(March 8, 2016 at 10:00 am)Alex K Wrote:(March 8, 2016 at 9:49 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: And my response to their "only one of those outcomes is compatible with life" is how the fuck can you know that!?!
I tend to think of it like a "results chart", following a dice-roll. You roll a few 100-sided dice and see what numbers you get, then you consult the chart to see what the outcomes are from those results-- some of the chart-results aren't compatible with life, some are. Some may produce results we cannot imagine but which produce life-forms we also cannot imagine. Who knows? I don't. They don't.
The assumption that is required to even start their argument is that this is the only way it could be, the same anthropocentric bullshit they've been peddling since they said the earth was flat, made-for-us, and that the entire rest of the universe revolved around it.
I don't quite buy it. If I take the usual theories as a given and play around with the parameters, I very quickly get something where nothing but a gas of dilute particles will exist because there are no stable nuclei and no elements. Or - the universe recollapses or expands so fast that no stars are formed. I don't quite buy that we cannot say anything about this.
I understand, but it's similar to the arguments against mutation as a driving force behind evolution. Even though 99.9% of the results are bad, useless, and/or destructive, it only takes the 0.1% to drive the mechanism.
Most of the results on my "chart", above, give the outcomes you describe. But the "usual theories" you're talking about are not yet complete--it's why they're arguing over the Multiverse concept, among other things--and it's entirely probable that we'll discover new forces and/or particles that may change those equations.
Granted, physics is not my field, so I won't presume to say more on it, but it strikes me as astoundingly anthropocentric to assume that this is the only way it can possibly be, simply because it's the only version we can demonstrate at the moment. It's also a presumption that the constants could be anything but what they are. Just because you can change the numbers mathematically and see what happens in a simulation doesn't mean that there exists such a possibility for variance in the gravitational constant (for instance) in nature.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
