Why does science always upstage God?

[The Architect Of Fate]

"You don't think most of these can be explained via the physical sciences?"

If you can't explain them by physical sciences then you are into science fiction. I already explained that.

"Regarding consciousness you have a point - somewhat. But the others make no sense."

I make perfect sense. YOU are the one that wrote...

"You don't think most of these can be explained via the physical sciences?"

So you want to resort to science fiction. What else is left?!

"Do you want to know how the Earth became "fine-tuned" for life?"

You must have a reading problem. You skipped over creation as if that's no big deal to you, then you can't even read what I wrote...the fine-tuning of the universe so life can exist on earth. 

That is quite different from your, "Do you want to know how the Earth became "fine-tuned" for life?"

"You can look it up right now. It was a billions-year long process."

So then how did it know to get things so right that if it were slightly different to 120 decimal places, we wouldn't have a universe we have today? You don't have any idea what you're talking about to get that preciseness. From the same person who never addressed how we even got the creation of the universe to begin with, nor how we got life on earth, etc. You just treat this with your little flippant remarks that are not backed up.

Oh, I see what's happening here. You're thinking with your ego. I'm not trying to insult you when I say that, it's a common perception error.

You know... back in ancient Nordic times, they didn't have an explanation for thunder and lightning. So they made up Thor. Of course, we are far more knowledgeable than humans of past so our unanswered questions are much grander than "What causes lightning?" Instead, we've moved on to questions like "What prompted the beginning of our universe, of spacetime as we recognize it?" But you must see that, logically, you're making the same blunder the Nordic people did. Maybe the universe is actually eternal and what we perceive as its beginning is not the true beginning. Maybe the universe has been born and died countless times over an unfathomable amount of time, and this is just the current iteration. Maybe the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, and there are an infinite number of realities where the universe doesn't "get it right" and no life exists, while we live in one of the other near infinite realities where it does. But filling in the gap of knowledge with God is irrational because countless times in our history we have proven supernatural theories incorrect. Just like the Nordic people who believed they invoked Thor's wrath when it thundered, those who believe in Genesis are just as silly imo.

The universe didn't "know" to get things a certain way. The way you're thinking about the universe, on a fundamental level, is egotistical. You're projecting. The observable universe is 92 billion lightyears in diameter and contains billions of planets and sextillions of stars. Of all those planets, I'm sure there are millions of "fine-tuned" Earth-like planets, and I'm betting many of them have intelligent life too. But you can also see the sheer number of lifeless planets, the ones that either will never be like Earth or perhaps were once like Earth. Take Venus as an example - it used to be like Earth. Now it is one of the most dangerous atmospheres in the solar system. Venus was once "fine-tuned," then suddenly it wasn't. Just like the Earth! There have been numerous times throughout the planet's history where it went from being "fine-tuned" and habitable to being entirely uninhabitable. You oversimplify the process so that you can make it look silly to attribute the development to anything other than God, but a lot happens over billions of years! It's not science fiction. I don't get what you mean when you say that.

Also life on Earth is fucking hard even when it is "fine-tuned." Do you think it's the perfect planet? For most of human history, all of our time and energy were spent purely on survival. We were small nomadic groups just trying to eat and fuck. Wild animals, insects carrying disease, earthquakes, landslides, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, bacteria... the planet is actively trying to kill us. Not to mention that meteors from fucking space could render the planet uninhabitable overnight (as they already have done in the past).

Gotta love how they don't get how backward this line of reasoning is. The universe is not fine-tuned for us were are fine-tuned to it because we happened to evolve within it. Also fine-tuning makes no sense in theism. Why would a god need to fine-tune a universe?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It must be true, in a universe in which intelligent creatures are considering the requirements of their existence, that the requirements of the existence of intelligent creatures that can question the requirements of their existence...has been met in that universe.

Fine tuning is a deepity.

Show me human beings alive and well on the surface of a nuetron star, and we'll talk about fucking "magic"......

Given that there are terrestrial environs where humans can't survive (at least not without very special help), it's mighty hard to make the case that even the Earth  is finely tuned for human life. 

'Ocean: a body of water occupying about two thirds of a world made for Man - who has no gills.' - Bierce

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

Billy, billy, billy.... relax.

You may have heard about the fine tuning argument a few days ago and decided to run over some atheists with it... but we've heard it years ago and, like Mister Agenda said, it's just a thought experiment with a lot of if-clauses for which we have no way of knowing one way or the other, so relax... It's not the end-all argument you think it is.

The truth is no one knows how the Universe came into being. There are ideas, but none is proven and perhaps none will ever be proven, given that repeatability detail we like to have in science and our Universe is just one and it must have started just once.
One thing that could help in that regard are the ideas that posit the existence of other universes, but that too is very likely beyond our ability to conclusively show, so... meh.

Also, the Big Bang is declared to be a singularity and these things are considered to break some or all known laws of Physics, so maybe the Big Bang did break thermodynamics... who knows?
The maths shows that even time and space fizzle into nothingness at the Big Bang... thermodynamics kinda require that 4-dimensional substrate we call space-time to operate, so... again... who knows?

My point of view is that, given that no one knows, let's not decide that an answer that was invented thousands of years ago is the correct one.... it very likely isn't.

Relax, mon ami. Enjoy the forum.

Something about Billy reminds me of someone else I just can't place who.

He's clearly a sock account chiknsld. Which is weird because I don't remember us banning him. But his rhetoric is essentially identical.

[Pat Mustard]

You don't have to be ignorant to use an argument from ignorance. Your assertions aren't evidence and don't require evidence to dismiss, they require evidence to accept. Admitting what you don't know something is not ignorance or weakness, it's intellectual integrity.

"You don't have to be ignorant to use an argument from ignorance."

That didn't get around the evidence I gave. 

"Your assertions aren't evidence and don't require evidence to dismiss, they require evidence to accept."


They were not assertions, they are laws of science. You can lie all you want to but it does not change the science.

"Admitting what you don't know something is not ignorance or weakness, it's intellectual integrity."

I gave laws only science fiction people ignore, which is you. We KNOW those laws following what science showed by them being observable, repeatable, and falsifiable, but YOU want to ignore them and remain ignorant. You claiming that I'm the ignorant one is just an.....assertion. I give science, you give assertions. 

You're clearly showing you are a joke regarding integrity. 

On evidence, you haven't provided any so there is nothing to get around. Provide us with any evidence that god better explains reality than all of the discoveries of scienceand we can start talking. But remember, since science started to get going properly over the last 400 years, the phenomena attributed to god by religion has been ever shrinking.

Oh and on integrity, you wouldn't know about it if it upped and bit you on the arse, so don't presume to lecture us about not having any.

[Billy Bob]

So then how did it know to get things so right that if it were slightly different to 120 decimal places, we wouldn't have a universe we have today? You don't have any idea what you're talking about to get that preciseness. From the same person who never addressed how we even got the creation of the universe to begin with, nor how we got life on earth, etc. You just treat this with your little flippant remarks that are not backed up.

Fine-tuning isn't based on repeatable, verifiable evidence, it's a thought experiment. If this is the only universe and if the physical laws of this universe could have been different and if the values of the physical laws are unrelated to each other and if there aren't any other configurations of those laws that would allow a universe that could support some kind of life; then it's extremely improbable that this universe would support life.

That's a lot of ifs. And an omnipotent being doesn't need a universe that can support life to have life. It could have us living happily inside black holes if it wanted. A universe which can support life is the only type of universe that doesn't need an omnipotent designer to explain how life can exist there. And if the universe WAS purposely designed to support life, having 99.999999999999999999999999+% of it be hostile to life seems an odd design choice.

"Fine-tuning isn't based on repeatable, verifiable evidence, it's a thought experiment."

No, the physics IS going by science. Amazing how you throw things out with nothing to back you up. 

"If this is the only universe and if the physical laws of this universe could have been different and if the values of the physical laws are unrelated to each other and if there aren't any other configurations of those laws that would allow a universe that could support some kind of life; then it's extremely improbable that this universe would support life."

Going by what we know, this is the only universe. Going but what we know we would not have life unless the universe was finely tuned. You just made another useless claim as you ignore everything else too. 

"And an omnipotent being doesn't need a universe that can support life to have life."

Spare me that you have such great wisdom to tell a supernatural creator what they can and can't do. 

"And if the universe WAS purposely designed to support life, having 99.999999999999999999999999+% of it be hostile to life seems an odd design choice."

Do tell me what universe you created that beat the one we have. You're just a joke filling in space.

[Billy Bob]

You don't have to be ignorant to use an argument from ignorance. Your assertions aren't evidence and don't require evidence to dismiss, they require evidence to accept. Admitting what you don't know something is not ignorance or weakness, it's intellectual integrity.

"You don't have to be ignorant to use an argument from ignorance."

That didn't get around the evidence I gave. 

It gets around your accusation that I accused you of being ignorant.

"Your assertions aren't evidence and don't require evidence to dismiss, they require evidence to accept."

They were not assertions, they are laws of science. You can lie all you want to but it does not change the science.

You assert that the laws of science support your conclusions, but they do not.

"Admitting what you don't know something is not ignorance or weakness, it's intellectual integrity."

I gave laws only science fiction people ignore, which is you. We KNOW those laws following what science showed by them being observable, repeatable, and falsifiable, but YOU want to ignore them and remain ignorant. You claiming that I'm the ignorant one is just an.....assertion. I give science, you give assertions. 

You're clearly showing you are a joke regarding integrity. 

Again you've latched onto the notion that I'm asserting that you are ignorant when I've said nothing of the kind.

"It gets around your accusation that I accused you of being ignorant."
I'm following science; you're not. I'm not the one that is ignorant; you are.
"You assert that the laws of science support your conclusions, but they do not."
Then why can't you get around them? Because you can't so you fill in space.
"Again you've latched onto the notion that I'm asserting that you are ignorant when I've said nothing of the kind."

Without going back on other pages, was it you that brought up the argument from ignorance? I believe I was going by what we KNOW and you don't want to face what we know. You want to throw out all we know and just say we don't know. Then you know nothing. You have to follow that all the way through. You can say we don't really know 2 + 2 = 4. Just throw out what we know. You can do that with anything. Then be that way. Be a brat that if you don't like what the evidence shows, just claim we don't know yet. It's your life and I don't care.

[Billy Bob]

Followed by your evidence to back that up with...(blank)

You are the one claiming that the universe is fine-tuned so you are the one who should be bringing the evidence.

How is it selecting from things not there yet? Oh, you left that out too.

That's because I did not speak about selecting from things not there yet.

I don't mean to surprise you but DNA has biological information to instruct an organism to develop, survive, reproduce. 

That's why I am going to surprise you by telling you that the cat didn't just appear one day out of nothing but from different creatures that were simpler until you arrive at the creatures so simple that biology has nothing to say about them but the organic chemistry takes over -- and that's how it is with all other creatures.

Your question answers a whole lot about you

Especially to stupid people who never even bothered to read a book about evolution but feel compelled to lecture other people on this subject.

"You are the one claiming that the universe is fine-tuned so you are the one who should be bringing the evidence."

How can we have a find tuned universe without the universe? Yes, I made that claim but I put creation first and gave evidence for it. Let's follow an order of things. I can give evidence for the fine tuning but if you're going to gloss over what I gave on creation, you'll do the same with fine tuning.

"That's because I did not speak about selecting from things not there yet."

All you did was start with natural selection. I hate to wake you up, but first we need a universe, then a finely tuned universe, then we need life starting before we get anything selecting. I actually had to explain that to you.

"That's why I am going to surprise you by telling you that the cat didn't just appear one day out of nothing but from different creatures that were simpler until you arrive at the creatures so simple that biology has nothing to say about them but the organic chemistry takes over -- and that's how it is with all other creatures."

I'll copy and paste what I gave above but then again, why? All you do is skip parts and then just start at any point you want with natural selection. You will NOT comprehend that other things had to happen first. I'm not going to be your first grade teacher explaining how we must follow some logical order of things and skipping them is just showing you are far from being logical. Look at your dung...

"....by telling you that the cat didn't just appear one day out of nothing but from different creatures that were simpler until you arrive at the creatures so simple that biology has nothing to say about them but the organic chemistry takes over -- and that's how it is with all other creatures."

Again, YOU...."This is completely understood by science and is called Natural Selection."

What the hell, what is selecting?!!! You sure skipped a whole lot! Don't feel bad though, ALL you evolutionists do that. You just skipped major parts that have to have happened first so you can somehow appear smart.

"Especially to stupid people who never even bothered to read a book about evolution but feel compelled to lecture other people on this subject."

Now take a seat and close your eyes and think, first we need a universe. You've never explained how that just came about on its own nor the fine tuning of it for life on earth. Then.....you never explained how we got life on its own either. You just can't jump to your goo-to-you fairytale just because you want to. Being a spoiled brat doesn't answer what had to come first. Go cry to someone else.

[Angrboda]

Why does thinking upstage shit? Who can say?

[Billy Bob]

"You don't think most of these can be explained via the physical sciences?"

If you can't explain them by physical sciences then you are into science fiction. I already explained that.

"Regarding consciousness you have a point - somewhat. But the others make no sense."

I make perfect sense. YOU are the one that wrote...

"You don't think most of these can be explained via the physical sciences?"

So you want to resort to science fiction. What else is left?!

"Do you want to know how the Earth became "fine-tuned" for life?"

You must have a reading problem. You skipped over creation as if that's no big deal to you, then you can't even read what I wrote...the fine-tuning of the universe so life can exist on earth. 

That is quite different from your, "Do you want to know how the Earth became "fine-tuned" for life?"

"You can look it up right now. It was a billions-year long process."

So then how did it know to get things so right that if it were slightly different to 120 decimal places, we wouldn't have a universe we have today? You don't have any idea what you're talking about to get that preciseness. From the same person who never addressed how we even got the creation of the universe to begin with, nor how we got life on earth, etc. You just treat this with your little flippant remarks that are not backed up.

Oh, I see what's happening here. You're thinking with your ego. I'm not trying to insult you when I say that, it's a common perception error.

You know... back in ancient Nordic times, they didn't have an explanation for thunder and lightning. So they made up Thor. Of course, we are far more knowledgeable than humans of past so our unanswered questions are much grander than "What causes lightning?" Instead, we've moved on to questions like "What prompted the beginning of our universe, of spacetime as we recognize it?" But you must see that, logically, you're making the same blunder the Nordic people did. Maybe the universe is actually eternal and what we perceive as its beginning is not the true beginning. Maybe the universe has been born and died countless times over an unfathomable amount of time, and this is just the current iteration. Maybe the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, and there are an infinite number of realities where the universe doesn't "get it right" and no life exists, while we live in one of the other near infinite realities where it does. But filling in the gap of knowledge with God is irrational because countless times in our history we have proven supernatural theories incorrect. Just like the Nordic people who believed they invoked Thor's wrath when it thundered, those who believe in Genesis are just as silly imo.

The universe didn't "know" to get things a certain way. The way you're thinking about the universe, on a fundamental level, is egotistical. You're projecting. The observable universe is 92 billion lightyears in diameter and contains billions of planets and sextillions of stars. Of all those planets, I'm sure there are millions of "fine-tuned" Earth-like planets, and I'm betting many of them have intelligent life too. But you can also see the sheer number of lifeless planets, the ones that either will never be like Earth or perhaps were once like Earth. Take Venus as an example - it used to be like Earth. Now it is one of the most dangerous atmospheres in the solar system. Venus was once "fine-tuned," then suddenly it wasn't. Just like the Earth! There have been numerous times throughout the planet's history where it went from being "fine-tuned" and habitable to being entirely uninhabitable. You oversimplify the process so that you can make it look silly to attribute the development to anything other than God, but a lot happens over billions of years! It's not science fiction. I don't get what you mean when you say that.

Also life on Earth is fucking hard even when it is "fine-tuned." Do you think it's the perfect planet? For most of human history, all of our time and energy were spent purely on survival. We were small nomadic groups just trying to eat and fuck. Wild animals, insects carrying disease, earthquakes, landslides, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, bacteria... the planet is actively trying to kill us. Not to mention that meteors from fucking space could render the planet uninhabitable overnight (as they already have done in the past).

A bunch of blah-blah never explaining how you got around the laws I gave, then...

"Maybe the universe is actually eternal and what we perceive as its beginning is not the true beginning. Maybe the universe has been born and died countless times over an unfathomable amount of time, and this is just the current iteration. Maybe the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, and there are an infinite number of realities where the universe doesn't "get it right" and no life exists, while we live in one of the other near infinite realities where it does. But filling in the gap of knowledge with God is irrational because countless times in our history we have proven supernatural theories incorrect. Just like the Nordic people who believed they invoked Thor's wrath when it thundered, those who believe in Genesis are just as silly imo."

You forgot, Maybe it's Maybelline. All you did was ignore the 1st and 2nd laws again regarding creation and resort to science fiction. It's so you.

More blah-blah as you can't even get around the laws I gave on creation. Can you let me know how many useless replies you'll make before you get serious in showing the universe did come about on its own without breaking the laws I clearly gave? Your trail of maybe's is getting old.

[Billy Bob]

Billy, billy, billy.... relax.

You may have heard about the fine tuning argument a few days ago and decided to run over some atheists with it... but we've heard it years ago and, like Mister Agenda said, it's just a thought experiment with a lot of if-clauses for which we have no way of knowing one way or the other, so relax... It's not the end-all argument you think it is.

The truth is no one knows how the Universe came into being. There are ideas, but none is proven and perhaps none will ever be proven, given that repeatability detail we like to have in science and our Universe is just one and it must have started just once.
One thing that could help in that regard are the ideas that posit the existence of other universes, but that too is very likely beyond our ability to conclusively show, so... meh.

Also, the Big Bang is declared to be a singularity and these things are considered to break some or all known laws of Physics, so maybe the Big Bang did break thermodynamics... who knows?
The maths shows that even time and space fizzle into nothingness at the Big Bang... thermodynamics kinda require that 4-dimensional substrate we call space-time to operate, so... again... who knows?

My point of view is that, given that no one knows, let's not decide that an answer that was invented thousands of years ago is the correct one.... it very likely isn't.

Relax, mon ami. Enjoy the forum.

"The truth is no one knows how the Universe came into being. There are ideas, but none is proven and perhaps none will ever be proven, given that repeatability detail we like to have in science and our Universe is just one and it must have started just once.
One thing that could help in that regard are the ideas that posit the existence of other universes, but that too is very likely beyond our ability to conclusively show, so... meh."

The truth is, you must prove the laws I gave did not exist when the universe was created naturally or the universe always existed naturally. Going by what we know and have NO doubts about, those laws show it could not have happened naturally. You can ignore that till the cows come home but do ignore what we know and claim "no one knows" is a lie.

"so maybe the Big Bang did break thermodynamics... who knows?"

If it did, give evidence that this natural event somehow had no such laws to abide by. All we know is that if you claim natural events then they MUST fit with the laws of nature. You don't like that and like all the rest of you brats, you will just dismiss that. None of you will admit you truly don't care about science. You just want to pretend to care and be so honest. You're clearly not. 

"My point of view is that, given that no one knows, let's not decide that an answer that was invented thousands of years ago is the correct one.... it very likely isn't."

The correct one is backed by evidence and none of you are willing to admit that.