Evidence that the stuff of life is everywhere:

sonhouse

Spirituality

09 Mar '12 22:34

FMF
Joined
28 Oct '05
Moves
34587
11 Mar '12 05:03
Originally posted by RJHinds
Many parts of Old Testament scripture written in a prophetic manner are not
meant to be all fulfilled at one time as Jesus has indicated. This is one of
the misunderstandings of the Jews and why they do not accept Jesus as their
promised Messiah. He only fulfilled half on His first coming.
If you'd look again, you'd see that this is a non-sequitur and not an answer to my question.
RJHinds
The Near Genius
Fort Gordon
Joined
24 Jan '11
Moves
13644
11 Mar '12 05:12
Originally posted by FMF
If you'd look again, you'd see that this is a non-sequitur and not an answer to my question.
You will have to make do with that for i am going to bed shortly and don't have
all night to keep looking up scripture. It is after midnight here.
FMF
Joined
28 Oct '05
Moves
34587
11 Mar '12 05:17
Originally posted by RJHinds
You will have to make do with that for i am going to bed shortly and don't have
all night to keep looking up scripture. It is after midnight here.
I asked for scripture and you provided it. Thanks. But you have carefully sidestepped the questions I have been asking you. Maybe tomorrow.
FMF
Joined
28 Oct '05
Moves
34587
11 Mar '12 05:20
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment,
and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected
Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how
much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

(Hebrews 10:26-31 NKJV)

Speaking as a neutral, it's striking how much of the ugly parts of the Bible come across much like the ugly parts of the Koran.
epiphinehas
Illinois
Joined
20 Mar '07
Moves
6804
11 Mar '12 05:50
Originally posted by RJHinds
Are you saying the fine tuning could have happened by accident just like the
production of matter into an orderly fashion from a "big Bang" explosion or
whatever the current athesitic view on how the universe began?
I don't think chance is a viable alternative.
RJHinds
The Near Genius
Fort Gordon
Joined
24 Jan '11
Moves
13644
11 Mar '12 05:52
Originally posted by epiphinehas
I don't think chance is a viable alternative.
I agree.
humy
Joined
06 Mar '12
Moves
642
11 Mar '12 12:081 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]don't follow your reasoning here: where you say “...the existence of "necessity" either? “ at the end of that above statement, which type of “necessity” are you referring to?

I'm referring to the necessity you've been arguing for, i.e., your contention that the universe is the way it is because it couldn't have been otherwise.

Remembe verse theories, are meant to explain the fine-tuning that we do observe.[/b]
“...i.e., your contention that the universe is the way it is because it couldn't have been otherwise. ...”

I never said that it was. Note the operative words “..for all we know, ...” in my original post.

“...Remember, the standard you have set for deeming fine-tuning reasonable ("...there is no... reason to believe in 'fine-tuning'." ) is nothing less than the observation of another universe with different constants ("short of actually finding another universe with different constants..." ). It follows, then, that neither is there reason to believe in necessity (i.e., "cosmological constants are what they are... due to merely the limits of what is possible." ) since we have never observed another universe with the exact same cosmological constants as our own. ...”

Correct. So? I never contradicted this.
I am NOT claiming and have NEVER claimed that "cosmological constants are what they are... due to merely the limits of what is possible."
again; note the operative words “..for all we know, ...” in my original post.

“...It renders your argument moot. ...”

But that is NOT the premise of my argument! Isn't it! And my argument doesn't depend on that premice.
again; note the operative words “..for all we know, ...” in my original post.

Reminder:

“...so, therefore, FOR ALL WE KNOW, it could be inevitable that cosmological constants are what they are ...”(my comment and my original post)

And none of this would make any difference to the conclusion that we cannot say anything about the probabilities of the physical constants being different to what they are and, therefore, by implication, we can say nothing about the probability of there being “fine-tuning”.

“..
BTW, fine-tuning doesn't imply 'design'.Fine-tuning is what physicists observe about the universe we know; a neutral distinction based on the precision of the cosmological constants and physical laws necessary for our universe to be as it is. Fine-tuning is a fact. ...”

I don't see how: doesn't the words “fine-tuning” clearly imply there is some “tuning”? There is absolutely no evidence to date of any kind of 'tuning' i.e. that the constants could be 'tuned'.
JS357
Joined
29 Dec '08
Moves
6788
11 Mar '12 13:05
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Since we do not know that it is possible (let alone probable) to have a universe with cosmological constants being different from what they are in our universe, we cannot deduce anything whatsoever about the probability of the cosmological constants being different (let alone significantly different) from what they are.

Why is it necessa ...[text shortened]... to believe in the existence of 'fine-tuning'.[/b]

Nor the other alternatives, it seems.[/b]
"Certainly it is possible that the cosmological constants are as they are due to necessity. So? Following your expert opinion (above), shouldn't we conclude that since there is no evidence of any other universes besides our own displaying the exact same constants as our own, then there is no evidence nor reason to believe in the existence of "necessity" either? "

Stimulating thoughts. For simplicity's sake let us say that a universe can be specified by the value of 5 constants.

Let us say that that when the value of each of these constants lies within certain limits, the universe will develop and support life forms that advance sufficiently to reflect on and discuss their origins. If any of the values lies outside its "life limits" there will be no such life in that universe. Ever. Anywhere.

What do we know about the limitations, if any, on what these values can be?

What do we know about the limits of the values which will support life?

What do we know about the probability distribution of any of the values?

One thing we can speculate: In any universe where the values all lie within the life limits, at least some of the residents will eventually, leap to marvel at the fine tuning of that universe, even though to their knowledge, such life in that universe exists only in a thin film, on one planet, for a relatively short time. At least, we have one example of that leap being made.

Fine tuning. Harumph!
sonhouse
Fast and Curious
slatington, pa, usa
Joined
28 Dec '04
Moves
53223
11 Mar '12 13:59
Originally posted by JS357
"Certainly it is possible that the cosmological constants are as they are due to necessity. So? Following your expert opinion (above), shouldn't we conclude that since there is no evidence of any other universes besides our own displaying the exact same constants as our own, then there is no evidence nor reason to believe in the existence of "necessity" either ...[text shortened]... rt time. At least, we have one example of that leap being made.

Fine tuning. Harumph!
In a multi-universe, life might be just a matter of luck. Say trillions of universes are out there and only one in a billion has just the right specs for life. There doesn't have to be a god in a system like that. Or it could be the other way round, trillions of universes, and only one in a billion can't support life. Of course this is pure speculation but that is how sciences start. You have to ask the questions and pose the speculations.
RJHinds
The Near Genius
Fort Gordon
Joined
24 Jan '11
Moves
13644
11 Mar '12 14:23
Originally posted by sonhouse
In a multi-universe, life might be just a matter of luck. Say trillions of universes are out there and only one in a billion has just the right specs for life. There doesn't have to be a god in a system like that. Or it could be the other way round, trillions of universes, and only one in a billion can't support life. Of course this is pure speculation but that is how sciences start. You have to ask the questions and pose the speculations.
Sounds like science fiction to me.
sonhouse
Fast and Curious
slatington, pa, usa
Joined
28 Dec '04
Moves
53223
11 Mar '12 15:181 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
Sounds like science fiction to me.
Very close to science fiction indeed. I never said otherwise. Did you read the last part of my post?
RJHinds
The Near Genius
Fort Gordon
Joined
24 Jan '11
Moves
13644
11 Mar '12 15:57
Originally posted by sonhouse
Very close to science fiction indeed. I never said otherwise. Did you read the last part of my post?
Yes, "speculation" is all evolution and old ages are for everything in the universe, including mankind.
humy
Joined
06 Mar '12
Moves
642
11 Mar '12 19:052 edits
Originally posted by JS357
"Certainly it is possible that the cosmological constants are as they are due to necessity. So? Following your expert opinion (above), shouldn't we conclude that since there is no evidence of any other universes besides our own displaying the exact same constants as our own, then there is no evidence nor reason to believe in the existence of "necessity" either rt time. At least, we have one example of that leap being made.

Fine tuning. Harumph!
“...What do we know about the probability distribution of any of the values? ..”

That is the critical rhetorical question. But for the benefit of those that don't know the answer, the answer is “nothing”.
That was the point I was arguing for in my previous posts ( but with my statements being constantly misinterpreted by over zealous fast-readers) ; we cannot rationally with confidence say anything about the probabilities of the constants being different from what they are. We cannot call it a massive 'coincidence' that they were not different any more than we can say it is 'inevitable' that they were not different.
RJHinds
The Near Genius
Fort Gordon
Joined
24 Jan '11
Moves
13644
11 Mar '12 19:40
Originally posted by humy
“...What do we know about the probability distribution of any of the values? ..”

That is the critical rhetorical question. But for the benefit of those that don't know the answer, the answer is “nothing”.
That was the point I was arguing for in my previous posts ( but with my statements being constantly misinterpreted by over zealous fast-readers) ; we cann ...[text shortened]... ere not different any more than we can say it is 'inevitable' that they were not different.
Only God knows. HalleluYah !!!
sonhouse
Fast and Curious
slatington, pa, usa
Joined
28 Dec '04
Moves
53223
11 Mar '12 19:441 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, "speculation" is all evolution and old ages are for everything in the universe, including mankind.
You say that as if it were a fact. In fact that is your opinion. Based on what other people actually think. You didn't think about that on your own. You just parrot what other people wrote.

But of course, that is the only thing right wing christians can do.