@vivify saidAll the forces are acting and reacting to what material is here. It all matters what and where it is.
The universe has a diameter of approximately 93 billion light years. God created a mostly empty universe that large just to set up life on earth?
2 edits
@kellyjay saidOne chance worked for us. Of course, we will never know how many other chances failed on other planets. It is possible that life got started on Mars, but that Mars lost too much atmosphere to support evolution beyond a very primitive stage. Further research on the red planet would be profitable for understanding how life in general gets started. We know already that Mars once had liquid water on its surface, and that seems to be a very favourable pre-condition for life.
How many chances do you think played out to get it right? What do you call a chance? Having every condition met allows for a chance at getting it right all the other moments have zero possibilities for success. Moreover if the wrong thing occurs all possible future chances vanish because what maybe required gets polluted and becomes detrimental.
@kellyjay saidAnd that's where the problem comes. You have no way of showing that the current outcome is the only "acceptable variance".
As soon as there are set ranges of limited acceptable varence everything will no longer be wide open for variations.
At best, you *may* be able to show our current outcome is the best variance for the current state of life...but you have no way of showing this is the only possible arrangement out infinite possibilities, for life to occur.
For example, is the only way to design something that flies is to add wings? No, you can also design helicopters that have propellers. Are strong winds the only way tidal waves can form? No, earthquakes can also cause tsunamis.
Likewise, Is the way the earth currently is the only way that life could've happened? You have no way of showing that, and thus, have no way of showing the universe is "fined tuned" for life. In fact, based on what we know of the universe, it's actually quite hostile for life as we know it, which is why much of it is a cold, vast empty void.
@vivify saidThat is one opinion. I am sure had the numbers gone the other way those that agree with you now would be singing a different tune.
Then you and the guy in your video need to stick to earth. Trying to argue the entire universe is "fine tuned" for life on earth is an idiotic argument.
@vivify saidYou are saying we can know nothing if we don’t know everything?
And that's where the problem comes. You have no way of showing that the current outcome is the only "acceptable variance".
At best, you *may* be able to show our current outcome is the best variance for the current state of life...but you have no way of showing this is the only possible arrangement out infinite possibilities, for life to occur.
For example, i ...[text shortened]... s actually quite hostile for life as we know it, which is why much of it is a cold, vast empty void.
@vivify saidSo you believe gravity could be more potent or weaker, and the universe wouldn't just collapse or fly apart? How is what you are saying any different than saying if we don't know everything, we cannot know that?
No. I'm saying you can't claim the universe is "fined tuned" unless you show the universe couldn't have come about any other way. And that's something you can't do.
@kellyjay saidI don't understand what you're saying.
So you believe gravity could be more potent or weaker, and the universe wouldn't just collapse or fly apart? How is what you are saying any different than saying if we don't know everything, we cannot know that?
There are an infinite number of ways the universe could've turned out. Nothing about it indicates it's "fine tuned". If you want to argue the earth specifically is fined tuned, knock yourself out. But the entire universe? That's nonsensical.
@vivify saidAn infinite number of ways the universe could have turned out, okay, sure. We see the one we are dialed into, your imaginary possibilities, so-called other universes; they are not part of any reality we can look at and study. The only nonsensical parts of this discussion are what we have and live in; then, we have your imagination.
I don't understand what you're saying.
There are an infinite number of ways the universe could've turned out. Nothing about it indicates it's "fine tuned". If you want to argue the earth specifically is fined tuned, knock yourself out. But the entire universe? That's nonsensical.
@kellyjay saidYou believe a snake tricked a naked woman into bringing the downfall of mankind by eating a fruit; a woman who then populated the earth through children who had sex with their brothers and sisters.
An infinite number of ways the universe could have turned out, okay, sure. We see the one we are dialed into, your imaginary possibilities, so-called other universes; they are not part of any reality we can look at and study. The only nonsensical parts of this discussion are what we have and live in; then, we have your imagination.
You have some nerve to call anything "nonsensical".
Quite simply, there's no logic to deliberately designing a universe that as far as we know, is hostile to life, save for one planet in the entire universe that we're aware of.
1 edit
@vivify saidWe are not now talking about snakes, are we? I've not attempted once to say you had to believe in talking snakes, merely that if the supernatural is as accurate as everything else, it could affect the natural world. Beyond that, we are left with just the natural world and its limitations, which cannot explain itself, nor things like life, self-awareness, why we have senses, and so on without miraculous tales that rival even talking snakes.
You believe a snake tricked a naked woman into bringing the downfall of mankind by eating a fruit; a woman who then populated the earth through children who had sex with their brothers and sisters.
You have some nerve to call anything "nonsensical".
Quite simply, there's no logic to deliberately designing a universe that as far as we know, is hostile to life, save for one planet in the entire universe that we're aware of.
The virgin birth of a universe out of nothing, or an eternal, uncaused universe? We are asked to believe all pieces are required to build life being in the same place simultaneously, in the right quantities, mixed just the right way while limiting undesired chemical reactions, and somehow life started out of dead dirt. It isn't like we are comparing one unbelievable story to a believable one since all three narratives about the beginning are supernatural from what we know in this life.
@kellyjay saidThink about what exists in the universe: hot flaming balls of gas, floating rocks, and monsters called black holes that do nothing but swallow and destroy anything that gets close enough.
We are not now talking about snakes, are we? I've not attempted once to say you had to believe in talking snakes, merely that if the supernatural is as accurate as everything else, it could affect the natural world. Beyond that, we are left with just the natural world and its limitations, which cannot explain itself, nor things like life, self-awareness, why we have senses, ...[text shortened]... one since all three narratives about the beginning are supernatural from what we know in this life.
And that's pretty much it. That, and cold, dead empty space stretching infinitely; an unfathomable amount of absolutely nothing.
This was designed? This?
What about the asteroids that killed the dinosaurs: were they designed? God decided to make a giant useless, lifeless rock that did nothing but kill of most of the living creatures on earth? Why would anyone design that? What about the asteroids that still linger around earth and still pose a threat to humanity's existence....God designed that?
If you want to argue that earth shows signs of design, fine. But the universe? It's just a vast, unlivable, infinite wasteland.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidYou're really hung up on origins, aren't you? It's a Jewish thing. Other religions don't make such a fuss about origins. In the Greek pantheon, Chaos came first, gods and other beings came later. In Buddhism, it simply does not matter whether the universe had a beginning or no beginning. It's man's wherefore that matters, not his whence. For all other beings, whether created or evolved, they can become only what their chemicals determine them to become, an acorn becomes only an oak tree and not an elm or a squid. It is what it is and not any other thing. But for a human, other principles apply: a human can only be a human, of course, in a material (physiological) sense, but what he makes of himself is his own doing. Whether he becomes MacBeth or MacDuff is his own doing, and this has little to do with his own origin and nothing at all to do with the origin of mankind or the universe; it has to do with how he perceives his own destiny and how he acts on it to make it real in the future.
We are not now talking about snakes, are we? I've not attempted once to say you had to believe in talking snakes, merely that if the supernatural is as accurate as everything else, it could affect the natural world. Beyond that, we are left with just the natural world and its limitations, which cannot explain itself, nor things like life, self-awareness, why we have senses, ...[text shortened]... one since all three narratives about the beginning are supernatural from what we know in this life.