251d
@indonesia-phil saidWell, there is the snake, right on cue, what shame, a mind a terrible thing to waste. We are speaking about chemistry, not snakes, and he is an accomplished chemist and you are just a voice in the wind with one stinking note off-topic, and nothing more. Slink back under your rock, I'm sure you will get another chance to talk about snakes.
Well, if James Tour names amongst his 'accomplishments' his apparent ability to convince people like you that mythology is fact, then he's a disgrace to the scientific community, regardless of what else he may have achieved. I wonder if James Tour thinks that snakes can talk, what do you reckon?
251d
2 edits
@kellyjay saidDo you agree with all “accomplished chemists”, or just the ones who happen to be in your personal echo-chamber?
We are speaking about chemistry, not snakes, and he is an accomplished chemist and you are just a voice in the wind with one stinking note off-topic, and nothing more.
Because the vast majority of “accomplished chemists” will disagree with you preferred “accomplished chemist”.
238d
@KellyJay
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/3/11/on-the-origin-of-time-review/
This is Steven Hawking's final work, I got a copy from audible.com, audio book version, Barns and Noble did not have on on the shelves yet. Paperback not coming out for near a year, next march.
It explains what is going on to make our universe so friendly for life to form and any tiny change in the laws of physics would make for a universe with no galaxies at all for instance, if the inflation rate of the universe were just a tiny bit different and a lot of other features of our universe allowing life to exist.
237d
@sonhouse saidThe fine tuning is are remarkable statistics considering the micro and macro scales.
@KellyJay
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/3/11/on-the-origin-of-time-review/
This is Steven Hawking's final work, I got a copy from audible.com, audio book version, Barns and Noble did not have on on the shelves yet. Paperback not coming out for near a year, next march.
It explains what is going on to make our universe so friendly for life to form and any tiny c ...[text shortened]... e were just a tiny bit different and a lot of other features of our universe allowing life to exist.
235d
@sonhouse saidThe universe is conducive to life as we know it. If certain parameters were different, there might still be life, just different to what we know. That’s no evidence of “ fine tuning” (yet another of KellyJay’s anthropomorphic metaphors misapplied to mindless processes); it merely shows that life is contingent upon various material conditions.
@KellyJay
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/3/11/on-the-origin-of-time-review/
This is Steven Hawking's final work, I got a copy from audible.com, audio book version, Barns and Noble did not have on on the shelves yet. Paperback not coming out for near a year, next march.
It explains what is going on to make our universe so friendly for life to form and any tiny c ...[text shortened]... e were just a tiny bit different and a lot of other features of our universe allowing life to exist.
230d
@moonbus saidYour statement that if the universe parameters were different there still might be life of a different form is blind faith on your part, ignoring the reality you find yourself in for something only found in between your ears. It is laughable that words that are used to describe what "is" around us so we understand one another actually because you understand them, you use them to find fault, suggesting I'm using anthropomorphic metaphors misapplying them to highlight mindless processes. You have nothing by which to bring to the table to explain what "is" so you denounce those words that actually describe in human terms that we understand, you are willfully blind, it isn't a human language you have issues with.
The universe is conducive to life as we know it. If certain parameters were different, there might still be life, just different to what we know. That’s no evidence of “ fine tuning” (yet another of KellyJay’s anthropomorphic metaphors misapplied to mindless processes); it merely shows that life is contingent upon various material conditions.
230d
1 edit
@kellyjay saidYou should turn the problem around. Could you imagine any universe in which the life within it, upon attaining the ability to think upon certain problems, would not at some time marvel at how wonderfully "fine-tuned" the universe appears to be for life?
Your statement that if the universe parameters were different there still might be life of a different form is blind faith on your part, ignoring the reality you find yourself in for something only found in between your ears. It is laughable that words that are used to describe what "is" around us so we understand one another actually because you understand them, you use th ...[text shortened]... n terms that we understand, you are willfully blind, it isn't a human language you have issues with.
And the fish that lives in a tank shall marvel at how the tank seems to be perfectly matched to hold the water that sustains the fish.
Myself, I think reality would have more to answer for if there were but one universe in existence, rather than a myriad. After all, "reality" should have no absolute carrying capacity, otherwise we should wonder what "tank" is limiting the total volume of water. From this standpoint, I see the "fine-tuning" issue as naught more than a statistical crapshoot that is of little interest. Certainly it's poor stuff with which to justify the existence of a supreme central authority figure that takes an unnatural interest in the minutiae of human affairs.
230d
@kellyjay saidSoothfast has answered your post, so I'll leave you to answer that, but you still have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding 'faith'. It isn't a matter of 'faith' that under different conditions life, if life there had been, could and might have been different, it is a simple fact, and nobody is trying to hypothesize as to what form that life might have taken. I'm sure that Mister Moonbus doesn't need 'faith' to come to this conclusion. Not everyone needs faith; 'faith' in science, 'faith' in the knowledge that we have isn't needed, 'faith' is only needed when something cannot be proven, when something is a human construct, based on belief, emotion or imagination, such as religion. You cannot prove the existence of your inherited god, so you need faith, some of us live perfectly well without it.
Your statement that if the universe parameters were different there still might be life of a different form is blind faith on your part, ignoring the reality you find yourself in for something only found in between your ears. It is laughable that words that are used to describe what "is" around us so we understand one another actually because you understand them, you use th ...[text shortened]... n terms that we understand, you are willfully blind, it isn't a human language you have issues with.
229d
@indonesia-phil saidYou can not even explain life’s beginning in this world with all we know now, but you think 🤔 it’s a fact it could happen some other way, and that isn’t faith without any reason to believe it.
Soothfast has answered your post, so I'll leave you to answer that, but you still have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding 'faith'. It isn't a matter of 'faith' that under different conditions life, if life there had been, could and might have been different, it is a simple fact, and nobody is trying to hypothesize as to what form that life might have taken. I'm s ...[text shortened]... e the existence of your inherited god, so you need faith, some of us live perfectly well without it.
229d
@soothfast saidI don’t believe what we see is a bottom up mindless process, but a top down designed one.
You should turn the problem around. Could you imagine any universe in which the life within it, upon attaining the ability to think upon certain problems, would not at some time marvel at how wonderfully "fine-tuned" the universe appears to be for life?
And the fish that lives in a tank shall marvel at how the tank seems to be perfectly matched to hold the water that su ...[text shortened]... supreme central authority figure that takes an unnatural interest in the minutiae of human affairs.
229d
@KellyJay
Yes, we get that. It doesn't matter if life is invented here on Earth from scratch you would say, see, that just proves design.
Now the James Web scope has found compounds probably from life on the moon Europa.
Would your god be making life on other planets? If so, doesn't that downgrade our position in the universe? Like we would not be seen as the pinnacle of creation.
229d
@sonhouse saidWhy do you think it matters if you find components on another planet that explain anything about what had to happen here? Everything that was needed is HERE, nothing about that is a problem in any explanation, what is problematic is the arrangement of them with the timing required using the proper quantities. You have all the letters in a Scrabble game you can dump them on a table, but that doesn't mean a coherent sentence will form from that action.
@KellyJay
Yes, we get that. It doesn't matter if life is invented here on Earth from scratch you would say, see, that just proves design.
Now the James Web scope has found compounds probably from life on the moon Europa.
Would your god be making life on other planets? If so, doesn't that downgrade our position in the universe? Like we would not be seen as the pinnacle of creation.
229d
@kellyjay saidIt doesn't require 'faith' to think or assume that under different circumstances different things could have happened, nor is there any reason to 'believe' anything in this regard, this is the point that you are still missing. I could say 'It might rain tomorrow', or you could say 'There might be a god', and nobody could dispute either statement. If on the other hand I were to say 'It will rain tomorrow', or you were to say 'There is a god' (which you do, incessantly) then neither statement is factual. That's where speculation/assumption/faith/belief, call it what you will, enters the arena, and there is no truth to it. You can't prove that there is a god, any more than I can prove that it will rain tomorrow.
You can not even explain life’s beginning in this world with all we know now, but you think 🤔 it’s a fact it could happen some other way, and that isn’t faith without any reason to believe it.
228d
@Indonesia-Phil
Which of course means he will stick with his POV no matter what science has to say, and he called it 'components' which says pretty clearly he doesn't believe there will ever be shown there are civilizations out there at least as intelligent as the best humans, he is programmed to think we ARE the pinnacle of creation.