The Fine Tuned Universe - affirms and confirms the Creator's existence! No?

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Fine tuned universe ?

I agree. Though almost all of it is fine tuned to be deadly. Even most of the planet we live on is not exactly friendly or healthy for humanity in its "natural state"
Amazingingly the enviroments lifeforms exist in appear to be perfect for them, almost as if they evolved to take advantage of it...oh right, my bad......

No one created a universe tuned for life. Life is tuned to the universe, obvious once you get past "apex of creation" bias.

No... you're trolling... you're not familiar with the "fined-tuned-Universe" proposition.

Fine Tuned Universe - Wiki

You should become aquainted with the premise of the argument before jumping in with both feet.

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood

Understand it just fine thanks.

No trolling. Simple statement. We have theories, good logical ones, about the formation and constitution of the universe and the conditions required for life (as we know it).

We however only have an actual sample size of ONE. Until that changes it is nothing more than supposition based on not enough actual data.
I respect the theory as well worked well thought out and logical. I however must treat it as no more than guesswork because it contains massive (unavoidable) "leaps of faith".
We have barely left our own orbit, we know of no other life.To make pronouncements on the conditions required for life, something we cannot possibly know is simply apex of evolution thinking.

You're still using the old god of the gaps argument over and over and over again

As long as you can't show objective evidence for the existence of a creator (and no, "it seems fine tuned" isn't objective evidence) all you do here is preaching.

I know you're gonna come back now and ask some scientific question we don't have the answer to (yet), just to then triumph with your old god of the gaps and argument from complexity "seeeeeeeee, it seems so perfect and science can't explain it...god did it!!" arguments. The same arguments people used to claim comets are a sign of god, or diseases the result of an angry god

I hope you realize the "god did it" track record is really really reeeeeally horrible

reply to post by Noncompatible

Ok here's the thing. The proposition of a fine tuned Universe doesn't stop at "conditions for life". Proponents say that elemental diversity wouldn't be possible which means that the formation of galaxies, stars, planets and even matter itself wouldn't be possible.

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

~ Stephen Hawking
When you make statements like: “We have barely left our own orbit, we know of no other life. To make pronouncements on the conditions required for life, something we cannot possibly know is simply apex of evolution thinking.” It tells me that you don’t understand the theory at all. We DO KNOW what is FUNDAMENTALLY required for life to exist. There are no unavoidable leaps of faith to understand that without the existence of MATTER there can be no life. It’s painfully obvious that you do not understand but it’s your prerogative to remain blissful.

reply to post by Blarneystoner

...
That's all it is... a proposition cannot be "true" simply because it cannot be proven false.

True if it "appeals to ignorance" but we're not ignorant of the things we're talking about.

But like I said - either way, it doesn't matter to me if facts and conventional wisdom don't support it.

Above all if the “truth” is based on a proposition that it cannot be proven false then it's not truth at all but credulity bordering on blind faith. Just like an atheists who've convinced himself that there's no Creator because he doesn't know the answer. In reality he already knew the answer because any other logical explanation had already been rejected - a prime example of “argumentum ad ignorantiam” - unless of course he/she changes his/her mind.

But like I said, in the case of the Universe – we have ample evidence to back up what we see, what we believe it to be. We have so much data to confirm that it IS indeed created not ONLY in haphazard way but in a precise way.

Just like the precision of a high performance engine – for it to run according to its intended purpose – it needs to be fine-tuned precisely to its recommended specs. The ratio between air / fuel MUST be precise and the person fine-tuning it MUST possess accurate knowledge – in order to achieve peak performance. Same argument applies to the universe but in a cosmic way. Way beyond the knowledge of man!

Consider again another factoid of the Fine Tuned Universe:

The 3) strong nuclear force

This force bonds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of the atom. Because of this bonding, we have various elements – both light ones - such as helium and oxygen - and heavy ones - such as gold and lead. There's more if you consult the Periodic Table.

Supposed that this binding force were a mere 2% weaker, what would happen? According to experts in the field they say that only hydrogen would exist. On the flip side, if this force were slightly stronger, they say only heavier elements could form.

What effect would this do to life? Simply this – NO hydrogen!

No hydrogen in the universe means that our sun would not have the fuel it need to radiate life-giving energy. No life-giving energy means NO water. NO water NO food because hydrogen is an important ingredient of both - thus NO Life.

Then finally the fourth force called the weak nuclear force which controls radioactive decay.

What's the importance of this fourth force? According to experts in the field, they say it affects the thermonuclear activity in our sun.

Here again we see the importance of Fine-Tuning!

According to scientific findings, they say that this weak force is millions of times weaker than the other nuclear force (I'll provide the value later once I find it). But the important thing to be aware of is that this weak nuclear force is just weak enough so that the hydrogen in the sun burns at a slow and steady rate. If this weak force were much stronger OR much weaker than its fine-tuned constant – the result is catastrophic because any life-forms dependent on sunlike stars like our faithful sun experts say would be in big trouble and not live long. Imagine living on a planet with extreme temperatures?

But because of precession tuning the precise rate of burning of the sun keeps the earth just right! Warm (but not too hot that everything will be incinerated) which in turn keeps us alive - comfortably.

There are many more important roles that fine tuning does in scheme of things – too many to enumerate here but I'll post them little by little later if time permits.

But back to the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” that you raised. Based on the evidence thus so far - which one do you think is an “argument from ignorance”?

1) Conclude that such meticulous fine tuning was made by accident?

2) Inconclusive because we didn't see the fine-tuner? No physical evidence of him?

3) All the facts and evidence considered (so far) points to an Intelligent Fine-Tuner?

Again like I said - logic and common sense tells me that an Intelligent Tuner, a wise and loving Creator is responsible for it!

To say otherwise is an “argumentum ad ignorantiam”.

What say you?

tc

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You're still using the old god of the gaps argument over and over and over again

As long as you can't show objective evidence for the existence of a creator (and no, "it seems fine tuned" isn't objective evidence) all you do here is preaching.

I know you're gonna come back now and ask some scientific question we don't have the answer to (yet), just to then triumph with your old god of the gaps and argument from complexity "seeeeeeeee, it seems so perfect and science can't explain it...god did it!!" arguments. The same arguments people used to claim comets are a sign of god, or diseases the result of an angry god

I hope you realize the "god did it" track record is really really reeeeeally horrible

sorry mr xyz but your platform and “argumentum ad ignorantiam” is so weak and tiring that it doesn't merit a discussion. Come up with an intelligent and logical argument and maybe we can discuss it.

If you can't then you will appear to be just trolling -but I hope not.

tc.

OP, I'm sorry but you're running around in circles here.

No matter how many factors you point at as "proof" that we were created, your logic here is the same--you're essentially relying on the odds of all these factors being just right for us to be here and claiming that because they all are, there must be a creator.

As I said before, this doesn't really prove anything. What are the odds that you'd be born in exactly the place and on exactly the date that you were, given the exact name by your parents, with exactly the same color eyes, hair, and any other physical characteristics you possess?

There are approximately 7 billion people on the planet now. Thus there is a 1 in 7 billion chance any one of those people are who they actually are. And yet every single one of them has won that "lottery" because, well, there they are, exactly who they are despite the odds.

The fine-tuning argument is the same type of intuitive "reason" that thinks such fantastic odds are "significant". Again, given enough time and space, such odds aren't very fantastic at all.

Originally posted by camus154
OP, I'm sorry but you're running around in circles here.

No matter how many factors you point at as "proof" that we were created, your logic here is the same--you're essentially relying on the odds of all these factors being just right for us to be here and claiming that because they all are, there must be a creator.

As I said before, this doesn't really prove anything. What are the odds that you'd be born in exactly the place and on exactly the date that you were, given the exact name by your parents, with exactly the same color eyes, hair, and any other physical characteristics you possess?

There are approximately 7 billion people on the planet now. Thus there is a 1 in 7 billion chance any one of those people are who they actually are. And yet every single one of them has won that "lottery" because, well, there they are, exactly who they are despite the odds.

The fine-tuning argument is the same type of intuitive "reason" that thinks such fantastic odds are "significant". Again, given enough time and space, such odds aren't very fantastic at all.

edit on 10-4-2012 by camus154 because: (no reason given)

Sorry but I think you're confused - I did not say nor believe that the Universe came to be this way by "odds" but by Intelligent Creation - precise fine tuning to be exact.

In any case correct me please if I'm wrong but are saying that all of the fine-tuning in the universe is a product of LUCK? As in odds?

And by saying

given enough time and space, such odds aren't very fantastic at all.

you mean chance events is what created the universe and life?

If so - what are the odds of combining atoms in such a precise way in order to create life or for that matter the universe?

Given that we know that the universe is around 13 byo and the earth is around 4 byo - what are the odds that the a single cell will form by accident by chance events? Lets expand this further.

What are the odds of a planet like ours appearing and be located in the habitable zone containing all the ingredients to form as well as to support life?

Please provide a logical explanation - not something that you can just pull out from you know what.

I'll await your “argumentum ad ignorantiam”.

tip: your parameter is 13by, heck I'll give you 15 billion years.

tc.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You're still using the old god of the gaps argument over and over and over again

As long as you can't show objective evidence for the existence of a creator (and no, "it seems fine tuned" isn't objective evidence) all you do here is preaching.

I know you're gonna come back now and ask some scientific question we don't have the answer to (yet), just to then triumph with your old god of the gaps and argument from complexity "seeeeeeeee, it seems so perfect and science can't explain it...god did it!!" arguments. The same arguments people used to claim comets are a sign of god, or diseases the result of an angry god

I hope you realize the "god did it" track record is really really reeeeeally horrible

sorry mr xyz but your platform and “argumentum ad ignorantiam” is so weak and tiring that it doesn't merit a discussion. Come up with an intelligent and logical argument and maybe we can discuss it.

If you can't then you will appear to be just trolling -but I hope not.

tc.

How on earth is my argument "weak" if it represents reality? You keep on using the same old god of the gaps arguments and arguments from complexity. I mean, what do you expect? If you keep on using the same nonsense answers, you can't expect different outcomes...expecting a different answer would be a case of insanity

Your entire thread (and most of the others you authored) us those 2 fallacies as arguments...over and over again

Originally posted by edmc^2
Sorry but I think you're confused - I did not say nor believe that the Universe came to be this way by "odds" but by Intelligent Creation - precise fine tuning to be exact.

In any case correct me please if I'm wrong but are saying the all of the fine-tuning in the universe is a product of LUCK? As in odds?

I'm saying you're pointing at how improbable it would be for all of these fine tuning factors to be just so aligned without some intelligent hand to make them that way. In other words, you're relying on the odds to say there must be a creator.

And I'm saying that's somewhat short sighted logic. Odds, no matter how low or high, aren't really indicative of anything, especially given enough time and "space"--in other words, given enough "chance".

Some theoretical physicists hypothesize that there may be many, many universes where all of these fine-tuning factors may NOT be the same as they are in our universe. And if that is the case, then the seemingly remarkable fact that this one universe supports life becomes much less remarkable when it's but one universe out of a sea of them.

you mean chance events is what created the universe and life?

If so - what are the odds of combining atoms in such a precise way in order to create life or for that matter the universe?

Given that we know that the universe is around 13 byo and the earth is around 4 byo - what are the odds that the a single cell will form by accident by chance events? Lets expand this further.

What are the odds of a planet like ours to appear and be located in the habitable zone containing all the ingredients to form as well as to support life?

Please provide a logical explanation - not something that you can just pull out from you know what.

I'll await your an “argumentum ad ignorantiam”.

tip: your parameter is 13by, heck I'll give you 15 billion years.

tc.

See? You are falling back on the "what are the odds" argument. Did you miss my previous examples about that?

Go to a beach and pick up exactly one grain of sand. What are the odds that, out of the billions of grains of sand on that beach, you would have chosen that exact one? Does that mean that there's some significance that that particular grain was selected outside of chance?

reply to post by MrXYZ

How on earth is my argument "weak" if it represents reality? You keep on using the same old god of the gaps arguments and arguments from complexity. I mean, what do you expect? If you keep on using the same nonsense answers, you can't expect different outcomes...expecting a different answer would be a case of insanity Your entire thread (and most of the others you authored) us those 2 fallacies as arguments...over and over again

"weak" in that you have no evidence to back up your claim. Not only that it lacks logic and common sense.

here's what I mean.

Simple logic and commons sense shows/says that:

- Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer.
- precise fine tuning requires a very capable fine tuner.
- life can only come from life.

My logic and commonsense sense based on by facts and evidence say YES to all.

But you say what?

reply to post by edmc^2

- Intelligent Design requires an Intelligent Designer.
- precise fine tuning requires a very capable fine tuner.
- life can only come from life.

Here we go again

1) First of all, you would have to prove that whatever "design" you talk about is intelligent...which is SUBJECTIVE, just as complexity is SUBJECTIVE. And not all designs that could (by some) be considered intelligent require a designer other than natural forces. Trees could be considered designed...by natural forces. In fact, every single thing we can explain objectively is the result of natural forces...not once was the objective result "god did it".

2) Fine tuning according to what standards? If life was the goal, at least life as we know it, the universe is a massive failure given that most space would instantly kill you. Again, this is a subjective assessment...which isn't what is required for objective (!!!) evidence.

3) Life can only come from life...as far as we know. But of course we have to say this because we don't know how life started in the first place. Either way, how does that prove or disprove a creator???

So again, your entire arguments are subjective, filling gaps in knowledge with magic (god of the gaps), and claiming complexity (aka fine tuning) is somehow proof of a creator (argument of complexity). Those are NOT good arguments

If you wanna prove you point, prove the following:

Prove the existence of god (or gods): Positive, objective evidence...kinda like when scientists analyze human DNA and are able to tell you that you have a certain % of Neanderthal DNA in you.

"It seems fine tuned...ergo it requires a fine tuner aka designer" isn't good enough I'm afraid

reply to post by edmc^2

Above all if the “truth” is based on a proposition that it cannot be proven false then it's not truth at all but credulity bordering on blind faith. Just like an atheists who've convinced himself that there's no Creator because he doesn't know the answer. In reality he already knew the answer because any other logical explanation had already been rejected - a prime example of “argumentum ad ignorantiam” - unless of course he/she changes his/her mind.

I agree with this in principle; however an atheist does not have to prove there is no creator. An atheist simply rejects the assertion that the Universe was created by God; an assertion being made by a believer which requires evidence, as the burden of proof lies upon those making the assertion.

But like I said, in the case of the Universe – we have ample evidence to back up what we see, what we believe it to be. We have so much data to confirm that it IS indeed created not ONLY in haphazard way but in a precise way.

I agree that there is ample evidence but it is anecdotal, not direct. We can see the results of what could be interpreted as evidence for a divine creator but it is still an assumption. Others have provided alternate explanations for the results (fine tuning) we see and those explanations are just as valid as being possible if not plausible.

Just like the precision of a high performance engine – for it to run according to its intended purpose – it needs to be fine-tuned precisely to its recommended specs. The ratio between air / fuel MUST be precise and the person fine-tuning it MUST possess accurate knowledge – in order to achieve peak performance. Same argument applies to the universe but in a cosmic way. Way beyond the knowledge of man!

Again, I agree in spirit. However, alternate possible explanations for the fine-tuning we see in the Universe have been proposed and are just as valid. The multi-verse theory is just as valid as the divine creator theory as a possible explanation for the fine-tuned Universe. Quantum mechanics has discovered that existence consists of potentials in super position. Quantum particles exist in super position until collapsed into a single fixed position. With that in mind, consider that the Universe exists in super position and we are experiencing a Universe in which the potential for life has been realized or collapsed upon. There may be an infinite number of other Universes in which life and/or elemental diversity never came to fruition.

I’m familiar with the details of the fine-tuned Universe and just how precise the tolerances are for elemental diversity. But of course it is just theory and has yet to be proven itself. It’s not proper to claim a theory proves a belief when that theory has not been proven itself.

Again like I said - logic and common sense tells me that an Intelligent Tuner, a wise and loving Creator is responsible for it!

To say otherwise is an “argumentum ad ignorantiam”.
What say you?

*grin* I feel you man.

My gut tells me that there is a divine creator. Every fiber of my being knows that it is true. All of my life I’ve had to reconcile my knowledge against my beliefs, and for the most part I’ve been fairly successful. I question everything I believe and try to adhere to the rules of logic as best I can. Some day we may know the truth but I don’t think that there will ever be concrete, undeniable proof which vindicates my belief in a creator.

I believe in a divine creator but I can’t prove He exists!

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

Ok here's the thing. The proposition of a fine tuned Universe doesn't stop at "conditions for life". Proponents say that elemental diversity wouldn't be possible which means that the formation of galaxies, stars, planets and even matter itself wouldn't be possible.

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

~ Stephen Hawking
When you make statements like: “We have barely left our own orbit, we know of no other life. To make pronouncements on the conditions required for life, something we cannot possibly know is simply apex of evolution thinking.” It tells me that you don’t understand the theory at all. We DO KNOW what is FUNDAMENTALLY required for life to exist. There are no unavoidable leaps of faith to understand that without the existence of MATTER there can be no life. It’s painfully obvious that you do not understand but it’s your prerogative to remain blissful.

edit on 10-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

You do realise that this is origins and creationism forum correct ?
With that in mind, understand that I am approaching from that vector. With regards to the other components of the argument whether you're thinking bubble, multiverse or even its counterpoint "top down" those are discussions for another thread.
We exist, the question is not whether it is as it is.But rather for the purpose of this thread if it was made so for life (us) by a creator (puddle thinking) or rather that we are here because the conditions were favorable for spontaneous life(us/carbon based) to emerge.

Incidentally, we do not "know" (anything) what is fundamentally required for life to exist (beyond our own limited purview)........ that smacks of anthropomorphism.
After all is it not also said that at it's base (quantum) level even "matter" is simply information.
Be careful with what you "know" it can regularly bite you in the ass.

Originally posted by Noncompatible
You do realise that this is origins and creationism forum correct ?
With that in mind, understand that I am approaching from that vector. With regards to the other components of the argument whether you're thinking bubble, multiverse or even its counterpoint "top down" those are discussions for another thread.
We exist, the question is not whether it is as it is.But rather for the purpose of this thread if it was made so for life (us) by a creator (puddle thinking) or rather that we are here because the conditions were favorable for spontaneous life(us/carbon based) to emerge.

Incidentally, we do not "know" (anything) what is fundamentally required for life to exist (beyond our own limited purview)........ that smacks of anthropomorphism.
After all is it not also said that at it's base (quantum) level even "matter" is simply information.
Be careful with what you "know" it can regularly bite you in the ass.

Hahaha.... you're a riot.

I'm fairly certain it's not anthropomorphic to believe that if heavy elements were not present and if the weak force, gravity was not strong enough to hold matter together that life would not exist in our Universe.

But didn't you just write these words;

" ....for the purpose of this thread if it was made so for life (us) by a creator (puddle thinking) or rather that we are here because the conditions were favorable for spontaneous life(us/carbon based) to emerge.

Which is it bro? Are we talking about some unknown goo that is not Carbon based or are we talking about life as we know it? You can't seem to make up your mind. If we're talking about Carbon based life than fine-tuniing is absolutley essential, if not then I suppose I'll conceded that your imaginary life form could exist. But... you can't have it both ways angry troll dude.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner


Hahaha.... you're a riot.

I'm fairly certain it's not anthropomorphic to believe that if heavy elements were not present and if the weak force, gravity was not strong enough to hold matter together that life would not exist in our Universe.

But didn't you just write these words;

" ....for the purpose of this thread if it was made so for life (us) by a creator (puddle thinking) or rather that we are here because the conditions were favorable for spontaneous life(us/carbon based) to emerge.

Which is it bro? Are we talking about some unknown goo that is not Carbon based or are we talking about life as we know it? You can't seem to make up your mind. If we're talking about Carbon based life than fine-tuniing is absolutley essential, if not then I suppose I'll conceded that your imaginary life form could exist. But... you can't have it both ways angry troll dude.

edit on 10-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

You realise of course it would not be "our" universe without those conditions ? Guess not.

You seem to be completely missing the point....should I type slower ?

The question is simply - was the universe "tuned" for us or are we here because the universe is favorable for our type of life ?

Addendum : I am not angry nor a troll and certainly don't consider myself as your bro' or a dude. I am however confused at your inability to understand the root question.

reply to post by Blarneystoner

I agree that there is ample evidence but it is anecdotal, not direct. We can see the results of what could be interpreted as evidence for a divine creator but it is still an assumption. Others have provided alternate explanations for the results (fine tuning) we see and those explanations are just as valid as being possible if not plausible.

It seems to be anecdotal because we're dealing with something beyond what we call science. We're dealing with the invisible. But all is not lost, in fact scientific research is possible because the physical world is orderly and because energy and matter behave in a predictable, uniform manner in a given set of circumstances. This order can be expressed in the fundamental laws of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and so on. Thus they are not as you say anecdotal.

And based on these scientific and mathematical evidence we can arrive at the correct conclusion. Without such order, such fine tuning of the fundamental forces, scientific work, technology, and life itself could simply not exist.

Questions is - why do they function as they do? The ONLY logical explanation and the most reasonable answer is a Supreme Intellect.

As for the:

alternate explanations for the results (fine tuning)

Can you please cite one or two example. I'd like to see them.

As for:

The multi-verse theory is just as valid as the divine creator theory as a possible explanation for the fine-tuned Universe.

The Multi-Verse or Many-Universe Theory - an unending Universe theory - is a neat theory but it's just pure speculation with no scientific foundation. Besides, it's still unable to satisfactorily answer the simple question - how or why we got here. I don't see it in any way of providing a logical answer. Do you?

But a Supreme Intellect, a Divine Creator does without a doubt!

Anyway if you can please let me know what other Fine-Tuning explanations are you referring to.

tc.

later...got to go..

Originally posted by edmc^2
OK, let's use your own words to prove my point:

You said:

It is illogical to make absolute statements regarding things we know nothing about.

Yet you believe that Abiogenesis - an unproven theory.

"is far more evidence for life arising naturally, than there is for a designer."

Where's the logic in that?

Simple. There is objective evidence of abiogenesis where parts are being duplicated in a lab. There is no experiment anywhere that duplicates parts of creation. Therefor there is more evidence for life arising naturally than being designed, based on science. Logic 101. I don't believe abiogenesis blindly and absolutely. I consider it a possibility based on the science that it is. The more we are learning about it, the more likely it seems. See, your problem is that you seem to think that scientific theories require some kind of faith or belief. That's not how it works when backed by objective evidence.

Here's an article that references one of the experiments:

www.wired.com...

Without the people behind the lab coats - replicating the ingredients for life - can life arose spontaneously? Evidence says NO!

Again. You are falsely representing science. The proper expression would be the evidence does not say yes, yet. Not that the evidence says no. Didn't I clearly explain that in the previous post? There isn't much evidence, but what we do have does say "yes" at least partially.

Yet you believe in Abiogenesis - that is, life suddenly appearing from non-living materials by chance or accident, with no outside Intelligent Causal force.

Considering something feasible is not 'believing' in it. Pick up a book or use google. Nothing suddenly appears by chance or accident. Learn the theory and start using proper terminology instead of broad generalizations like "blind chance events" or "by accident" if you care to discuss abiogenesis. If not, move on.

In the same vain - without someone controlling and FINE TUNING the fundamental forces of the Universe, will they and can exist by themselves - let alone calibrate themselves? Or would they cancel each other out? What do you think?

Again what would happen if we slightly decrease or increase the forces from their constant values, what will happen? No life or for that matter - no universe. I'm sure you agree.

I'm not a physicist, I'm not familiar with the mathematics behind forces of the universe and obviously neither are you. All I can say is we don't know the answer for sure. Why can't it just be the way the universe is? Why does everything that science can't yet fully explain automatically get attributed to god?

Yet you believe that -

"Abiogenesis"

"is far more evidence for life arising naturally, than there is for a designer."

Is this your opinion or an "absolute statement" based on scientific facts?

Yet you state that:

It is illogical to make absolute statements regarding things we know nothing about.

So where's the logic in that?

Pure comedy. It is neither absolute statement nor personal opinion. You love to answer questions with questions. That statement is a summary of what scientists have learned about abiogenesis thus far. It's not absolute because it can change, and it's not opinion because it's been duplicated in a lab. What has science learned about god? Where are the experiments that duplicate the creation process or show god is necessary for anything in the universe? That's a big fat goose egg. Like I explained above, there is more science in favor of life arising naturally than the latter. It doesn't mean that either is proven, and I'm not suggesting god definitely doesn't exist, just that science has more in favor of natural over non - natural / ID at this point in time. Simple logical conclusion.

Originally posted by edmc^2
And based on these scientific and mathematical evidence we can arrive at the correct conclusion. Without such order, such fine tuning of the fundamental forces, scientific work, technology, and life itself could simply not exist.

Questions is - why do they function as they do? The ONLY logical explanation and the most reasonable answer is a Supreme Intellect.

Dude, you just keep repeating the same thing over and over again as though your reasoning will at some point become better. It won't!

Just because things *seem* tuned to allow for life means NOTHING other than the very obvious fact that OF COURSE the universe is observed to be so finely tuned, because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it!

Are you not getting this? All you're doing is pointing out that because so many things are "just right" for there to be life, a creator must exist.

It's a false conclusion. One does not prove the other.

Look up the anthropic principle. It explains this quite easily. The simple answer is, our universe is finely tuned to support life because we're here observing it. Period. We should expect the universe to be so "tuned' to support life because here we are alive making the observation.

That says absolutely NOTHING about WHY the universe is "tuned" or even "who tuned it". That's a completely different discussion that frankly cannot be answered simply from the observation that the universe supports life.

The Multi-Verse or Many-Universe Theory - an unending Universe theory - is a neat theory but it's just pure speculation with no scientific foundation. Besides, it's still unable to satisfactorily answer the simple question - how or why we got here. I don't see it in any way of providing a logical answer. Do you?

But a Supreme Intellect, a Divine Creator does without a doubt!

There is no more explanatory power behind "God did it!" than there is behind multiverses. You're settling for a cheap and easy answer to satiate your quite human curiosity, but sadly this is hardly scientific in nature.

The truth is, we may never know WHY we're here. There may not even be an answer to that question. And just because that doesn't "satisfy" you intellectually doesn't mean it's any less true (potentially speaking).

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

PS, MrXYZ, you should change your avatar. I don't think of you as being a hideous monster because you're an atheist....maybe a baby sucking its thumb would be a more appropriate avatar for how I look at atheists....

edit on 4/8/2012 by Iason321 because: (no reason given)

This is the most vocal pro-christian "talent" here in their defense? Classic.

Originally posted by Philodemus

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

PS, MrXYZ, you should change your avatar. I don't think of you as being a hideous monster because you're an atheist....maybe a baby sucking its thumb would be a more appropriate avatar for how I look at atheists....

edit on 4/8/2012 by Iason321 because: (no reason given)

This is the most vocal pro-christian "talent" here in their defense? Classic.

If ad hominem attacks and evil spirited PMs bothered me, I would be long gone

Most of the time it's a sign of people running out of arguments