Making an example out of the unfortunate

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about the design in all nature and in the heavens and the earth with
its tilt at just the right angle and its moon and sun at just the right distance
to provide for the seasons with its rotation that helps provide for life as a
start. Maybe, you have the same mind as black beetle who seems to think
everything is abstract and imaginary.

There is nothing 'Holy' about gravity, or the slowing down and essential balancing of motion within the universe.

It wasn't 'designed'; it purely arrived at the state is became and ever changes to balance itself. It isn't 'divine' but is simply as it has self-created.

As for having the same mind as somebody else, that's just ludicrous.

I'm insane! 😏

-m.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about the design in all nature and in the heavens and the earth with
its tilt at just the right angle and its moon and sun at just the right distance
to provide for the seasons with its rotation that helps provide for life as a
start. Maybe, you have the same mind as black beetle who seems to think
everything is abstract and imaginary.

If there was no design in nature, and everything was just cobbled together randomly people like you would be saying: "Ooh look! no design in nature!!! - clearly only a god would abstain from all this stupid frilly design malarckey that humans do - ergo God!"

If there was no moon you'd be saying "Ooh look! no moon!!! - means more sky and stars to look at - ergo God"

If humans had no legs you'd be saying "Ooh look! we have no legs, means we can get closer to the floor for praying - ergo God!"

Ridiculous! 😞

Originally posted by mikelom
There is nothing 'Holy' about gravity, or the slowing down and essential balancing of motion within the universe.

It wasn't 'designed'; it purely arrived at the state is became and ever changes to balance itself. It isn't 'divine' but is simply as it has self-created.

As for having the same mind as somebody else, that's just ludicrous.

I'm insane! 😏

-m.

I think gravity is necessary to keep everything on earth from
flying off into outer space. So it had to be designed just like
God's other laws. Like many physicists are now saying,
"everything is too finely tuned to have happened by chance."
And if you believe everything is abstract and imaginary then
your thinking is like that of black beetle.

Originally posted by Agerg
If there was no design in nature, and everything was just cobbled together randomly people like you would be saying: "Ooh look! no design in nature!!! - clearly only a god would abstain from all this stupid frilly design malarckey that humans do - ergo God!"

If there was no moon you'd be saying "Ooh look! no moon!!! - means more sky and stars to look at - ...[text shortened]... no legs, means we can get closer to the floor for praying - ergo God!"

Ridiculous! 😞

Look at your own ideas to see what is really "Ridiculous!".

Originally posted by RJHinds
Look at your own ideas to see what is really "Ridiculous!".

The universe need not be finely tuned at all...it is "tuned" to a particular `setting', supports the existence of some collection of potential creatures and some of them actually exist - one species then stands up and says it was all created specifically such that they could exist.. With different parameters it could well be the case that the universe would support other creatures perhaps one who having existed as long as we haveReveal Hidden Contentturn out to be more intelligent as a species than us.

Originally posted by Agerg
The universe need not be finely tuned at all...it is "tuned" to a particular `setting', supports the existence of some collection of potential creatures and some of them actually exist - one species then stands up and says it was all created specifically such that they could exist.. With different parameters it could well be the case that the universe would su ...[text shortened]... e have[hidden]no not 6000 years[/hidden]turn out to be more intelligent as a species than us.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps is all you have to offer. You do
not want to deal with reality but perhaps what could be.
The fact is God created the heavens and earth and finely
tuned everything so we could live on it. No perhaps about it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps is all you have to offer. You do
not want to deal with reality but perhaps what could be.
The fact is God created the heavens and earth and finely
tuned everything so we could live on it. No perhaps about it.

And the fact is that your argument for that being the case was fundamentally flawed, Agerg pointed out the flaws, and rather than admitting the flaw in your argument, you just go to your old fallback of saying 'it just is'. Why cant you simply admit your error?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And the fact is that your argument for that being the case was fundamentally flawed, Agerg pointed out the flaws, and rather than admitting the flaw in your argument, you just go to your old fallback of saying 'it just is'. Why cant you simply admit your error?

You two don't even have an argument. I see no flaw in my
argument. It is your perception that is flawed.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You two don't even have an argument. I see no flaw in my
argument. It is your perception that is flawed.

You didn't create an argument.

"Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps is all you have to offer. You do
not want to deal with reality but perhaps what could be.
The fact is God created the heavens and earth and finely
tuned everything so we could live on it. No perhaps about it."

That's a statement, and a blind one whilst at it.

Your perceptions of reality are the flaws, especially when you just flaunt openly dismissable statements such as 'The fact is God created the heavens and earth".

It's shamedly laughable. Fact? What is this God thing you repetitively remark about that finely tuned things? Is it the dark matter?

Perhaps I say 'no' to your 'factual' unfactual remarks. This is becoming pathetic.

If you don't live in a world of facts then don't remark upon what is factual.

Fact - you'll get in your car tomorrow and turn the key and it will start. Is that a gift from God?

Is it feck, it's a gift of man's development and people like me who spent years designing the shet. It wasn't a piece of design from God thingy, nor was I.

You see no flaw in anything you do cos, even if you do wrongy, gody thingy will forgivvy you.

-m. 😠

Originally posted by RJHinds
You two don't even have an argument. I see no flaw in my
argument. It is your perception that is flawed.

Well defend it then instead of waffling.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well defend it then instead of waffling.

What exactly do you think is flawed that needs to be defended?
Like, I said, I don,t see a flaw.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What exactly do you think is flawed that needs to be defended?
Like, I said, I don,t see a flaw.

Agerg pointed out what was wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Agerg pointed out what was wrong.

He only stated that he believes there is no need for fine tuning.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The fine-tuned Universe is the idea 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.

The existence and extent of fine-tuning in the universe is a matter of dispute in the scientific community. Proponents of fine-tuning include physicist Paul Davies who has stated "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". Other physicists such as Victor Stenger dispute fine-tuning, saying that even though "life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different, [we] cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory." Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of scientific explanations have been proposed, e.g., the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. The idea has also attracted discussion among philosophers and theologians, as well as creationists and proponents of the Intelligent Design movement.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Now that you have me down. Kick me!

No one was "kick[ing] you".

I was merely pointing out the likely reason for your childish response to Z.

That you've followed it with another childish response is quite telling.