(January 6, 2020 at 1:20 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(January 5, 2020 at 7:52 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: That being, Being, FSM.

Well, this was easy. RAmen.

Or it just doesn't matter. Which God it is, is a negligible detail.

I disagree. If it's mine then it's a shower of doughnuts, beer and cash for everyone.

(January 6, 2020 at 2:10 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(January 6, 2020 at 1:54 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: Snowflakes don't have a brain.

Oh, sorry. You seemed to have misunderstood me.

So.... You contend that everything that is as we see it is SO unique as to be seemingly impossible without something external and 'Intent' to propogate its existance, yes?

So... a snow flake is also unique. NO two snow flakes will ever be the same. What external 'Intent' force is making such things as snow flakes, then?

Cheers.

Not at work.

I didn't mention anything regarding "the shape" of the snowflake.
But I mentioned:

1-social life
2-capable of speaking with different languages and has
3-diverse skin colors
4-a moon and a sun rotating

The big picture doesn't support your claim.

(January 6, 2020 at 2:41 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(January 6, 2020 at 2:10 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Oh, sorry. You seemed to have misunderstood me.

So.... You contend that everything that is as we see it is SO unique as to be seemingly impossible without something external and 'Intent' to propogate its existance, yes?

So... a snow flake is also unique. NO two snow flakes will ever be the same. What external 'Intent' force is making such things as snow flakes, then?

Cheers.

Not at work.

I didn't mention anything regarding "the shape" of the snowflake.
But I mentioned:

1-social life
2-capable of speaking with different languages and has
3-diverse skin colors
4-a moon and a sun rotating

The big picture doesn't support your claim.

Oh... so you're not quite staying on the innitial topic we'd started?

You're branching out and adding in new definitions or redefning things?

I can understand that for clarification reasons but your innitial statement was.

"We're all so uniquely unique that something else with intent MUST have done everything."

(To paraphrase yourself. Pretty sure I got it mostly on point.)

Now, I'm pointing out that snow flakes are also all uniquely unique.... But can you see anything external with intent creating them?

As for your points above?

1) "Social life" Other animals also have variations of social lives. Most, if not all mammals and avians actually. Of course their versions are all unique (Again with the 'Uniqueness'. Interesting that. WHat external intent created that uniqueness... and how?)

2) Different vocalizations aren't unique to humans. Other hominds have developed such things (Just not as complicated, though possibly just as expressive in their own ways) as have other mammals and, again, avians.

3) Divers skin tone, fur patterns and plumage.... We're all similar to the other animals in our uniqueness. 

4) EVERY thing in our reality is seen to rotate. EVERY thing at a comsic level is moving. All the galaxies, stars, planets, moons, left over rubble and stuff.
Galaxies move around other galaxies as they, themselves, rotate about the reality bending monsters residing within their cores.
Stars spin about thier axis. Something caused by the coalescing dust cataclsym that was their birth. Dragging gravity and their attendant planets around them as they do so.
On a stellar level every thing is increadably chaotic. (As I think I've mentioned to you before in passing) it's all just happening on a scale to which our minds don't really notice. Since, while the speeds of such objects are 'Astronomical', so are the amazingly vast distances between them.

Cheers.

Not at work.

(January 6, 2020 at 3:10 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(January 6, 2020 at 2:41 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: I didn't mention anything regarding "the shape" of the snowflake.
But I mentioned:

1-social life
2-capable of speaking with different languages and has
3-diverse skin colors
4-a moon and a sun rotating

The big picture doesn't support your claim.

Oh... so you're not quite staying on the innitial topic we'd started?

You're branching out and adding in new definitions or redefning things?

I'm on the topic. Snowflakes fail miserably when they are compared to a stardust that evolved into a very complex human with a brain.

Quote:I can understand that for clarification reasons but your innitial statement was.

"We're all so uniquely unique that something else with intent MUST have done everything."

No. My initial statement didn't even discuss uniqueness; instead it pointed at the diversity of humans in terms of color then language.

Quote:Now, I'm pointing out that snow flakes are also all uniquely unique.... But can you see anything external with intent creating them?

Again; uniqueness is not what I discussed.

Quote:As for your points above?

1) "Social life" Other animals also have variations of social lives. Most, if not all mammals and avians actually. Of course their versions are all unique (Again with the 'Uniqueness'. Interesting that. WHat external intent created that uniqueness... and how?)

2) Different vocalizations aren't unique to humans. Other hominds have developed such things (Just not as complicated, though possibly just as expressive in their own ways) as have other mammals and, again, avians.

3) Divers skin tone, fur patterns and plumage.... We're all similar to the other animals in our uniqueness. 

Animals are creations just like us. Their minds are weaker that's all.

Quote:4) EVERY thing in our reality is seen to rotate. EVERY thing at a comsic level is moving. All the galaxies, stars, planets, moons, left over rubble and stuff.
Galaxies move around other galaxies as they, themselves, rotate about the reality bending monsters residing within their cores.
Stars spin about thier axis. Something caused by the coalescing dust cataclsym that was their birth. Dragging gravity and their attendant planets around them as they do so.
On a stellar level every thing is increadably chaotic. (As I think I've mentioned to you before in passing) it's all just happening on a scale to which our minds don't really notice. Since, while the speeds of such objects are 'Astronomical', so are the amazingly vast distances between them.

The big picture betrays your theory: when you look at the universe as a whole it proves itself to be very fragile, the Cosmic Web is a fragile thing. If the universe has no creator protecting it, it will be torn like a spider's web in the chaos resulting from the big bang.

Quote:Cheers.

To you too

What does the universe need protection from?

(January 6, 2020 at 4:20 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: The big picture betrays your theory: when you look at the universe as a whole it proves itself to be very fragile, the Cosmic Web is a fragile thing. If the universe has no creator protecting it, it will be torn like a spider's web in the chaos resulting from the big bang.

So what?
The Cosmos probably consists of an infinite number of universes of whom some are without life, some are without matter, some probably collapsed right after *spawning* (big bang).......and one maybe has matter, dark matter, dark energy and life.

So.fucking.what?

(January 6, 2020 at 4:20 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: The big picture betrays your theory: when you look at the universe as a whole it proves itself to be very fragile, the Cosmic Web is a fragile thing. If the universe has no creator protecting it, it will be torn like a spider's web in the chaos resulting from the big bang.

Quote:Cheers.

To you too

 ? The reality aroud us is 'Fragile' ?

Really?

 Also, you are saying your position initially was not revolving around human's "Uniquness"?

 So, please correct my innitial respons ideas. Expand etc.

Please explain/expand upn the 'Fragility' of reality.

Also, I must keep reminding myself that English is not your first language.

Cheers.

Not at work.

(January 6, 2020 at 4:31 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(January 6, 2020 at 4:20 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: The big picture betrays your theory: when you look at the universe as a whole it proves itself to be very fragile, the Cosmic Web is a fragile thing. If the universe has no creator protecting it, it will be torn like a spider's web in the chaos resulting from the big bang.

So what?
The Cosmos probably consists of an infinite number of universes of whom some are without life, some are without matter, some probably collapsed right after *spawning* (big bang).......and one maybe has matter, dark matter, dark energy and life.

So.fucking.what?

The Multiverse -  reasons, why it's not a good explanation for the existence of our fine-tuned universe.


The task of a multiverse generator
The smallness of the cosmological constant is widely regarded as the single the greatest problem confronting current physics and cosmology. The cosmological constant acts as a repulsive force, causing space to expand and, when negative, acts as an attractive force, causing space to contract. To get our universe, this constant must be right amongst 10^123 possibilities. That means that the probability that our universe contains galaxies is akin to exactly 1 possibility in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 . Unlikely doesn’t even begin to describe these odds. There are “only” 10^81 atoms in the observable universe, after all. Thirty billion years contains only 10^18 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10^143.

Now let's suppose there was a multiverse generator. He would have had to make up to 10^123 attempts to get one universe with the right expansion rate. He would have made 10^18 attempts after 30 billion years.
Once he had that right, to get a universe with atoms, he would have to make the following number of trials:
the right Ratio of Electrons: Protons 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity 1:10^40
If a multiverse generator existed, he must have been VERY busy in the last trillion trillion trillion years to get out only our universe......
does that make sense?

It's still makes more sense then god and again argument from incredulity 

Sorry again your wall of text fails to impress

(January 6, 2020 at 7:00 pm)Otangelo Wrote: . . .
Now let's suppose there was a multiverse generator. He would have had to make up to 10^123 attempts to get one universe with the right expansion rate. He would have made 10^18 attempts after 30 billion years.
Once he had that right, to get a universe with atoms, he would have to make the following number of trials:
the right Ratio of Electrons: Protons 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity 1:10^40
If a multiverse generator existed, he must have been VERY busy in the last trillion trillion trillion years to get out only our universe......
does that make sense?

No, Otangelo, one attempt would do. To get our actual universe in one iteration, may be unlikely in probability theory, but if the probability is more than zero, then one attempt could do it. Furthermore, if it took many, many, many, more attempts, then many, many other life forms could arise and evolve in those other universes. And as the number of universes approach infinity, then the probability that at least one universe would be exactly like ours grows more likely with that number.

The universe generator would of course not be a thinking active being, but simply whatever is natural, doing its thing. All this is not to say that we are in a universe among many, but some cosmologists take the idea seriously enough to work on its theory and implications. Good luck to them.

In any case, we need not view the universe as fine tuned for life, simply that life, as we know it, was able to arise in the universe as we know it. Just view it the other way around . . . life suits this universe, not the universe is especially made for life as we know it. So life as we know it, is one variant of perhaps a number of possible life kinds that could arise in this universe. It could just be that extant life may have outdone all other possibilities early in earth's history, and those other avenues to life have been lost, both in actuality, and in our ability to now detect them, as they never got a 'foothold' among the life we have.

Besides, most of the universe would seem to be extremely hostile for life, in which case a whole universe is very much overkill. Of course if you think goddidit, then anything goes, (ie. as it applies in this particular discussion). Anything goes, explains nothing. [Note: Anything goes = absolutely anything logical, is possible]. However, not everything logical is necessarily true.

Magilla.

P.S. The probability of life in our universe is >0, because it exists.