Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[downbeatplumb]

Precision is something we attribute into things and something that is inherent.

I knew a German would describe precision.


Bazinga.

[Esquilax]

Precision is something we attribute into things and something that is inherent.

I knew a German would describe precision.


Bazinga.

He described it very precisely.

[Alter2Ego]

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

No, not really. So what?

ALTER2EGO -to- FALLEN TO REASON:
This may come to you as a shock, but your skepticism expressed as "So what?" indicates you have no effective rebuttal.

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

This "precise" law could be said to be the result of *random* causal relations since the Big Bang which led to *this* universe and not some other variation. Any other variation would of had its own equally "precise" law due to a different set of causal relations.

You're pointing out a trivial fact about causality. So what? Tacking a deity at the end of said trivial fact is a non-sequitur.

See what I'm saying? Another "So what?" as if somehow, you can wish reality away by not wanting to deal with uncomfortable facts.


I will address the remainder of your post at another time.

[Minimalist]

Your whole life must be an endless series of "so whats" given what I have seen of your reasoning ability.

Stick to your bible and leave the heavy thinking to those who can handle it. Science is obviously wasted on you.

[Bad Wolf]

If this guy isn't a troll i seriously worry for the future of the human race and kindly ask him not to breed.

[Anomalocaris]

If this guy isn't a troll i seriously worry for the future of the human race and kindly ask him not to breed.

It's a her, and her presence here recently is evidence that she wouldn't keep her promises. So there is no point to asking her. It is better to sterilize her.

[Esquilax]

See what I'm saying? Another "So what?" as if somehow, you can wish reality away by not wanting to deal with uncomfortable facts.


I will address the remainder of your post at another time.

Can you demonstrate your "uncomfortable facts," at all? You do understand that numbers aren't some magic external force, they're just the way we as humans quantify things? And that the reason elements have the atomic structure they do is because if they had a different structure they would be a different element?

What justification do you have for your leap that "there's numbers here, therefore GAWD!"

[LostLocke]

If this guy isn't a troll i seriously worry for the future of the human race and kindly ask him not to breed.

It's a her, and her presence here recently is evidence that she wouldn't keep her promises. So there is no point to asking her. It is better to sterilize her.

Didn't she also say she was a JW? Or was that someone else I was thinking of....?

But if she said she was, I don't think what she's doing here would be looked upon very fondly by the local elders.
Both the tone and approach would be seen as very "un-Christian", and we were taught to avoid worldly venues to preach the good the news.
(That's why we came to your doors, your defenses were much lower and you usually didn't have quick references to dispute our claims )

[FallentoReason]

No, not really. So what?

ALTER2EGO -to- FALLEN TO REASON:
This may come to you as a shock, but your skepticism expressed as "So what?" indicates you have no effective rebuttal.

Let me exchange my "so what" with this:

Meh.

Scientists wouldn't be able to predict things if the periodic table wasn't tidy.... *meh*.... so what?? So what if they couldn't predict things otherwise? What's so amazing here??

This "precise" law could be said to be the result of *random* causal relations since the Big Bang which led to *this* universe and not some other variation. Any other variation would of had its own equally "precise" law due to a different set of causal relations.

You're pointing out a trivial fact about causality. So what? Tacking a deity at the end of said trivial fact is a non-sequitur.

See what I'm saying? Another "So what?" as if somehow, you can wish reality away by not wanting to deal with uncomfortable facts.


I will address the remainder of your post at another time.

Errr.. yeah.. how about you respond to my point properly? Read the stuff *before* and *after* the "so what" - the meat of my point. You've brushed off my point about you simply pointing to the trivial effects of causal relations from the big bang that we observe today. That's why I ask "so what"? Again, what is there to see here? What do you want me to get out of this? You're coming short on any sort of meaningful explanation for your theory, hence me shrugging and being left with nothing to say but "so what"?

[Faith No More]

Rather than trying to argue through extreme ignorance, Alter2Ego should be praying for forgiveness for disappointing Jesus.