(April 5, 2025 at 8:27 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(April 5, 2025 at 3:03 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I have yet to hear these explanations. Take the existence of the universe that caused stars, planets, solar system, galaxies, and a planet like earth and to cause intelligent life to exist. I think it occurred because right from the start it was headed in the direction of a planet like earth existing. We know now that is far from a sure fire given.

 I think you have.  You've just chosen to ignore them because it's uncomfortable.

I was expecting you to cough up something.

(April 5, 2025 at 9:26 am)Order Wrote: I will prove the existence of God to you in a way you have probably never heard before, clearly, as clear as 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Yeah, the bloke works for me.

(April 5, 2025 at 10:11 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 5, 2025 at 8:27 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:  I think you have.  You've just chosen to ignore them because it's uncomfortable.

I was expecting you to cough up something.

Well, that's fascinating. Do tell, because as far as I know, we have never interacted before.

(April 5, 2025 at 8:27 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(April 5, 2025 at 3:03 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I have yet to hear these explanations. Take the existence of the universe that caused stars, planets, solar system, galaxies, and a planet like earth and to cause intelligent life to exist. I think it occurred because right from the start it was headed in the direction of a planet like earth existing. We know now that is far from a sure fire given.

 I think you have.  You've just chosen to ignore them because it's uncomfortable.

I'm not uncomfortable; unlike most atheists I don't deny there is evidence our existence is the result of natural forces. There is more in favor of design and plan. Any time you want to give it your best shot let me know.

(April 6, 2025 at 10:22 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 5, 2025 at 8:27 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:  I think you have.  You've just chosen to ignore them because it's uncomfortable.

I'm not uncomfortable; unlike most atheists I don't deny there is evidence our existence is the result of natural forces. There is more in favor of design and plan. Any time you want to give it your best shot let me know.

What’s your success rate?

Show your receipts

(April 6, 2025 at 10:22 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: I'm not uncomfortable; unlike most atheists I don't deny there is evidence our existence is the result of natural forces. There is more in favor of design and plan. Any time you want to give it your best shot let me know.

Design and plan are two very different things. Environmental pressures design creatures through evolution, but without any particular plan per se. It's just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, with variation and selection.

Further, the vast expanses of space, most star systems, and most planets are hostile to life. Probabilities are against life, and without the big numbers of time and places it likely wouldn't exist at all.

What plan can you see in all of that?

(April 5, 2025 at 8:01 pm)Alan V Wrote:

(April 5, 2025 at 3:03 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I have yet to hear these explanations.

I can recommend the book God: The Failed Hypothesis by philosopher and physicist Victor Stenger.

I read Howard Blooms 'The God Problem' and was disappointed as I believe most atheists are. Victor Stenger is a minor voice when it comes to multiverse theory.

Here is a summary of Victor Stengers book.

One of the key arguments presented in the book is the problem of evil. Stenger asserts that the existence of unnecessary suffering and evil in the world is inconsistent with the idea of an all- powerful and benevolent God. He argues that if God truly exists, he would not allow such suffering to occur.

That's a theological argument. How does an atheist use theology to make an argument against the existence of a Creator?

Furthermore, Stenger delves into the realm of physics and cosmology to challenge the notion of a God who created the universe. He discusses the Big Bang theory, the laws of physics, and the fine-tuning argument, arguing that these phenomena can be explained through natural processes without invoking a divine being.

He's going against the grain here as many scientists claim multiverse and don't deny the universe is fine-tuned for life. Victor claims that if one of the constants was different other constants could be different also and produce the same result (which is still fine-tuned).

Additionally, the book's tone can be quite confrontational towards religious belief. Stenger's strong atheistic stance may alienate readers who hold religious beliefs, potentially hindering open dialogue and understanding between different perspectives. It is important to approach the book with an open mind and consider other viewpoints to engage in a well-rounded evaluation of the topic.

I suggest you read Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. Like your book, this is written by an atheist and highly acclaimed scientist. He doesn't just believe the universe is finely tuned for life, he provides the facts to make his case. He acknowledges it may point to a Creator...but he's an atheist and so subscribes to multiverse theory to explain the fine tuning. A more recent book, 'A fortunate Universe'. goes even further into the fine-tuning of the universe for life down to the molecular level. 

Unlike most atheists I don't deny there is evidence we owe our existence to natural forces. I don't deny its possible we owe our existence to natural causes...I think its very unlikely.

Christ, you're a broken record.

I think Order has given up. You’re welcome.

Boru

(April 6, 2025 at 10:40 am)Alan V Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 10:22 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: I'm not uncomfortable; unlike most atheists I don't deny there is evidence our existence is the result of natural forces. There is more in favor of design and plan. Any time you want to give it your best shot let me know.

Quote:Design and plan are two very different things.  Environmental pressures design creatures through evolution, but without any particular plan per se.  It's just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, with variation and selection.

Further, the vast expanses of space, most star systems, and most planets are hostile to life.  Probabilities are against life, and without the big numbers of time and places it likely wouldn't exist at all.

What plan can you see in all of that?

I don't have an issue per se with evolution. But you concede a planet and a life permitting universe is necessary for evolution to occur.

Lets start with matter anti-matter lucky break The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. So why is there far more matter than antimatter in the universe?

https://home.cern/science/physics/matter...ry-problem

The cosmological constant.

The cosmological constant, a value representing dark energy's influence on the universe's expansion, is often cited as an example of fine-tuning because its observed value is remarkably small, yet any significant deviation would drastically alter the universe's structure and prevent life from existing. 

Why it's an Example of Fine-Tuning:

The fact that the observed value of the cosmological constant is so close to zero, despite theoretical predictions suggesting a much larger value, is often seen as evidence of a "fine-tuning" of the universe's parameters for life to exist.

Gravity
Yes, the strength of gravity, relative to other fundamental forces like electromagnetism, appears to be "fine-tuned" for life as we know it, meaning that a slightly different value could make the formation of stars, planets, and ultimately, life, impossible.

We still don't know what gravity is or why it exists. We do know if it was stronger, weaker or non-existence 'We wouldn't be here'

You mention evolution but for evolution to occur you concede the need of a suitable planet right? You're aware for life to exist certain chemicals have to be available but the early universe didn't come with those chemicals. They had to be caused to exist from scratch. Luckily for us, the laws of physics force stars exploding into a supernova to create new exotic matter and it just happens be the type of matter for humans and planets to exist. What a lucky break that was. According to your narrative, none of these lucky breaks was planned to happen so it had to be sheer luck right? Another lucky break we only discovered recently is dark matter. Without dark matter galaxies would fly apart and the ingredients for humans and planets would drift into interstellar space. It wasn't known that long ago that dark matter existed but then it was discovered (or inferred) to exist and if it didn't exist 'We wouldn't be here' .

Watch any documentary on the existence of the universe and the phrase you hear most often is if such and such weren't true, if such and such didn't occur in a narrow range 'We wouldn't be here'. 

This is why so many scientists claim we live in a multiverse. Given enough universes at least one should be life permitting.