in eBook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made. "The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it". Goes on to say that the Cosmological Constant (the energy density that causes the universe's expansion, referred to as dark energy) has a value 10^120” (as a comparison, the est. atoms in the observable universe is 10^80) ---  http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=how+many+atoms+in+the+universe ---  Continuing "the one thing that is certain is that if the value of the Cosmological Constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form--once again--life as we know it would impossible".   

(November 12, 2016 at 2:08 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(November 11, 2016 at 11:47 pm)Astreja Wrote: The sample size is 1; the probability at this point is not 1/10^120; it is 1.0.  Universe is already here; therefore the odds of it being here are 100%.

We have no way of knowing how many failed universes preceded this one due to constants being out of bounds; therefore, we shouldn't even be using a probability calculation because we have insufficient data.

Odds are not about the universe existing*, but about it existing not as 1. black holes or neutron stars or  2. radiation and gases, but as a razor's edge balance between gravity and dark energy that resulted in the universe's configuration. No, there wasn't a trillion trillion other universes that failed on balancing gravity and dark energy and this particular one out that group just happened to get it right.

Snowtracks, if you need to go to these lengths to prove a god exists, maybe it's just time to face the music and accept that it's just not there. The only person you're fooling is yourself. It's an old story. Nothing more.

(November 12, 2016 at 2:48 am)Primordial Bisque Wrote:

(November 12, 2016 at 2:08 am)snowtracks Wrote: Odds are not about the universe existing*, but about it existing not as 1. black holes or neutron stars or  2. radiation and gases, but as a razor's edge balance between gravity and dark energy that resulted in the universe's configuration. No, there wasn't a trillion trillion other universes that failed on balancing gravity and dark energy and this particular one out that group just happened to get it right.

Snowtracks, if you need to go to these lengths to prove a god exists, maybe it's just time to face the music and accept that it's just not there. The only person you're fooling is yourself. It's an old story. Nothing more.

God existence is known by everyone so no proof is needed or even proposed. The reason God said to Moses when Moses asked 'Who should I say has send me?' God replied "Moses, I AM that I Am" which means that God cannot have an explanation of His existence which eternal to Him, for then He would depend for His existence on whatever thing it is that explains His existence, so the explanation of God's existence must be internal to Him; that is to say, God exists by a necessity of His own nature - "I AM Who* I Am"  - God by necessity doesn't require a beginning (there isn't any explanation how this could be, other than 'God just exist)'. Beginning are only required on the cosmic timeline which is unidirectional where cause and effect transactions transpire. No 'these length' here since I fully endorse free will (God made the Garden of Eden very good [not perfect] but made it even better by later introducing free will). 

* some translations have it as 'Who'.

1. No, I don't know God is real.
2. Even if I did, you don't know what I know, let alone what everyone knows.

(November 27, 2016 at 7:35 pm)snowtracks Wrote: God existence is known by everyone...

Ah.  This must be some strange new definition of "everyone" that I wasn't previously aware of.

Then why are there atheists?

And which god?

(November 27, 2016 at 7:35 pm)snowtracks Wrote: God existence is known by everyone so no proof is needed or even proposed.

Then why has humanity worshipped millions of different gods over the course of our history?  Did God give everyone the innate knowledge that he exists, but nothing more?  If so, how do you know that it's the God who spoke to Moses?  Or that there ever even was a Moses?  Why would God give us the certainty that he is real but not give us a way of verifying that feeling?  Why would he give us that certainty, knowing that it would lead to centuries of bloodshed and horrific treatment of one another and that all of that suffering was utterly unnecessary if he'd just given us a name?

Why do you think up ideas like "everyone KNOWS god exists" without realizing that it doesn't get you any further than "god is necessary"?  The evidence for your god is so poor that you fall back on awful crap like that without realizing what it means.  If that's the best you can do then we're at square one: god... kinda probably exists... maybe.  This is what you're hanging an eternal reward or punishment on.  And you seem to think that the existence of a god who plays sick games like that is the PREFERABLE outcome.  You don't know what you're wishing for.