Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[StuW]

What constructed it?

Who constructed you god?

Constructions require construction therefore a constructor

Who constructed your god?

So if the natural laws were tipped just a little either way life would no longer be possible? You would of course call this fine tuning.

I'd call it Anthropic Principle

Where did natural processes come from and aren't these statistics staggering for a coincidence?

They come from nature hence the term "natural". I don't think you understand the term coincidence.

If the universe was intentionally created for life by God then it is very much like the Biblical account.

You do understand how big the universe is in relation to our dust mote of a planet? You also understand how much of this universe is hostile to any known form of life? Doesn't look designed for life to me...

[Sword of Christ]

Who constructed you god?

God isn't a physical construction.

I'd call it Anthropic Principle

It could just as easily allow for human existence because God intentionally made it that way to begin with.

They come from nature hence the term "natural".

The idea is that God created nature and that's why nature exists. You have the construction, the laws of physics/nature and the constructor which is God.

I don't think you understand the term coincidence.

If we/the universe don't exist due to intentional purpose and intention by a creative supreme intelligence then what else is all this supposed to be exactly?

You do understand how big the universe is in relation to our dust mote of a planet?

There could be billions or trillions of other planets like Earth for all we know. The scale of the universe would allow for it.

You also understand how much of this universe is hostile to any known form of life? Doesn't look designed for life to me...

Life on Earth can thrive in virtually any hostile environment providing there is liquid water. It getting to stage where you have planets with liquid water orbiting stars that is something cosmic balancing act. But the universe was set for all this from the very start. This was incredibly finely tuned for life if you know about everything that was involved and had to happen.

[MindForgedManacle]

And you again ignore all my points SoC. Let's try again.

What constructed it?

Okay, let's play that game (and that's what this is to you: a game). That block of spacetime was reality. Does it therefore need a 'realtor' to explain it?

No you tool. Calling it a construction (as in, a thing) does not presume it had a constrictor. As I demonstrated, by definition it couldn't.

Constructions require construction therefore a constructor.

You are an idiot. I mean it as a statement of fact, not an insult. Does reality necessitate a 'realtor'? Does your God necessitate a 'Godder'?

Yours is a (or at least being) child's mind.

So if the natural laws were tipped just a little either way life would no longer be possible? You would of course call this fine tuning.

Not quite. Life as we know it would mostly have had a harder time in different circumstances, no doubt about it. What you don't understand is that is because life molds itself (through straightforward population mechanics) to its environment, not the other way around.

It will be some kind of process we don't as of yet know about but will rely 100% perfectly balanced natural laws. We only know how organic molecules are formed in early Earth conditions atm not how this formed into complex self replicator molecules but that's something for science to potentially discover if it is something that can be discovered. It's possible the creation of life wasn't something that happened on Earth panspermia is a possibility. Quite a fair amount you can speculate over but nothing that would particularly disprove God as far as I can see.

Your claim was that abiogenesis was basically what Genesis said, which as I demonstrated is pure fiction you pulled out your ass.

Abiogenesis doesn't necessitate some perfect balance of laws. Another vapid assertion. You misunderstand what 'fine-tuning' is in physics.

If the universe as a whole was purposefully created with an intent then there will have been a intentional outcome as the Bible/Torah suggested. The precisely balanced nature of the natural laws and the eventual complex outcome we can observe do I would say strongly suggest something like. But you can believe differently if you like I can't stop you.

And the problem is, is that we don't have any real support for supposing that "if" even being possibly the case. You can't say "If Y is true it explains (part of) X, therefore Y is true", which is what you're doing.

Where did natural processes come from and aren't these statistics staggering for a coincidence?

Natural processes don't 'come' from anywhere, they're just how things behave. There is no logic about why things ultimately behave as they do, it's a brute fact. And in ALL possible worlds this would be the case.

If the universe was intentionally created for life by God then it is very much like the Biblical account.

You just posted the same thing the text of mine you just quoted refuted. Can't stop that lying, can you?

You haven't explained why any of this is evidence against God not evidence for what God intentionally did.

Because (as I already said) something eternal (the universe on the B-theory of time) can't have been created by something temporally prior, and thus needs no creator. Further, there is no evidence within biology or chemistry of a telos (purpose) to life.

[StuW]

God isn't a physical construction.

How do you know?

It could just as easily allow for human existence because God intentionally made it that way to begin with.

It could just as well be the FSM as well.

The idea is that God created nature and that's why nature exists. You have the construction, the laws of physics/nature and the constructor which is God.

Again, how do you know this?

If we/the universe don't exist due to intentional purpose and intention by a creative supreme intelligence then what else is all this supposed to be exactly?

It is what it is, why does it need a purpose?

There could be billions or trillions of other planets like Earth for all we know. The scale of the universe would allow for it.

Put all the planets where life could exist in any form into a big ball... how much "space" is left?

Life on Earth can thrive in virtually any hostile environment providing there is liquid water. It getting to stage where you have planets with liquid water orbiting stars that is something cosmic balancing act. But the universe was set for all this from the very start. This was incredibly finely tuned for life if you know about everything that was involved and had to happen

Again, Anthropic principle.. If it wasn't like this you wouldn't be here to state your wild and wacky theories. How do you know there weren't billions of other universes before this one that were unable to support life?

[downbeatplumb]

Why isn't the universe fine tuned for life.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/cultur...-life.html

A general mistake made in search of fine-tuning, he points out, is to vary just one physical parameter while keeping all the others constant. Yet a "theory of everything" - which alas we do not yet have - is bound to reveal intimate links between physical parameters. A change in one may be compensated by a change in another, says Stenger.

the-fallacy-of-fine-tuning.jpg

In addition to general mistakes, Stenger deals with specifics. For instance, British astronomer Fred Hoyle discovered that vital heavy elements can be built inside stars only because a carbon-12 nucleus can be made from the fusion of three helium nuclei. For the reaction to proceed, carbon-12 must have an energy level equal to the combined energy of the three helium nuclei, at the typical temperature inside a red giant. This has been touted as an example of fine-tuning. But, as Stenger points out, in 1989, astrophysicist Mario Livio showed that the carbon-12 energy level could actually have been significantly different and still resulted in a universe with the heavy elements needed for life.

[snowtracks]

[quote='snowtracks' pid='529359' dateline='1382417796']
so we have this situation: going back towards the big bang, inside a second the physics laws breakdown which includes our cosmic timeline that has a component of cause and effect. a causal agent before this timeline wouldn't need a beginning. the universe created by an eternal God is at least a reasonable consideration.

No, it is not a reasonable consideration. It is you working backwards from the conclusion that god exists and attempting to make that fit with cosmology. It is a bare assertion with no evidence that you are only making because you have preconceived answer that you are attempting to reach.

the fbi profilers use that methodology.

[Lemonvariable72]

so we have this situation: going back towards the big bang, inside a second the physics laws breakdown which includes our cosmic timeline that has a component of cause and effect. a causal agent before this timeline wouldn't need a beginning. the universe created by an eternal God is at least a reasonable consideration.

No, it is not a reasonable consideration. It is you working backwards from the conclusion that god exists and attempting to make that fit with cosmology. It is a bare assertion with no evidence that you are only making because you have preconceived answer that you are attempting to reach.

the fbi profilers use that methodology.

There fixed it for you

[snowtracks]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='529626' dateline='1382465557']
Why isn't the universe fine tuned for life.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/cultur...-life.html

[quote]A general mistake made in search of fine-tuning, he points out, is to vary just one physical parameter while keeping all the others constant. Yet a "theory of everything" - which alas we do not yet have - is bound to reveal intimate links between physical parameters. A change in one may be compensated by a change in another, says Stenger.

[/quote]
strenger believes in meta-physics by tauting the multiverse (really? no evidence but seems crediable to him). even his brethern sagen told him that 'the U. is all there is'. strenger just a tired old guy with soup on his bib trying to sound intellectual that got cornered so needed to resort to sci-fi. after he dies, his books will just stitting there gathering dust.

[Tonus]

I'll ask again, because I am becoming more and more curious: if one of the finely-tuned universal "settings" was tweaked a few clicks to one side or the other, would god be powerless to create life?

[Cyberman]

strenger believes in meta-physics by tauting the multiverse (really? no evidence but seems crediable to him). even his brethern sagen told him that 'the U. is all there is'. strenger just a tired old guy with soup on his bib trying to sound intellectual that got cornered so needed to resort to sci-fi. after he dies, his books will just stitting there gathering dust.

No evidence but a final resort to ad hominem? The bank of credibility called, they need to talk to you about your massive overdraft.