(February 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The 'math' used to determine this is based on nothing but assumptions.
God created the universe as an understandable mathematical construct so he essentially created maths, what we are able to understand mathematically. So there wouldn't be much of a point trying to bring maths into it. The maths you have is the maths for a fine tuned universe.
Quote:But we don't know any of those things for sure with our sample size of one universe. On the contrary side, the 'flatness' of the universe supports the notion that the values of the physical constants may be quite constrained by physical necessity of the universe having a net energy budget of either practically or actually zero.
God created energy with the universe he didn't use energy to create the universe. How he creates all this I don't know perhaps it's within his minds eye or something.
Quote:The argument that the universe's habitability is extremely unlikely is based on a thought experiment, not evidence.
It just looks very much like a deliberate process of formation from a simple to a complex state of form from the big bang at the start, all the materials and structures that formed and the ultimate outcome of the extreme complete of life and the human brain itself. It seems reasonable to suggest that God does in fact exist, certainly a God. It's possible that this God didn't reveal himself and what we made up happened to fit with what actually exists. It's also possible that the revelation we have is the revelation from the same God.
Come all ye faithful joyful and triumphant.
