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

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by camus154

Isn't it the point of enlightenment and great learning is to ask QUESTIONS?

Not when your only answer is BIBLE.

huh! where have you been man?

Reading this forum. Your "logic" is thus:

1) Bible
2) ???
3) Evidence!

hmm.. interesting

so you don't agree with the scientific evidence presented so far that Universe is Fine Tuned for life?

here - let me post it again some of the evidence:

from the OP:

The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos by George Greenstein New York: William Morrow and Company, 1988 George Greenstein, professor of astronomy at Amherst College, believes we are faced with a mystery, and one of immense significance. In his fascinating new book, The Symbiotic Universe, he argues that our existence, and indeed that of every other form of life, is an utterly astonishing thing. The deeper one looks, the more surprising it becomes that life ever arose in the cosmos. For in fact our existence depends on a network of unlikely circumstances, a remarkable series of coincidences. That they occurred at all is testimony that ours is fundamentally a universe of life. In looking for an explanation, Professor Greenstein begins with an insight suggested by the theory of quantum mechanics. He proposes that in the fitness of the cosmos for life, we are witnessing the effects of a gigantic symbiosis– a symbiosis between the physical universes on the one hand and life on the other. Between these two there is a union, a great metaphysical dance by which each supports the other. How did it come to pass that against all odds the cosmos succeeded in bringing forth life? It had to –in order to exist.

"The Symbiotic Universe" by George Greenstein, professor of astronomy and cosmology.

“So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance. But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort..."

This post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

too hard to accept?

What say you?

Originally posted by edmc^2


so you don't agree with the scientific evidence presented so far that Universe is Fine Tuned for life?

You haven't posted any.

here - let me post it again some of the evidence:

from the OP:

The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos by George Greenstein New York: William Morrow and Company, 1988 George Greenstein, professor of astronomy at Amherst College, believes we are faced with a mystery, and one of immense significance. In his fascinating new book, The Symbiotic Universe, he argues that our existence, and indeed that of every other form of life, is an utterly astonishing thing. The deeper one looks, the more surprising it becomes that life ever arose in the cosmos. For in fact our existence depends on a network of unlikely circumstances, a remarkable series of coincidences. That they occurred at all is testimony that ours is fundamentally a universe of life. In looking for an explanation, Professor Greenstein begins with an insight suggested by the theory of quantum mechanics. He proposes that in the fitness of the cosmos for life, we are witnessing the effects of a gigantic symbiosis– a symbiosis between the physical universes on the one hand and life on the other. Between these two there is a union, a great metaphysical dance by which each supports the other. How did it come to pass that against all odds the cosmos succeeded in bringing forth life? It had to –in order to exist.

"The Symbiotic Universe" by George Greenstein, professor of astronomy and cosmology.

Yet again you fail to grasp the the point: if our universe couldn't support life, we wouldn't be alive. It does, ergo we wouldn't be here to witness it. You are using puddle logic again. We adapted to the universe, not the other way round. Different variables may very well support a different form of life and we could be one of an infinite amount of such universes for all you know.

reply to post by Barcs

The answer to that question is still hypothetical because abiogenesis is far from being proven, but yes, if it can happen in a lab under certain conditions, then it can happen on earth under those same conditions.

OK - I'll give you this condition: all of the best minds in world with the best equipment and all the fine tuned instruments and all the time in universe.

Can you please cite or show me just one evidence that they are able to create life form non-living materials if you really believe "it can happen in a lab under certain conditions".

I'd like to see it 'cuz to believe that this is a fact, is an "argument from ignorance".

tc.

reply to post by john_bmth


So you believe:

We adapted to the universe, not the other way round.

But Physicist Freeman Dyson believe

“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."

The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States:

The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

Stephen Hawking

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".

just to name a few.

Now I wonder whose more knowledgeable on this subject matter?

You or them?

Which came first?

I wonder.

Either way, fact still remains - the Universe is Fine Tuned to support life.

Question is - was there a Master Fine Tuner or did all of these fine tuning just happen by accident - chance events?

tc

Dude, just stop.

Stephen Hawking just recently wrote a book arguing AGAINST the case for god.

Do you dig?

It's all well and good that you can cherry pick selected quotes to supposedly support your position, but at least do so knowing that the quotes you choose actually support your position to begin with.

Even Albert Einstein has been misquoted out of context for supposed "proof" of God, despite the fact that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of scientific history knows that his comments on God were allegorical.

Trust me on this. The best minds around see what you keep pointing at and DON'T conclude there must be a god. Whether they are philosopher, physicist, biologist, or even theologian, they don't immediately jump to God.

Do you dig? You're not covering new ground here. It's already been done. By experts. It's tired. It's a dead end.

Originally posted by camus154
Dude, just stop.

Stephen Hawking just recently wrote a book arguing AGAINST the case for god.

Do you dig?

It's all well and good that you can cherry pick selected quotes to supposedly support your position, but at least do so knowing that the quotes you choose actually support your position to begin with.

Even Albert Einstein has been misquoted out of context for supposed "proof" of God, despite the fact that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of scientific history knows that his comments on God were allegorical.

Trust me on this. The best minds around see what you keep pointing at and DON'T conclude there must be a god. Whether they are philosopher, physicist, biologist, or even theologian, they don't immediately jump to God.

Do you dig? You're not covering new ground here. It's already been done. By experts. It's tired. It's a dead end.

Dude I'm so aware that most if not all the people I quoted DO NOT BELIEVE IN God - but the POINT is they believe that -------- the Universe IS Fine Tuned to support life. And that's the fact jack.


Let me state it again - they admit that the Universe is Fine Tuned to support life EVEN though they don't believe in God.

As to why they don't believe in God - check again what I said in the OP.

Better yet - here's Prof. Greenstein:

He said -

“So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance. But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort...

"Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
"

then like I said he can't make himself admit beyond the obvious.

“I also believe that reference to God will never suffice to explain a single one of these discoveries. God is not an explanation."

Do you dig?

edit:
btw - what was the answer to my Question

Was there a Master Fine Tuner or did all of these fine tuning just happened by accident - chance event?

tc

reply to post by edmc^2


I'm curious to know what your idea of God is. How do you define God?

Originally posted by edmc^2
OK - I'll give you this condition: all of the best minds in world with the best equipment and all the fine tuned instruments and all the time in universe.

Can you please cite or show me just one evidence that they are able to create life form non-living materials if you really believe "it can happen in a lab under certain conditions".

I'd like to see it 'cuz to believe that this is a fact, is an "argument from ignorance".

tc.

Did you not read my post at all? I said IF it can happen in a lab, it can happen in nature. I didn't say abiogenesis happened in a lab, only small parts of it have. I posted the article in my last response. If you're just planning to ignore everything I say, then please don't bother responding, and please stop questioning my logic, without presenting evidence that counters it.

Dude I'm so aware that most if not all the people I quoted DO NOT BELIEVE IN God - but the POINT is they believe that -------- the Universe IS Fine Tuned to support life. And that's the fact jack.

That is not a fact, and you don't even understand what fine tuned means. It doesn't mean that somebody tweak it or designed it. It means that the way the universe is, it CAN support life in extremely rare circumstances. Fine tuned for life is a straight up lie and no evidence whatsoever suggests this. Otherwise the universe would be abundant with life. It is not. Why would a creator set up the universe to make life so rare, if the purpose of the universe was for life? Why wouldn't this designer fine tune the universe for life EVERYWHERE? It doesn't make the least bit of sense. You are drawing ridiculous conclusions based on poor illogical associations that have no evidence behind them. Thread over.

reply to post by Barcs

Did you not read my post at all? I said IF it can happen in a lab, it can happen in nature. I didn't say abiogenesis happened in a lab, only small parts of it have. I posted the article in my last response. If you're just planning to ignore everything I say, then please don't bother responding, and please stop questioning my logic, without presenting evidence that counters it.

Not sure what you're talking ignoring your post. I did not ignore it but asked for evidence to support you're claim about an unproven theory of abiognenesis.

And like I've been saying for a while now - this theory is an unproven theory full of holes that it can't even carry an ounce of the evolution's "organic soup".

All you got after years and years of lab experiments is just confirmation of the unavoidable scientific fact, that is - Life can only arise from Life. The ONLY logical explanation for the existence of life.

But you still keep insisting the opposite, that is -

IF it can happen in a lab, it can happen in nature

Fact is, it's not happening in a lab! No life had ever been created spontaneously from chemical manipulations in a lab - and undoubtedly will never will. It's a losing battle because they are ignoring the establish fact about life. They can play the role of God all they want - trying to create life from inanimate things - but it's an impossible goal to attain. Man does not have the wisdom, the power and the ability to attain such goal.

Yet you keep hanging on it, thus I question your logic.

To quote the definition of insanity

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

So to use your logic (on the flip side)

If Life is NOT spontaneously happening in the lab how could it happen in nature?

As for:

-------- the Universe IS Fine Tuned to support life.

That is not a fact, and you don't even understand what fine tuned means.

You mean people like Dr. Paul Davies (noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University) "doesn't even understand what fine tuned means"?

He said:

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."

But if you mean

It doesn't mean that somebody tweak it or designed it. It means that the way the universe is, it CAN support life in extremely rare circumstances.

Then, like I said - that's the flaw of your logic.

For how can any precise system of ANY kind "tweak" or "design" ITSELF? So that "it CAN support life in extremely rare circumstances"? Impossible unless you throw away facts, logic and common sense.

So you say -

Fine tuned for life is a straight up lie and no evidence whatsoever suggests this.

So, people like Physicist Freeman Dyson are lying when he said that:

“The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”

because according to you they have no evidence for it?

Oh - I see, they are lying because

Otherwise the universe would be abundant with life. It is not.

I guess you might need to read the "The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos by George Greenstein". It explains why only in the habitable zone can life exist.

As for:

Why would a creator set up the universe to make life so rare, if the purpose of the universe was for life? Why wouldn't this designer fine tune the universe for life EVERYWHERE? It doesn't make the least bit of sense. You are drawing ridiculous conclusions based on poor illogical associations that have no evidence behind them. Thread over.

The scientific answer to your qs is - The Symbiotic Universe - the universe is interrelated to support life, specifically in our zone, otherwise like you said life - or to be precise - ORGANIC Life will be everywhere.

But as for life on other galaxy - hey, 'don't wanna be dogmatic but there could be life if the fine-tuning of the universe allows it to happen. So far we have no evidence of it.

So like you said "Thread over" - for you.

Thanks for participating.

tc.

reply to post by edmc^2


Still using the same old argument from complexity and god of the gaps argument I see...after all those threads

reply to post by edmc^2


It is DEFINITELY comedy hour on here. Not a single thing you said had anything to do with the points I made. You lack very basic understanding of science, and need to start learning so you can expand your knowledge of cause and effect. This way you can actually call things what they are instead of relying on old cliches like "blind chance events" or "designed and fine tuned itself". You have no idea about what you are talking about. Enjoy the ride, though.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2

 

It is DEFINITELY comedy hour on here. Not a single thing you said had anything to do with the points I made. You lack very basic understanding of science, and need to start learning so you can expand your knowledge of cause and effect. This way you can actually call things what they are instead of relying on old cliches like "blind chance events" or "designed and fine tuned itself". You have no idea about what you are talking about. Enjoy the ride, though.

hahaha - sign of weakness and desperation when one starts attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Fact that you can't refute a simple truth such as - The Fined-Universe and that Life can only come from existing Life makes your platform weak.

Well - Enjoy the ride, though. C'est la vie ....

tc.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I'm curious to know what your idea of God is. How do you define God?

Although Invisible to the naked eye - God to me is a real person with real feelings and superlative qualities. Superlative qualities that can be observed in nature. As THE SOURCE of life He is of higher stuff than the material universe. A spirit being able to impart life. A Living God who resides beyond space and time yet able to see our thoughts, our innermost feelings. Nothing is hidden from him.

He has a name - higher than any other name in heaven or on earth, for his name means "HE CAUSES TO BECOME" (YHWH - Jehovah). As such he is rightly called the First Cause having the Power and the Wisdom to cause the material Universe to exist. The ONE who has the ability to materialize Dynamic Energy into Matter and matter into energy! With such a name - nothing is impossible to him. What he says will never fail and will come true - because of his name. Something that science can't do.

Since science is not capable of peering beyond the Invisible - therefore it's limited in its scope. But we're not left alone in the dark because he not only provided us the "Book Of Nature" from which to learn from but also provided a valuable gift - His written Word - the Holy Scriptures.

I don't know about your take on the Bible but to me it contains more information than anything else. It answers things that science can't answer. It goes beyond the physical and shows the unseen! It shows who God IS.

Remember what I said about God being a real person? Well if you believe and accept that Jesus Christ is a real person then it establishes the fact that God exist and IS a real person.

I hope you don't mind but let me just quote you one verse:

“For Christ entered, not into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.” (Hebrews 9:24)

"the person of God" - a real living person!

I can tell you more but time will not allow, but one thing believing in God allows me to do - go further beyond what science allows one to do. Peer through the invisible. Not only that, it gives real meaning to life - which is something more valuable than science can give. It gives you someone to look up to with no disappointment and regrets. On the other hand those who do not believe in God - are stuck on the "rot and mud of life". Unable to give real meaning to their existence because to them - this is it - to them this is life all there is. All their hopes and dreams and reason for existence is no less meaningful than a worm. After all they believe that we're just a highly evolved species.

But to me believing in a Living God allows me fathom the universe - it's grand purpose or fathom how a molecule is ingeniously designed. And the more I peer into them the more I understand him.

He is an awesome Creator - who dearly loves his creation and been longing for a long time now for all to come back to him. Yet in every way he is rejected by many - some here even accused him of murder and wickedness. What a pity - they are blind by their own pride.

Lastly, I can't help but agree with this admonition:

Psa 148:5 ASV - Let them praise the name of Jehovah; For he commanded, and they were created.

Psa 148:13 ASV - Let them praise the name of Jehovah; For his name alone is exalted; His glory is above the earth and the heavens.


So these are just but a few of what God is to me.

tc.

reply to post by edmc^2

He is an awesome Creator...

That pretty much sums up your entire post above...nothing but preaching, zero facts, zero objective evidence, and zero logic.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

He is an awesome Creator...

That pretty much sums up your entire post above...nothing but preaching, zero facts, zero objective evidence, and zero logic.

Dude - are you blind or somethin'? The question I was asked was:

I'm curious to know what your idea of God is. How do you define God?

you must be thick if you can't figure out the question man.

Anyway what about them "clowns"?

Are you still able to answer my q?

You said:

And what "company" are you talking about? Clowns like Ben Stein?

I said:

These "Clowns" - too many to name here.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."

The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States:

The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

Stephen Hawking

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics

how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

...
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.

Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford,

namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

....

Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -..

ran out of post character - but let me know if you need more "clowns", OK?

and oh btw - read somewhere that fools and the ignorant will attack the messenger instead of the message to hide their foolishness and ignorance. Is this true?

So are the "clowns" quoted above just blowing hot air like you?

tata...

reply to post by edmc^2


You do realize claiming a "fine tuned universe" is proof of a creator is a prime example of argument form complexity and god of the gaps, right?

That's the whole point I'm trying to bring across. It doesn't matter who says what about the universe APPEARING fine tuned, it's not objective evidence for the existence of a creator. Just like saying "the sky is blue" isn't proof the existence of a creator.

Do yourself a favor, swallow your pride and religious indoctrination for a moment, and spend a few minutes reading up on fallacious arguments. You keep on using them over and over and over again in every single one of your posts. It's hard for people to take you seriously if you keep on using the same nonsense arguments like a broken tape deck

reply to post by MrXYZ


Now the favorite atheists / evolutionists "Fallacious Arguments" list comes out.

great - except that there's one problem - my argument is based on logic and common sense while your argument is based on fallacy and close mindedness.

Don't think so - here let me show you using just two logical reasoning.

Title of the thread is "The Fine Tuned Universe - affirms and confirms the Creator's existence! No?"

Most definitely YES. Do I have evidence of this? Indubitably!

First Logic - the evidence of The Fine-Tuned Universe. They are:

ELECTROMAGNETISM
STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE
GRAVITY
WEAK NUCLEAR FORCE

Fact> If these four forces were not precisely tuned and balanced, no life would be possible!

Majority of experts in the field agree - except YOU of course.

Like you said-

It doesn't matter who says what about the universe APPEARING fine tuned

Why? because it will render your argument fallacious and illogical. So you conveniently disregard the messenger in order to ignore the message.

Second Logic - by way of a simple question:

Can the Universe be able to Fine-Tune itself? Obviously to you yes. Yes?

My logic on the other hand say impossible! For facts and thousands of years of experience showed us that for something to be precisely-tuned there MUST be a fine tuner. And it follows that the fine tuner MUST posses not just knowledge but accurate knowledge (of the system) in order to precisely tune it.

But to you this is nonsense, because your vision is narrow and unable to accept the logical answer. Why, you can't even accept that we're in a Habitable Zone. A zone where life is NOT only possible but bountiful due the precise tuning and superb organizing of the Universe.

So you say (in another post)

Fine tuned according to what standards??? If life as we know it was the goal, it's demonstrably a massive failure as the LARGE majority of space is deadly to life as we know it.

See what I mean - no logic at all but just argument from ignorance.

But to answer your question - Fine tuned according to what standards? Laws established by the Master Tuner - the laws of nature, the "statutes of the heavens" as the scripture say.

And by these established laws - the zone we're in which is about 28,000 light years from the center of the galaxy contains just the right concentrations of the chemical elements needed to support life.

But if you go farther out, those elements are too little, farther in, the neighborhood is too dangerous because of the great abundance of potentially lethal radiation and other factors. For this we're in a “prime real estate,” as Scientific American magazine puts it.

So to test your logic if you really have one - can the Universe be able to Fine-Tune itself?

What say you?

tc.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Fact that you can't refute a simple truth such as - The Fined-Universe and that Life can only come from existing Life makes your platform weak.

Nope. I don't have a platform. I'm asking YOU to prove those statements. Obviously you can't. Life can only come from life = your opinion. The real answer is we don't know. The universe is the way it is. You keep attributing everything we can't explain to god. That's god of the gaps, not objective evidence. Once you post that objective evidence you'll have a chance, but thus far you've provided nothing but personal opinion. I've already posted the abiogenesis evidence, but you keep ignoring it, when it trumps anything you have said in this entire thread because it's based on reality and science experiments.

Originally posted by edmc^2
[snip].....

So to test your logic if you really have one - can the Universe be able to Fine-Tune itself?

What say you?

tc.

The one thing that is consistently left out of every statement and argument you make is :

Without the universe being in this state, we would not be here to have the discussion at all.

You also dismiss out of hand the argument from imperfection, which has an awful lot of logic to it.

Seriously if the universe was fine tuned by a creator(s), why so imperfectly (in regard to Homo Sapien Sapien) ?

That question leaves me thinking there are only two possible conclusions:

a) It wasn't
b) It wasn't created for us.

Both of which are , I'm sure, equally horrifying to you and the other supporters of the idea.

For the record I still do not think it was finely tuned and regard the idea as puddle thinking.

reply to post by edmc^2

my argument is based on logic and common sense

You really don't

In fact, I don't even think you know what logic and common sense is. I mean, I linked you to the EXACT fallacies you are committing, they explain EXACTLY what you are doing....yet all you do is say "lalalalalaalala, I can't here youuuuuuu.....let me preaaaaaaaach, I'm Mr Logic". Very very childish and ignorant too given you obviously don't even bother reading up about fallacious arguments....at least that's the only explanation I have for you using them as your sole arguments

For facts and thousands of years of experience showed us that for something to be precisely-tuned there MUST be a fine tuner.

This is where your entire argument falls even further apart

A TREE can be considered fine tuned because if its density was higher, it wouldn't get water to its leaves. But we KNOW how trees come to be, no designer required!!

But let's just ignore all facts, logic, and rationality and buy into your god of the gaps snake oil salesman arguments, right?

So to test your logic if you really have one - can the Universe be able to Fine-Tune itself?

For the last time: WE DON'T KNOW!!! YOU ARE USING GOD OF THE GAPS BY FILLING A GAP IN KNOWLEDGE IF YOU PRETEND GOD DID IT WITHOUT PROVIDING OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE....WHICH YOU DON'T!!! Your entire argumentation is that of a child who never had a science class

I can't believe I have to post this again:



edmc you are making a fool out of yourself as long as you keep on using fallacious arguments. Even worse, even after people point out how nonsense your arguments are, you still keep on using them. Grasping at straws I guess