God was behind Big Bang, pope says

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
If you have ever studied mysticism you would look at the matter differently. If you approach it with a moral relatvism, or positivism, youre not gonna get anywhere outside your basic egotistical assumptions.

Nobody has proven absolute morality, so there's really no other form of morality other than relativism. And mysticism isn't the opposite of moral relativism or positivism.

This world IS intelligently designed because simply put, it appears that way.

I'm sorry, but that's not a logical conclusion. You actually have to prove how the naturalistic explanations which demonstrate that things aren't naturally designed fall short. You also have to provide evidence beyond 'it appears that way'. If we could make conclusions based on 'it appears that way' we'd have a horrible criminal justice system and no need for forensic science.

Hell, how does the world appear to be intelligently designed? We have tectonic instability, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. Wouldn't an intelligent designer do a better job than that?

No need to conflct or confuse the scenario by concentrating on peripheral matters like reductionist logic.

Or...we could just use science, that thing that actually helps human lives (something mysticism has yet to do).

It is what it is. We are creations studying the principals of G-d and thats the type of attitude that most of histories greatest scientists have had;

Really? Can you name a single Nobel prize winner with that attitude?

Isaac Newton for instance derived his knowledge from the mathematical basis of the Torah (in Hebrew, letters are also numbers).

No, he derived some silly ideas from that. He didn't derive the laws of motion or calculus from the Torah. In fact, he didn't derive a single thing of value from the Torah, and anyone who knows about Newton's work will tell you that it is a shame that he wasted time on that and his other pseudoscientific endeavors.

Its funny that people like you worship chance.

We don't worship chance.

I really dont think it a coincidence that the Hebrew word for 'luck' (or chance) is Gad - which has the gematria of 7. Gad is very similar to the German Gott, and English God.

And the word "Gott" has no basis in Hebrew, it's based in archaic Germanic and traces back to Sanskrit without interruption by the Hebrew language.

I think were learning something about the pagan foundation of western culture with that correspondence. Although to you, it appears to be accidental.

Modern western culture is based not upon paganism or mysticism, but upon reason and inquiry. Few people will accept claims at face value. We're hopefully moving towards a more skeptical, and far less stupid, age.


reply to post by dontreally


You just referred to an individual as a parasite and egotistical and you just asked what's wrong with them for their strong reaction to such claims? Hypocrisy much?

reply to post by dontreally


I'm sorry, but positivism does cut it in this world. The nature of light is a question that will be answered logically, not by some sort of silly mysticism.

I just love it when spiritualists and new agey types of all sorts cling on to barely understood scientific concepts. What's next, quantum mechanics?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Im not a 'new ager'.

Im spiritual. Sure.

Life is inherently paradoxical. There are some matters - life in itself, that simply transcend the framework of our limited minds.

Mysticism helps us understand our inherent limitations. The mathematician georg cantor learned the hard way that mathematics eventually becomes unintelligible the more abstract you go...

So i think it is perfectly reasonable to understand that positivism can not be applied to the question of life; which in itself transcends our understanding.

Didnt QM definitively prove the paradox at the subatomic level? The subatomic level can be compared in many ways to spirituality; in that its abstract. Doesnt the wave-particle duality prove an irreconcilable logical paradox? How can they be resolved through positivism? It cant. They are too completely contradictive views. The resolution to this is accepting the existence of paradox and working it into our understanding of reality which is made up of irrational and rational elements.

You just referred to an individual as a parasite and egotistical and you just asked what's wrong with them for their strong reaction to such claims? Hypocrisy much?

Well he started it with his "wasnt speaking to you, was I".. comment...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

In fact, he didn't derive a single thing of value from the Torah, and anyone who knows about Newton's work will tell you that it is a shame that he wasted time on that and his other pseudoscientific endeavors.

Nope. i think may would disagree with that view

We don't worship chance.

The definition of 'idolatry' is the defification of a theory or belief. What do yuo think the ancient mythologys of the ancients were about? Theyre allegorical theories of how the world works; albeit, primitive relative to what we know today. Nonethless, today like than they deified principles. Only difference is we dont personify our beliefs (ostensibly at least)

And the word "Gott" has no basis in Hebrew, it's based in archaic Germanic and traces back to Sanskrit without interruption by the Hebrew language.

Ok. But all languages can be related to Hebrew as the nascent science of edenics shows. BTW, linguisitcs and philology is one painfully arbitrary 'science'. PIE, for instance, is not even a real language, but a restructured hypothetical language that can linguists have created to resolve differences between sanskrit, greek and slavic.

For instance, do you know about Grimms law? Well, roughly 40,000 words in extant languages and thousands in English can be traced back to Hebrew through the particular letter shifts GRIMMs laws explains.

An interesting example is Qaver, Hebrew for 'grave'. The Q and G sound are both guttorals and so can be exchanged while the G and R reverse positions, making the Hebrww Q-V-R the English G-R-V (grave).

Edenics posits the idea that all language is archetypal and so programmed into our basic psychic makeup. This is why most languages have variations of the same essential sounds for words. Hebrew is seen as the root language, or at the very least, the closest ancestor of an even more ancient language universal languge (as all myths of the ancients believed, that we all spoke 'one language' at one point in history)

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Im critizing his approach.

The approach hes using is called positivism which initself is limited to just logical matters.

Logic is fine; but unfortunately, life transcends logic; just as the dichotomy between particle and wave shows. We can only get so far with logic. In question of existence positivism doesnt cut it.

Sadly logic is the only real approach as the alternative is called "making stuff up as you go"

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Yet scientists have no clue if those constants could even possibly have other values. There is also the fact that the universe would seemingly be able to chug on as is without the weak force of the universe, one of the four fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetism, gravity).

Rees maintains that six numbers in particular govern our universe, and that if any of these values were changed even slightly things could not be as they are. For example, for the universe to exist as it does requires that hydrogen be converted into helium in a precise but comparatively stately manner – specifically, in a way that converts seven one-thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value very slightly – from 0.07 per cent to 0.06 per cent, say – and no transformation could take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else, Raise the value very slightly – to 0.08 per cent – and bonding would be so wildly prolific that hydrogen would long since have been exhausted. In either case, with the slightest tweaking of the numbers the universe as we know and need it would not be here.

Bryson, B. (2003) A Short History of Nearly Everything. 1st ed: London: Black Swan. P. 35.

Originally posted by Joecroft
It is well known to science through empiricism, that had our universe expanded to fast, or to slow, by a tiny fraction, then conditions would not have been right for the creation/happening of the elements on the periodic table and life as we know it. This knowledge, has led some to believe, that there could be a creator/God, which although is a rationalist jump, it is at least based on empiricism.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
No, it is based on assumption. We are unable to determine whether or not those numbers have any other possible values, so any leap based upon the values of those numbers is merely assumption.

Scientifically there are a large number of factors, which had to be just right for our universe to be! This is a known fact. What is not known, is whether multiple universes exist or not.

It’s funny how multiple universes are considered to be a scientific hypothesis, but when it comes to any notion of God, however God may be defined, it is regarded as an assumption!

Based on what we know and can see/measure, the empirical evidence tell us there are a large number of factors which had be just right for our universe to be here. Because there is no empirical evidence for multiple universes, IMO they are, as of now, an assumption.

I mean what is going to happen in the distant future, if and when science discovers that ours is the only universe. Is it going to be sticking to its rhetoric, that our universe just happened by chance…I’m guessing that it will!

Originally posted by Joecroft
One of the major potential criticisms of the Anthropic cosmology, is the idea of the multiverse.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Yes, one of many unproven hypotheses with regards to theoretical cosmology.

Yes, but it is very often used as an argument that our universe, just happened by chance, due to large numbers of probability, when we simply don’t know if these other universes exist.

Originally posted by Joecroft
Many Multiverses may have expanded at the wrong rate and may have only gotten as far as the hydrogen and Helium stage, resulting in a rather lifeless and ultimately dead universe. The general concept is that with many thousands or millions of universes expanding, ours just happened to hit lucky by pure chance.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Or possibly all universes have the exact same fundamental physical constants, thus they all formed into stable universes. We don't have to appeal to the multiverse to say that the 'fine tuning' argument for a creator is a bit silly.

Yes I can see you point but even if science does make the discovery, that there are indeed other universes out there and even if some of these universes are dead, or have made it into a similar stable state as our own, we are still right back to the question, how did all these universes start to expand to begin with?
(Rhetorical question)

Originally posted by Joecroft
What this essentially means, is that we are using rationalism, to try to refute the empirical knowledge, as to why the universe appears to have so many coincidental factors, for the creation/happening of life, as we know it. Science will of course claim that God is not falsifiable but then again, neither is the idea of the multiverse falsifiable.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Actually, the idea of the multiverse is falsifiable. It is within the realm of scientific investigation and is currently going through scientific inquiry. Of course, it is only one hypothesis amongst many.

The conceptions of deities, on the other hand, vary. Some are unfalsifiable. Some might be. But that is a separate issue and something for another thread.

Yes, I think my wording was a little bit inaccurate in my last paragraph. I agree, the multiverse is theoretically falsifiable, but IMO this just seems a long way off into the distant future.

As for God being un-falsifiable, I think this depends a lot on how God is being defined. Although much of what I have read, suggests that scientists and even religious people, argue that God is outside the realms of science but I don’t agree with this. I think everything has to be considered within the realms of science and understanding.

But yes, I agree, it is another topic for another thread.


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft

Originally posted by Joecroft
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Yet scientists have no clue if those constants could even possibly have other values. There is also the fact that the universe would seemingly be able to chug on as is without the weak force of the universe, one of the four fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetism, gravity).

Rees maintains that six numbers in particular govern our universe, and that if any of these values were changed even slightly things could not be as they are. For example, for the universe to exist as it does requires that hydrogen be converted into helium in a precise but comparatively stately manner – specifically, in a way that converts seven one-thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value very slightly – from 0.07 per cent to 0.06 per cent, say – and no transformation could take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else, Raise the value very slightly – to 0.08 per cent – and bonding would be so wildly prolific that hydrogen would long since have been exhausted. In either case, with the slightest tweaking of the numbers the universe as we know and need it would not be here.

Bryson, B. (2003) A Short History of Nearly Everything. 1st ed: London: Black Swan. P. 35.

Originally posted by Joecroft
It is well known to science through empiricism, that had our universe expanded to fast, or to slow, by a tiny fraction, then conditions would not have been right for the creation/happening of the elements on the periodic table and life as we know it. This knowledge, has led some to believe, that there could be a creator/God, which although is a rationalist jump, it is at least based on empiricism.

Emphasis mine. Nothing in that statement actually points out that those values could be different. It's saying that things would be different if those numbers were different, not that there exists a reasonable scenario in which we could posit their difference.

It's just like saying "If I could fly, I'd be a lot better at basketball"...well, there's no reasonable scenario in which I could fly, so what's the point in stating it. You're pointing out a pure hypothetical, something that has absolutely no basis anywhere in actual facts.

Oh, and on the lack of 'fine tuning', here's a nice paper (though a bit heavy and technical) on the lack of need for a weak force

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
No, it is based on assumption. We are unable to determine whether or not those numbers have any other possible values, so any leap based upon the values of those numbers is merely assumption.

Scientifically there are a large number of factors, which had to be just right for our universe to be! This is a known fact. What is not known, is whether multiple universes exist or not.

And I never appealed to multiple universes. Or did I? ...nope, didn't. And scientifically, there are a large number of factors which we are unaware of other values for. We know that they have their current value, but we are unaware if those numbers could have other values. Thus, your argument is chopped off at the knee.

Also, one of those values could simply be subtracted from the equation and we still have a universe.

It’s funny how multiple universes are considered to be a scientific hypothesis, but when it comes to any notion of God, however God may be defined, it is regarded as an assumption!

Well, multiple universes are a subset of quantum theory and are considered a hypothesis because they are based upon observations of quantum theory. But that is one amongst many hypotheses.

Based on what we know and can see/measure, the empirical evidence tell us there are a large number of factors which had be just right for our universe to be here. Because there is no empirical evidence for multiple universes, IMO they are, as of now, an assumption.

And again you keep beating away at the straw man. The empirical evidence shows no other values for these factors, so it is an assumption that they needed to be finely tuned.

Argumentative jujitsu there. Turned your argument right back at you.

I mean what is going to happen in the distant future, if and when science discovers that ours is the only universe. Is it going to be sticking to its rhetoric, that our universe just happened by chance…I’m guessing that it will!

Again with the straw men. I specifically said that we don't need to appeal to the multiverse to attack fine tuning. Fine tuning is actually a bigger assumption than the multiverse, because at least a theory of many universes has some basis in modern physics.

Originally posted by Joecroft
One of the major potential criticisms of the Anthropic cosmology, is the idea of the multiverse.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Yes, one of many unproven hypotheses with regards to theoretical cosmology.

Yes, but it is very often used as an argument that our universe, just happened by chance, due to large numbers of probability, when we simply don’t know if these other universes exist.

And yet you've spent half of this post railing against it for...no reason. I already pointed out that we need not appeal to it.

Originally posted by Joecroft
Many Multiverses may have expanded at the wrong rate and may have only gotten as far as the hydrogen and Helium stage, resulting in a rather lifeless and ultimately dead universe. The general concept is that with many thousands or millions of universes expanding, ours just happened to hit lucky by pure chance.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Or possibly all universes have the exact same fundamental physical constants, thus they all formed into stable universes. We don't have to appeal to the multiverse to say that the 'fine tuning' argument for a creator is a bit silly.

Yes I can see you point but even if science does make the discovery, that there are indeed other universes out there and even if some of these universes are dead, or have made it into a similar stable state as our own, we are still right back to the question, how did all these universes start to expand to begin with?
(Rhetorical question)

So invoking a deity solves the issue? Invoking a designer simply begs the question of where this designer came from. You're simply using a "God of the gaps" argument here. There is a gap in our understanding of the natural world, therefore god.

Originally posted by Joecroft
What this essentially means, is that we are using rationalism, to try to refute the empirical knowledge, as to why the universe appears to have so many coincidental factors, for the creation/happening of life, as we know it. Science will of course claim that God is not falsifiable but then again, neither is the idea of the multiverse falsifiable.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Actually, the idea of the multiverse is falsifiable. It is within the realm of scientific investigation and is currently going through scientific inquiry. Of course, it is only one hypothesis amongst many.

The conceptions of deities, on the other hand, vary. Some are unfalsifiable. Some might be. But that is a separate issue and something for another thread.

Yes, I think my wording was a little bit inaccurate in my last paragraph. I agree, the multiverse is theoretically falsifiable, but IMO this just seems a long way off into the distant future.

I'd disagree. Theoretical physics tends to work off quite quickly. I'd say...give it 20-50 years.

As for God being un-falsifiable, I think this depends a lot on how God is being defined. Although much of what I have read, suggests that scientists and even religious people, argue that God is outside the realms of science but I don’t agree with this. I think everything has to be considered within the realms of science and understanding.

But yes, I agree, it is another topic for another thread.

Very good. It's a shame that you didn't address the thrust of my point. Your argument is baseless because it's actually self-contradictory. You're arguing that other universes are unobserved and therefore not empirical, yet you're saying that there are other possible values for certain factors of the universe when only one value has been observed.

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Im not a 'new ager'.

Im spiritual. Sure.

That's why I separated them with a linking word. They are two different groups.

Life is inherently paradoxical. There are some matters - life in itself, that simply transcend the framework of our limited minds.

Ok, how is life paradoxical? How does life (a self-contained system which replicates) transcend our minds?

Mysticism helps us understand our inherent limitations.

Which limitations and in what way does it help us understand them?

The mathematician georg cantor learned the hard way that mathematics eventually becomes unintelligible the more abstract you go...

I'm sorry, but a vague reference to a clearly chemically imbalanced great mathematical mind doesn't really prove anything.

So i think it is perfectly reasonable to understand that positivism can not be applied to the question of life; which in itself transcends our understanding.

What about life transcends our understanding?

Didnt QM definitively prove the paradox at the subatomic level?

Ok, you clearly don't understand what the word 'paradox' means. What is paradoxical about quantum mechanics?

The subatomic level can be compared in many ways to spirituality; in that its abstract.

Quantum mechanics is most decidedly a concrete endeavor, it is in no way abstract.

Doesnt the wave-particle duality prove an irreconcilable logical paradox?

No, it provides an interesting question that is currently being tackled by great scientific minds.

How can they be resolved through positivism?

I don't know. But, oddly enough, I'm no scientist. I'm sure someone with better scientific understanding is tackling it.

It cant. They are too completely contradictive views.

I'm sorry, but please demonstrate that it can't.

The resolution to this is accepting the existence of paradox and working it into our understanding of reality which is made up of irrational and rational elements.

Please provide an irrational element to the universe.

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

In fact, he didn't derive a single thing of value from the Torah, and anyone who knows about Newton's work will tell you that it is a shame that he wasted time on that and his other pseudoscientific endeavors.

Nope. i think may would disagree with that view

Alright then, please show where he derived anything from the Torah.

We don't worship chance.

The definition of 'idolatry' is the defification of a theory or belief. What do yuo think the ancient mythologys of the ancients were about? Theyre allegorical theories of how the world works; albeit, primitive relative to what we know today. Nonethless, today like than they deified principles. Only difference is we dont personify our beliefs (ostensibly at least)

Um...again, there's no dedication of chance. You just simply defined idolatry. We aren't dedicating ourselves to the idea of chance, we actually understand statistics. Unless you're a creationist, then you think that a deck of cards being in any given order is impossible.

And the word "Gott" has no basis in Hebrew, it's based in archaic Germanic and traces back to Sanskrit without interruption by the Hebrew language.

Ok. But all languages can be related to Hebrew as the nascent science of edenics shows.

Are you serious? You mean that Hebrew, a language that is predated by the Jewish religion, is the basis for Sanskrit, one of the most ancient written languages? You clearly don't understand the development of historical languages. The Hebrew language seems to be no more than 3000 years old, whilst we have evidence of many languages predating this.

And 'edenics' is not a science, as it's based upon a presupposition, thus violating the very basis of the scientific method.

BTW, linguisitcs and philology is one painfully arbitrary 'science'. PIE, for instance, is not even a real language, but a restructured hypothetical language that can linguists have created to resolve differences between sanskrit, greek and slavic.

They're not arbitrary, they're based around cautious observations in certain instances. We do, however, understand

For instance, do you know about Grimms law? Well, roughly 40,000 words in extant languages and thousands in English can be traced back to Hebrew through the particular letter shifts GRIMMs laws explains.

Ok, can you please show documentation of this claim? And doesn't Grimm's law only apply to Proto-Indo-European language through Proto-Germanic? Hebrew is most definitely neither Indo-European nor Germanic.

An interesting example is Qaver, Hebrew for 'grave'. The Q and G sound are both guttorals and so can be exchanged while the G and R reverse positions, making the Hebrww Q-V-R the English G-R-V (grave).

...really? You mean: קֶבֶר or "qeber" right? Pronounced "keh'-ver".

Edenics posits the idea that all language is archetypal and so programmed into our basic psychic makeup.

No, Edenics posits that all languages have a basis in Hebrew. There are, of course, other linguistic theories that actually posit that all languages have a psychological basis.

This is why most languages have variations of the same essential sounds for words.

No, they don't. See, I've actually studied language, as I teach English as a foreign language. I had to learn the phonetic alphabet for English and then I had to learn some basic differences between English and other languages. There are many languages that exclude some sounds from English, just like there are many languages that include extra sounds, though normally it's a mixture of include and exclude.

Hebrew is seen as the root language, or at the very least, the closest ancestor of an even more ancient language universal languge (as all myths of the ancients believed, that we all spoke 'one language' at one point in history)

Though Hebrew is only about 3000 years old. Even by Biblical young-Earth creationist standards, this is a bit of a stretch.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Ok, you clearly don't understand what the word 'paradox' means. What is paradoxical about quantum mechanics?

Why are you being so insulting for?

Whats paradoxical? Well, how can the basic building blocks of matter appear BOTH as a particle, AND as a wave? They contradict each other.

Quantum mechanics is most decidedly a concrete endeavor, it is in no way abstract.

NEWTONIAN physics, is concrete, because it is observable. QM involves incredibly abstract mathematics. Additionally, its conclusions contradict basic human experience. That is, do we see a world of waves or particles? But we know this is what it is. likewise, spirituality posits some transcendental substance; consciousness.

Please provide an irrational element to the universe.

Well, for one, the emotions are 'irrational'. Depth psychology speaks at great length about the 'irrational' nature of the unconscious, relative to the logical mind. The psychologist Ignacio matte Blanco considered the unconscious to be symmetrical, and therefore alogical, relative to the asymetrical conscious mind.

Because we ourselves are composed of irrational and rational elements, it stands to reason that so is all of reality.

Alright then, please show where he derived anything from the Torah.

That would require you understanding anything about Kabbalah; which you dont.

We aren't dedicating ourselves to the idea of chance, we actually understand statistics. Unless you're a creationist, then you think that a deck of cards being in any given order is impossible.

You are completely dedicating yourself to chance. To you, there is no other order other than what positivism declares. In kabbalistic thought, there are two contradictory and paradoxical qualities to reality. The limited, and the unlimited. The former can be understood logically and is expressed as laws, and principals in nature and mind, while the latter transcends the entire lower framework.

Are you serious? You mean that Hebrew, a language that is predated by the Jewish religion, is the basis for Sanskrit, one of the most ancient written languages? You clearly don't understand the development of historical languages. The Hebrew language seems to be no more than 3000 years old, whilst we have evidence of many languages predating this.

Actually, the oldest languages are semitic; as archeology has proven. The idea that sanskrit is the most ancient despite actual evidence (which means it doesnt satisfy the 'scientific method' ) to the contrary can be explained as the obvious eurecentrist desire to trace all things back to the indo-aryans (or indo europeans as its called today). Same with the made up PIE (proto indo european) a completely hypothetical language.

Edenics (Hebrew) is much more sensible and indeed demonstratable relative to the postulated language PIE.

One requires INVENTION, the other a simple application of Grimms law to Hebrew.

Ok, can you please show documentation of this claim? And doesn't Grimm's law only apply to Proto-Indo-European language through Proto-Germanic? Hebrew is most definitely neither Indo-European nor Germanic.

How could grimms law only apply to PIE? Its a basic law of linguistics. Sounds produced by the same organ - guttoral, labial, dentil, palatal, nasal, fricative and vowel, can be exchanged.

For instance, Asians cant say "R" but will say L. L and R are both palatals and thus interchangeable. V and W are often exchanged and infact Hebrew Grammarians like the ancient scholar Rashi document the shift of C and G or T and S or B and P/F between Hebrew and Aramaic.

...really? You mean: קֶבֶר or "qeber" right? Pronounced "keh'-ver".

What are you trying to prove? In Hebrew, only consonants are letters. Thus shifts occur between consanants are whats relative. not vowels (although they occur aswell obviously)

The basic constitution of the word Qaver (if you dont read Hebrew, it would be best not to pretend you do. I will notice it) is Qoof, Bet, Resh. The Qoof, Kaf, Gimel, Heh and Chet are all guttorals, and so are interchangeable. In English, this appears as Grave. Where the hard C becomes a G sound, and the R and V reverse positions (the Bet in Hebrew can be pronounced as both a B and a V sound. Likewise, the Vav can be pronounced as a oo or a W, or Pey as P or F. A thought provoking paradox!)

No, they don't. See, I've actually studied language, as I teach English as a foreign language. I had to learn the phonetic alphabet for English and then I had to learn some basic differences between English and other languages. There are many languages that exclude some sounds from English, just like there are many languages that include extra sounds, though normally it's a mixture of include and exclude.

Edenics posits 7 root letters which are the 7 basic organs that produce speech. Isaac Mozeson (the creator of edenics) calls this the 'do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do' of language.

Also, Hebrew is considered the nearest ancestor of Edenics. But yes, Hebrew is the language used to make connections.

Heres an example of the above theory.

The Hebrew word SHeN - tooth. These are its derivatives in other languages (keep in mind the above principal of letter shifts between organs ie; s to ch or ts, or n to m - both nasals)


Edenic (tooth) SHeN
Arabic (tooth) SIN
Chinese (tooth, horn similar) CH' ih
English (irregular tooth) SNag
Finnish (tooth - reversed) S a MMha
German (tooth) Z ah N
Italian (tusk, fang) Z a Nna
Japanese (horn, antler) TS u No
Korean (ivory) S a Nga
Malay (tooth) S/CH N

and 10 dialects have this common element reversed

topi Indian/Brazil (tooth) S ai Nha
Swahili (tooth J is like SH) J I No
Yiddish (tooth) TS oh N

Another good example which gets no acknowledgement from linguistics is the Greek Hedone (pleasure), which is from the Hebrew Eden (pro. aiden) which means 'pleasure', ie; the garden of hEDONism - pleasure.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Joecroft
It is well known to science through empiricism, that had our universe expanded to fast, or to slow, by a tiny fraction, then conditions would not have been right for the creation/happening of the elements on the periodic table and life as we know it. This knowledge, has led some to believe, that there could be a creator/God, which although is a rationalist jump, it is at least based on empiricism.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Emphasis mine. Nothing in that statement actually points out that those values could be different. It's saying that things would be different if those numbers were different, not that there exists a reasonable scenario in which we could posit their difference.

It's just like saying "If I could fly, I'd be a lot better at basketball"...well, there's no reasonable scenario in which I could fly, so what's the point in stating it. You're pointing out a pure hypothetical, something that has absolutely no basis anywhere in actual facts.

Oh, and on the lack of 'fine tuning', here's a nice paper (though a bit heavy and technical) on the lack of need for a weak force

I never said my above post proved there was a God, but only that it
“has led some to believe, that there could be a creator/God.”

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
And I never appealed to multiple universes. Or did I? ...nope, didn't. And scientifically, there are a large number of factors which we are unaware of other values for. We know that they have their current value, but we are unaware if those numbers could have other values. Thus, your argument is chopped off at the knee.

I never said that you were appealing to multiple universes. My argument is not chopped off at the knee because it is based on what we know (empiricism) and can see. We can’t just deny all the evidence, which we currently have, based on the fact that there are other values of which we are currently unaware. Of course there is a collective picture, which needs to be built up here, but I’m just bringing up some of what we currently have to go on.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Also, one of those values could simply be subtracted from the equation and we still have a universe.

I don’t deny we could still have a universe, but what type of universe would it be…most likely based on our current knowledge a dead lifeless one.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
And again you keep beating away at the straw man. The empirical evidence shows no other values for these factors, so it is an assumption that they needed to be finely tuned.

Argumentative jujitsu there. Turned your argument right back at you.

What do you mean by “no other values for these factors”?

Are you denying the fact that there are a number of factors about our universe, which if not exactly right would lead to dead universe?

There is a much bigger list of factors to be considered, that we know about.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
And yet you've spent half of this post railing against it for...no reason. I already pointed out that we need not appeal to it.

Once again, I never suggested you appealed to it, but only that it was a popular argument used against it by others.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
So invoking a deity solves the issue? Invoking a designer simply begs the question of where this designer came from. You're simply using a "God of the gaps" argument here. There is a gap in our understanding of the natural world, therefore god.

Remember I only said, “has led some to believe, that there could be a creator/God”. It’s not like I’m suggesting a new scientific theory, or that it should become a scientific Law or anything of that nature.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
I'd disagree. Theoretical physics tends to work off quite quickly. I'd say...give it 20-50 years.

I’d disagree. I think were talking somewhere in the ball park of about the year 2450

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Very good. It's a shame that you didn't address the thrust of my point. Your argument is baseless because it's actually self-contradictory. You're arguing that other universes are unobserved and therefore not empirical, yet you're saying that there are other possible values for certain factors of the universe when only one value has been observed.

I think your missing the point. The universe that we know and can see, maybe the only universe there is!
Of course both arguments can be used against each other as you mentioned above, but I wasn’t trying to use the argument to prove that there was a God. I only used it to point out why some people have made that jump.


- JC

The thread title shows the complete lack of educational distinction the Pope has. He and every religion change their stance on god and science every 15 mins to suit whatever situation rears its head.
I am of sound belief that this is nothing more than a weak grasp to hang onto a belief that is fading faster and faster as each sun rises. I am convinced that the belief in religion will gain momentum before it explodes into nothingness over the next two years. Once we get past the 2012 hype there will be no need for a fictitious god.

reply to post by Joecroft


I'm just going to cut this down to the basic point where you're wrong:

Where is the empirical evidence that there could be any other value for any of the physical constants in the universe?

If you are able to answer this question in a satisfactory manner, you have a point. If you cannot, you are guilty of the exact same supposition you accuse those who appeal to the many-worlds hypothesis of.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Vicky32

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Given that the pope has no scientific knowledge ...

He doesn't need to, because he has a staff of science advisors. I am very surprised that you don't already know that!
Vicky

You mean the same science advisors that took 150 years to accept a theory the rest of the scientific community has long accepted before them? The same advisors that were hellbent to stating the earth is flat even after it came out they were wrong? And what makes you so sure those "advisors" are not biased or that their statements even get heard/accepted?

Well today I have been catching up with my reading of New Scientist (specifically the issue of 25th December to 1 Jan 11).
In that issue is a review of the book by Nancy Marie Green, 'The Abacus and the Cross' - about a pope who died in 1003, Gerbert of Aurillac, known as the 'Scientist Pope'. Ms Green gets points from me for publicising the existence of this man, previously unknown to me.
She also gives the background and the information that for one thing, the currently popular belief that people in those days believed the earth was flat, is completely wrong.
You can see from this, that the Catholic church has always been keenly interested in science. So, I don't know where you got your 150 year figure from!
Vicky

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Ok, you clearly don't understand what the word 'paradox' means. What is paradoxical about quantum mechanics?

Why are you being so insulting for?

Whats paradoxical? Well, how can the basic building blocks of matter appear BOTH as a particle, AND as a wave? They contradict each other.

It's only a paradox due to the limited nature of our understanding. In many ways it's more of an explanation based upon the limitation of the observer and quite possibly a facet of the universe. It seems paradoxical, but that's really because it's something incredibly new to science.

Smashing god into the gap of understanding? Not helping anyone.

Quantum mechanics is most decidedly a concrete endeavor, it is in no way abstract.

NEWTONIAN physics, is concrete, because it is observable. QM involves incredibly abstract mathematics.

We can observe quantum mechanics. It has been tested and verified experimentally (much to Einstein's dismay). Newtonian physics also requires quite a bit of abstract mathematical computation, it's just less complicated because it's operating on a more understandable scale.

Additionally, its conclusions contradict basic human experience.

No, it's conclusions have nothing to do with basic human experience. We don't experience the sub-atomic world in which quantum physics operates.

That is, do we see a world of waves or particles? But we know this is what it is. likewise, spirituality posits some transcendental substance; consciousness.

Well, we experience the world as particles. Unfortunately, quantum mechanics breaks down at the atomic level, which is still a level which we don't experience things at.

Please provide an irrational element to the universe.

Well, for one, the emotions are 'irrational'. Depth psychology speaks at great length about the 'irrational' nature of the unconscious, relative to the logical mind. The psychologist Ignacio matte Blanco considered the unconscious to be symmetrical, and therefore alogical, relative to the asymetrical conscious mind.

That is irrational in relation to logical thought, but not irrational in relation to the greater science of the world. We can explain emotions in quantifiable manners.

Because we ourselves are composed of irrational and rational elements, it stands to reason that so is all of reality.

That is a fallacy of composition. Just because a portion of an object has a certain composition does not mean that the whole of the object has that composition. By your logic, since all blocks of stone are composed of rational elements, the whole universe is composed of rational elements.

Alright then, please show where he derived anything from the Torah.

That would require you understanding anything about Kabbalah; which you dont.

Two logical fallacies in a row? That is the logical fallacy of special pleading.
It's also false, as I am actually quite aware of the Kabbalah and it's immense uselessness.

We aren't dedicating ourselves to the idea of chance, we actually understand statistics. Unless you're a creationist, then you think that a deck of cards being in any given order is impossible.

You are completely dedicating yourself to chance. To you, there is no other order other than what positivism declares.

Um...and how is positivism based on chance? You just went from Step 1 to Step 3 without going over how you got there in Step 2.

In kabbalistic thought, there are two contradictory and paradoxical qualities to reality. The limited, and the unlimited. The former can be understood logically and is expressed as laws, and principals in nature and mind, while the latter transcends the entire lower framework.

Yes, and that's sort of stupid because there's no example of the 'unlimited' in this universe. But I'm not sure I'm going to make much headway with an individual who thinks that Newton gained understanding of science that was never present in Hebrew culture from a book produced by Hebrew culture.

Are you serious? You mean that Hebrew, a language that is predated by the Jewish religion, is the basis for Sanskrit, one of the most ancient written languages? You clearly don't understand the development of historical languages. The Hebrew language seems to be no more than 3000 years old, whilst we have evidence of many languages predating this.

Actually, the oldest languages are semitic; as archeology has proven.

Um...the oldest languages? Such as? And we have no idea what the earliest languages were as writing didn't arise until a few hundred thousand years after modern humans evolved.

Now, the earliest written languages? Well, cuneiform was used for a couple of semitic languages, but Elamite, Hattic, and Sumerian were isolates, Hittite and Luwian were Indo-European, and Hurrian and Uratian were...Hurro-Uratrian. This leaves only two languages, Akkadian and Eblaite, in cuneiform. So...out of the earliest written most weren't semitic.

The idea that sanskrit is the most ancient despite actual evidence (which means it doesnt satisfy the 'scientific method' ) to the contrary can be explained as the obvious eurecentrist desire to trace all things back to the indo-aryans (or indo europeans as its called today).

I didn't actually say it was the most ancient, though it is a few hundred years older than Hebrew. I'd say the oldest language is...impossible. The oldest written tradition is actually isolate (Sumerian).

Same with the made up PIE (proto indo european) a completely hypothetical language.

It's not completely hypothetical. It's based upon evidence. There are linguistic trends that can be tracked, and PIE is currently the best explanation for it. Hell, you reference Grimm's law, which is based entirely on PIE.

Edenics (Hebrew) is much more sensible and indeed demonstratable relative to the postulated language PIE.

And yet I can't find a single scholarly work on it. And I've yet to see a demonstration that a language whose existence is not found prior to 3000 years ago is the foundation for all language.

One requires INVENTION, the other a simple application of Grimms law to Hebrew.

Grimm's law is based in PIE.

Grimm's law (also known as the First Germanic Sound Shift or the Rask's-Grimm's rule), named for Jacob Grimm, is a set of statements describing the inherited Proto-Indo-European (PIE) stops as they developed in Proto-Germanic (PGmc, the common ancestor of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European family) in the 1st millennium BC. It establishes a set of regular correspondences between early Germanic stops and fricatives and the stop consonants of certain other centum Indo-European languages (Grimm used mostly Latin and Greek for illustration). As it is presently formulated, Grimm's Law consists of three parts, which must be thought of as three consecutive phases in the sense of a chain shift:

Source

Ok, can you please show documentation of this claim? And doesn't Grimm's law only apply to Proto-Indo-European language through Proto-Germanic? Hebrew is most definitely neither Indo-European nor Germanic.

How could grimms law only apply to PIE? Its a basic law of linguistics. Sounds produced by the same organ - guttoral, labial, dentil, palatal, nasal, fricative and vowel, can be exchanged.

For instance, Asians cant say "R" but will say L. L and R are both palatals and thus interchangeable. V and W are often exchanged and infact Hebrew Grammarians like the ancient scholar Rashi document the shift of C and G or T and S or B and P/F between Hebrew and Aramaic.

Please show me a scholarly source that holds that Grimm's law is a universal linguistic law rather than an Indo-European linguistic speech. And can you please provide evidence of Rashi's documentation of such an event?

...really? You mean: קֶבֶר or "qeber" right? Pronounced "keh'-ver".

What are you trying to prove? In Hebrew, only consonants are letters. Thus shifts occur between consanants are whats relative. not vowels (although they occur aswell obviously)

I'm pointing out that you're going from one syllable to two.

The basic constitution of the word Qaver (if you dont read Hebrew, it would be best not to pretend you do. I will notice it) is Qoof, Bet, Resh. The Qoof, Kaf, Gimel, Heh and Chet are all guttorals, and so are interchangeable. In English, this appears as Grave.

And you've yet to find a reason to apply this etymology in place of the standard etymology

Where the hard C becomes a G sound, and the R and V reverse positions (the Bet in Hebrew can be pronounced as both a B and a V sound. Likewise, the Vav can be pronounced as a oo or a W, or Pey as P or F. A thought provoking paradox!)

Ugh..not a paradox. And again, you've shown that it's somewhat possible, but not that it's probable or applicable or acceptable over the currently accepted model.

You've also not demonstrated that Hebrew as a language existed prior to 3000 years ago.

No, they don't. See, I've actually studied language, as I teach English as a foreign language. I had to learn the phonetic alphabet for English and then I had to learn some basic differences between English and other languages. There are many languages that exclude some sounds from English, just like there are many languages that include extra sounds, though normally it's a mixture of include and exclude.

Edenics posits 7 root letters which are the 7 basic organs that produce speech. Isaac Mozeson (the creator of edenics) calls this the 'do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do' of language.

And what are these roots? It would have saved me the trouble of actually providing them rather than providing a silly anecdote.

Also odd is that this man, having been working on his 'edenics' for over a decade since he first published a book on it, has yet to actually publish anything in a linguistics journal. I'm not saying that means he's wrong, but it's never a good sign. He also has a qualification in literature rather than in linguistics, with no attempt to gain any linguistics training at a doctoral level. Again, not damning, but fishy.

Also, Hebrew is considered the nearest ancestor of Edenics. But yes, Hebrew is the language used to make connections.

And again, we have no evidence that Hebrew existed as a language prior to 3000 years ago. We actually have evidence that the Jewish religion predates Hebrew.

Heres an example of the above theory.

Um...no. I'm just ignoring it because, aside from being off-topic entirely, you're working from the basis of Hebrew being the root and then coming up with evidence to support it, all the while ignoring the multitude of words that don't fit into your framework.

Another good example which gets no acknowledgement from linguistics is the Greek Hedone (pleasure), which is from the Hebrew Eden (pro. aiden) which means 'pleasure', ie; the garden of hEDONism - pleasure.

And yet, there's evidence to show that Mycenaean Greek predates Hebrew by a few hundred years.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
I'm just going to cut this down to the basic point where you're wrong:

Where is the empirical evidence that there could be any other value for any of the physical constants in the universe?

If you are able to answer this question in a satisfactory manner, you have a point. If you cannot, you are guilty of the exact same supposition you accuse those who appeal to the many-worlds hypothesis of.

Well, as I pointed out in my last post, both arguments can be used against each other, but we only have our universe to go on, at this moment in time. And it’s not so much about the physical constants but more about the actual initial conditions of our universe being just right, in order to have a living universe.

The constants maybe be the same in other universes, we just don’t know, but even if they are the same, we know that the initial conditions would have to be just right in order for another universe to develop carbon based life, or to just even get past the helium and hydrogen stage, necessary to produce the other elements that we know exist in our universe.

I don’t see why you are using the phrase guilty of the same supposition, when (A) one is a form of rationalism based on empirical knowledge and the other i.e. the multiverses, is based only on rationalist thought. And (B) I never said that these cosmological coincidences proved that there is a God but only that it has led some people to believe so.

From my own perspective, it is something I have considered, but I also have had personal experience’s, which have led me to believe in a God/creator and therefore my belief, is not solely down to the Anthropic Principle alone.


- JC

reply to post by Joecroft


Ok, I'm going to spell it out slowly. In the case of one universe, that is a single sample, we can only draw one conclusion:

It is possible for the early conditions of our universe and the physical constants to be as they are.

We are unable to speculate on whether or not there could have been possible differences that would require fine tuning as we have no evidence that these things could be any different than they are in our universe. To appeal to fine tuning based upon the supposition that "if things were different with this physical constant or rate of early expansion etc Y would have happened rather than X" is to be guilty of making a claim not based in empiricism.

We have no evidence that the rate of expansion could have been any different, thus appealing to it is not basing your argument in empirical evidence.
We have no evidence that the physical constants could be any different than they are now, thus appealing to them is not basing your arguments in empirical evidence.

I hope I've spelled it out enough for you, as you don't seem to be understanding the thust of my argument.

Now, if you can demonstrate an observation that shows that we could have different laws of physics or rates of expansion, or any other astrophysical phenomenon, please share it.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Ok, I'm going to spell it out slowly. In the case of one universe, that is a single sample, we can only draw one conclusion:

It is possible for the early conditions of our universe and the physical constants to be as they are.

We are unable to speculate on whether or not there could have been possible differences that would require fine tuning as we have no evidence that these things could be any different than they are in our universe.

But you are assuming that there are other samples of universes out there, when we just don’t know that yet.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
To appeal to fine tuning based upon the supposition that "if things were different with this physical constant or rate of early expansion etc Y would have happened rather than X" is to be guilty of making a claim not based in empiricism.

We have no evidence that the rate of expansion could have been any different, thus appealing to it is not basing your argument in empirical evidence.

But again you are assuming that there are these other universes, that expanded at different or similar rates, and that they may or may not have had the same physical constants as our own universe.

I’m hoping that you can see how both arguments can be used against each other here. All that scientific data about our universe, although not complete, forms our empirical knowledge of it.

The major difference between multiverse and our own universe, is that one has been observed/measured etc (Empirical) and the other has not been observed at all, (Rational) and may not even exist!

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
We have no evidence that the physical constants could be any different than they are now, thus appealing to them is not basing your arguments in empirical evidence.

I am appealing to what we can see and know exists i.e. our own universe and not on what we don’t know exists i.e. multiple universes.

It’s not about the physical constants, being the same or different, it’s about conditions in our early universe (or other possible universes) being just right to make a living universe.

Now I’m not suggesting that people should be jumping to the conclusion that there is a God, based on what we know about our universe, because other factors will always come into play regarding each individual’s person’s belief in a God/creator.

But what I am pointing out, is that using the mulitverse, which is not based on observed knowledge, to try to negate the question, as to why our universe has so many coincidental factors that made our living universe possible, is not good science.


- JC

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

No, it's conclusions have nothing to do with basic human experience. We don't experience the sub-atomic world in which quantum physics operates.

Likewise, we dont yet have a science that can explain consciousness, or spirituality. 200 years ago not everyone believed in the idea of an atom. But, it was proven correct. I think its much more intuitively justifiable to believe in the substance of consciousness as transcending the physical body, than the idea that the world is madeup of particles. And no. I dont see particles. The only particles i see are crumbs or dust. This world appears completely solid.

That is irrational in relation to logical thought, but not irrational in relation to the greater science of the world. We can explain emotions in quantifiable manners.

Huh? none of that made a shred of sense. Just as there is an opposite to the direction of left, there is an opposite to logic. We know that as "alogic" Which our emotions exhibit. Thats it. For instance, your argument is demonstrating a very obvious element of Emotion. You hate the idea of spirituality and so use your mind to effect that end.

That is a fallacy of composition. Just because a portion of an object has a certain composition does not mean that the whole of the object has that composition. By your logic, since all blocks of stone are composed of rational elements, the whole universe is composed of rational elements.

For one, consciousness cannot be reduced to 'an object'. It is the very means we use to analyze the world.

didn't actually say it was the most ancient, though it is a few hundred years older than Hebrew.

Is there actual proof, that sanskrit is older? Or is this one of those widely accepted academic hunches of linguists....

It's not completely hypothetical. It's based upon evidence. There are linguistic trends that can be tracked, and PIE is currently the best explanation for it.

What evidence? Its completely built from similarities found in other languages. That is it. How is that evidence? Its a guess.

And no it isnt the best. Hebrew is better. much better. The bible says the world was 'one language'. In Hebrew numerology, the word 'sefat echat' has the same value as 'lashon hakodesh' - an epithet for Hebrew. It has been ancient contention of rabbinic writers that Hebrew is the original language; the one 'pure language' referred to by zephania.

Please show me a scholarly source that holds that Grimm's law is a universal linguistic law rather than an Indo-European linguistic speech. And can you please provide evidence of Rashi's documentation of such an event?

Honestly you seem to have no humility. Letter shifts occur in ALL languages. Not just indo-european. You want the exact Rashi source? well he cites hundreds of examples of letter shifts between hebrew synonyms and Aramaic throughout his commentary on the TaNaKH and Talmud. Which is a hefty work. A quick example is the Hebrew SHoR and the Aramaic ToR (source of taurus). There are hundreds of examples where a Gimel in Hebrew becomes a Caf in Aramaic, or vice versa. Or a Pey becomes a Bet. Simply ask anyone who can read Hebrew or who has studied Rashi and they will tell you. Infact, it would be more apt that we call it Rashis law", since he established this principal some 700 years before Jacob Grimm.

And you dont think politics is a factor in linguistics? The fact that this is true an unacknowledged is proof of that.

I'm pointing out that you're going from one syllable to two.

It doesnt matter. There are plenty of mutations of this root where it goes from two to three syllables. ie; Qavarah. The crux is the 3 basic sounds. Guttoral, Labial, palatal.

you're working from the basis of Hebrew being the root and then coming up with evidence to support it, all the while ignoring the multitude of words that don't fit into your framework.

Id say thats more scientific than just inventing a language.

PIE isnt a real language. It is simply a postulated language that attempts to connect roots in various languages (sanskrit, Greek, slavic)...

Also, you realize Greek is rooted in Phoenecian, right? Whos to say that Hebrew isnt older than Phoenecian?

For instance, compare the so called 'paleo hebrew' or the Hebrew-Aramaic of 800-400 BCE with the modern block script. They have almost nothing in common. One letter! and they still have the nerve to say that this script somehow morphed into the modern block script.

Thats like saying a bunny became a giraffe. The letters are completely different in EVERY way. 1 out of 22 is a very poor and insufficent congruence to conclude that the block script is derived from paleo hebrew.

In addition, wouldnt it be more logical to assume that the block script is older? Since it would be easier to write in stone (that is, before the invention of ink and papyrus) ?

How come Academia doesnt pay attention to the explaination given in the Talmud - written over 1800 years ago? It says that Ezra RE-introduced the square script after it had become lost. It would explain the enormous differences between the paleo-hebrew and Hebrew-aramaic scripts verse the modern script.

We actually have evidence that the Jewish religion predates Hebrew.

What proof is there that Judaism predates Hebrew? Honestly. Id like to see what flimsy proof you have for this. That smack right in the face with conventional "scholarly" views that the ancient Hebrews were pagans who only gradually became monotheists crica the late 2nd temple period.

reply to post by Joecroft

Originally posted by Joecroft
But you are assuming that there are other samples of universes out there, when we just don’t know that yet.

For the last time, and literally the last time as I'm done debating this point with you as I keep seeing myself replaced with the multiversal strawman, I never assumed anything about other universes. I'm asking you to show an empirical basis for the claim that there could be other values for the values which are currently observed in this universe.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
To appeal to fine tuning based upon the supposition that "if things were different with this physical constant or rate of early expansion etc Y would have happened rather than X" is to be guilty of making a claim not based in empiricism.

We have no evidence that the rate of expansion could have been any different, thus appealing to it is not basing your argument in empirical evidence.

But again you are assuming that there are these other universes, that expanded at different or similar rates, and that they may or may not have had the same physical constants as our own universe.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that you have no empirical basis for your claims. Where am I talking about different universes? I'm seriously done with this discussion because I thought you were here for a logical discussion, yet you keep trying to say that I'm in favor of a position I specifically divorced myself from with relation to this discussion.

I’m hoping that you can see how both arguments can be used against each other here. All that scientific data about our universe, although not complete, forms our empirical knowledge of it.

The major difference between multiverse and our own universe, is that one has been observed/measured etc (Empirical) and the other has not been observed at all, (Rational) and may not even exist!

Yes, and the empirical data of the universe doesn't suggest any other possible values for the constants of our universe, the rate of its expansion following the Big Bang, etc. Which is my point. I'm not bothering with the multiverse. I abandoned the idea as being a hypothesis and not the basis for which the fine tuning argument is silly in my first reply to you.

Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
We have no evidence that the physical constants could be any different than they are now, thus appealing to them is not basing your arguments in empirical evidence.

I am appealing to what we can see and know exists i.e. our own universe and not on what we don’t know exists i.e. multiple universes.

It’s not about the physical constants, being the same or different, it’s about conditions in our early universe (or other possible universes) being just right to make a living universe.

Again with the multiple universes. Stop bringing them up! It's both a red herring and a straw man. I'm not discussing them, yet you keep bringing them up. This is fairly basic stuff: We have no evidence to show that the conditions of the earl universe could have been any different, thus your claim is not based in empiricism

Now I’m not suggesting that people should be jumping to the conclusion that there is a God, based on what we know about our universe, because other factors will always come into play regarding each individual’s person’s belief in a God/creator.

But what I am pointing out, is that using the mulitverse, which is not based on observed knowledge, to try to negate the question, as to why our universe has so many coincidental factors that made our living universe possible, is not good science.

Again, I'm not appealing to the multiverse, at all. And your description of appeals to the multiverse covers your appeals to the possible difference in the state of the early universe without any evidence that it could have been any different.

But I'm done. I've made multiple replies to your posts, yet you ignore every single one of my points and merely keep attacking multiverse theory. Screw that theory. I'm not defending it, I'm not saying it's even required to make fine tuning look silly, so drop it.

The simple fact is that you're assuming that the state of our early universe could be different than it was. There is no evidence for this.