Shaken Atheism: A Look at the Fine-Tuned Universe

[quiXilver]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

To my question - what defines 'preaching' I'm uncertain about this.

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

16 hours ago, Occupational Hubris said:

The universe can only look this way to us cause these are the only conditions we know which are able to support intelligent life. 

What does this explain? The anthropic principle is not explanatory for fine-tuning. It has no explanatory power for the phenomenon. It does not explain how the constants came to be that way, only that, well yes, they are that way for life to exist. Multiple constants working in tandem, exact values. If they were slightly off, life and the Universe could not exist/ would cease to exist. It's like tuning a radio channel to an exact station. The only logical explanation is that there is intelligence behind it. The multiverse attempted explanation remains unsubstantiated as well. 

[Antigonos]

3 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Saru, yes thank you I appreciate your efforts. You can do what I cannot. I love when things are positive and respectful as well. To my question - what defines 'preaching' I'm uncertain about this. Because on this forum there are several anti-God/Bible posts and views. My views are the opposite. How does preaching differ from having a view in favor of God/the Bible? Honestly I would like to discuss this. This forum is on Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs - mine are from the Bible. That's what I post about. I am not preaching to no one. I couldn't care less about preaching to people here. Believe what you want to believe! I say this with sincerity: I do not care, believe what you want to believe. I respect you and your views and obviously don't agree with all of them. I've been a bit confused and wondering about this. If you say something to my post I'll respond about it with my views (Bible/God related), just like you respond with your views (anti-God/Bible related). Thank you for your input Saru.   

That’s twice in 2 separate threads Saru has had to admonish you to not preach. At least you had the sense to thank him. 
Funny though when I did it before he did,  your response to me was to suggest I leave if I didn’t like it. Very respectful.

 But at least the scolding you got from someone with authority has made you humble. It’s always that way with people of your ilk.

So, where’s MY thank you for being the first to explain the rules to you? Hmmm…

If you’re confused as to what constitutes preaching, just go back and reread every post you’ve written so far. It should start to sink in eventually.

Edited September 16 by Antigonos

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

Multiple constants working in tandem, exact values. If they were slightly off, life and the Universe could not exist/ would cease to exist.

Those multiple constants didn’t all occur simultaneously especially considering that cosmic inflation at the start of our universe propelled the expansion of said universe faster than the speed of light, whereas internally for the first few seconds the speed of light had negligible meaning in regards to distance. Add to that that later it would take billions of years for evolution to even occur and then a further few billion years to go from single cellular to multicellular organisms such as us. It’s easy to whitewash religious BS as relevant to factual history but that’s all it is, BS. 
 

cormac

[pellinore]

3 hours ago, Piney said:

Physics has it's own "rule book" as does biology but it doesn't mean it's guided. 

The complexity of the Universe and the diversity of life on Earth leads some to believe that it all cannot have come about by chance. No, I don't believe it is guided, but some people do. It also isn't chance, as some Creationists say to try to dismiss evolution. It's not random, it is natural selection, survival of the selfish gene etc.

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Choices aren’t random.  I think you meant random chance?

I think so too yes 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

46 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

That’s twice in 2 separate threads Saru has had to admonish you to not preach. At least you had the sense to thank him. 
Funny though when I did it before he did,  your response to me was to suggest I leave if I didn’t like it. Very respectful.

 But at least the scolding you got from someone with authority has made you humble. It’s always that way with people of your ilk.

So, where’s MY thank you for being the first to explain the rules to you? Hmmm…

If you’re confused as to what constitutes preaching, just go back and reread every post you’ve written so far. It should start to sink in eventually.

**If I'm preaching, then so are you. I thanked him for putting this out to everyone --> 

Quote

Let's try to keep this discussion civil and constructive please - no personal attacks, no drama

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

58 minutes ago, pellinore said:

The complexity of the Universe and the diversity of life on Earth leads some to believe that it all cannot have come about by chance. No, I don't believe it is guided, but some people do. It also isn't chance, as some Creationists say to try to dismiss evolution. It's not random, it is natural selection, survival of the selfish gene etc.

Thinking about it now, with evolution, who needs morality or ethics? Do whatever you want to do that gets you ahead. There is no place for higher levels of morality. All that matter is survival, even if it means that it comes at the cost of another. I'm most definitely not an evolutionist. I believe in love, and patience and kindness at all times to everyone as much as possible. Sitting and waiting for those who are weaker and who cannot stand on their own or who need help. These things are often valuable to humans but according to evolution, humans evolved to survive. Only to survive. The best live on and weak die out. 

Edited September 16 by ReadTheGreatControversyEGW

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

8 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Thinking about it now, with evolution, who needs morality or ethics? Do whatever you want to do that gets you ahead. There is no place for higher levels of morality. All that matter is survival, even if it means that it comes at the cost of another. I'm most definitely not an evolutionist. I believe in love, and patience and kindness at all times to everyone as much as possible. Sitting and waiting for those who are weaker and who cannot stand on their own or who need help. These things are often valuable to humans but according to evolution, humans evolved to survive. Only to survive. The best live on and weak die out. 

And why would you need 2 different sexes, male and female, to reproduce? This is visible throughout the world. Why do both exist? You should be able to reproduce with just one. Why 2? In fact if the theory of the origin of life is correct, we should be self replicating since it is taught that everything came from a single cell. It would seem that is more likely. Why would there be 2 distinctly separate and very different sexes for reproduction?   

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

27 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

And why would you need 2 different sexes, male and female, to reproduce? This is visible throughout the world. Why do both exist? You should be able to reproduce with just one. Why 2? In fact if the theory of the origin of life is correct, we should be self replicating since it is taught that everything came from a single cell. It would seem that is more likely. Why would there be 2 distinctly separate and very different sexes for reproduction?   

If we came from a single cell organism... the sky is the limit for what we should have been and how we could have looked, but instead, we are very symmetrical in appearance and have systematic and functional complexities beyond imagination yet working together in a perfectly organized fashion, we are very social and that is also unnecessary by itself it only becomes necessary when there are 2 sexes. Also plant world and how appealing it is to the senses. Why and how did that branch off the single cell organism? The beauty and symmetry we see in nature is not only intelligent or appeals to intelligence but is also unnecessary if all life came from a single little cell. This is as much a fairy tail to me as is Cinderella. The bible is a much better explanation to me than evolution. 

The world is more than orderly. It's very intentional with different systems working together. I don't understand how anyone could suggest that this came together from nothing. No intelligence behind it. No mind. And yet still the creativity seen in the world appeals strongly to human intelligence and reason and understanding. If this is how life came into existence - natural selection is not necessary. We should just be giant blobs or one giant blob. 

Edited September 16 by ReadTheGreatControversyEGW

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

50 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

The best live on and weak die out. 

Come to think of it. Why is there death in the universe? That single cell should have just kept morphing and be alive today. How is it that oblivion can create something more intelligent than itself, since it doesn't have any intelligence (consciousness)?   

[Tatetopa]

29 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Come to think of it. Why is there death in the universe? That single cell should have just kept morphing and be alive today.

It did and it is.  It is still an amoeba or an algae.

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Thinking about it now, with evolution, who needs morality or ethics?

Hi Read

Morality and ethics are values that social creatures like humans created as a means of working together to survive as a species. Man is dependent on others and always have been which is where ethics and morals come from, observing interactions is a part of our nature.

[Occupational Hubris]

4 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Multiple constants working in tandem, exact values. If they were slightly off, life and the Universe could not exist/ would cease to exist. 

You're looking at it wrong. If they were off, we wouldn't be here. The very fact that we are here means that they're not. We are a product of those values. We are here because of them. Not the other way around. 

[+razman]

17 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Is the word, fandabidozzi in the Bible?

I like this game.. 

• Romans 2:14: For when the fandabidozzi's , who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

[+joc]

6 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Hey beautiful people... so the article says, 

"When we consider the first seconds of the big bang that created the universe, writes Bernard Lovell, an astronomer, "it is an astonishing reflection that at this critical early moment in the history of the universe, all of the hydrogen would have turned into helium if the force of attraction between protons—that is, the nuclei of the hydrogen atoms—had been only a few percent stronger. . . . No galaxies, no stars, no life would have emerged. It would have been a universe forever unknowable by living creatures. A remarkable and intimate relationship between man, the fundamental constants of nature and the initial moments of space and time seems to be an inescapable condition of our existence" ("Whence?," New York Times Magazine, November 16, 1975)."

Someone in the comments said something about different stars having different elements. 

An article on NASA's website states the following - 

"Stars are giant balls of hot gas – mostly hydrogen, with some helium and small amounts of other elements."  

https://universe.nasa.gov/stars/basics/

How can a huge explosion create something so specific? It would take the power of a superintellect to control and bring about the right conditions. 

Woah...wait...hold up!  No...you don't get to do that!  Wrong!!

Quote

"When we consider the first seconds of the big bang that created the universe, writes Bernard Lovell, an astronomer, "it is an astonishing reflection that at this critical early moment in the history of the universe, all of the hydrogen would have turned into helium if the force of attraction between protons—that is, the nuclei of the hydrogen atoms—had been only a few percent stronger. . . . No galaxies, no stars, no life would have emerged.

You cannot use the quote of Bernard Lovell...because...you cannot use the argument for a Big Bang in your Biblical Fantasy Story.  If you are going to believe in the Myth Creation Story...then by god...believe it! Embrace it! But you do not get to use Scientific Theories for a backdrop of your idiotic arguments against science.  You have no idea what the Big Bang is, and you have no idea where the very stuff that you are made of comes from.  It  comes from dying stars when they go SuperNova.  

Stick to what you know... 7 days...the sun being created on the fourth day.  

We are literally made of star dust.  From the carbon atoms and other elements blown into the Universe as stars die.  

[Crazy Horse]

6 hours ago, razman said:

• Romans 2:14: For when the fandabidozzi's , who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

For when the Fandabidozzi's were taken unto Babylon, the angels giggled and sayith unto them, "Serves you right"..

All was quiet on the western front.

And coffee was had by all.. 

Edited September 17 by Crazy Horse

[Crazy Horse]

10 hours ago, pellinore said:

The complexity of the Universe and the diversity of life on Earth leads some to believe that it all cannot have come about by chance. No, I don't believe it is guided, but some people do. It also isn't chance, as some Creationists say to try to dismiss evolution. It's not random, it is natural selection, survival of the selfish gene etc.

But in the long run, the selfish wont survive so well.

Those who work together (especially in tough times) with a mutual respect and honesty, will survive a lot better than those who are selfish in outlook and deed. 

Love is strength, good health and harmony etc.

Love is the creative force par excellence, with kindness and generosity thrown-in for good measure.

And love shall tolerate no wickedness either.

In other words selfishness is a very short sighted attitude to adopt, and not a good strategy for survival.

[pellinore]

 

14 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

But in the long run, the selfish wont survive so well....

In other words selfishness is a very short sighted attitude to adopt, and not a good strategy for survival.

'Selfish' with regard to gene replication does not have any moral connotations. It is merely used to explain the gene's inherent need to replicate itself. If that replication required unselfish behaviour (in moral terms) it would carry it out. It is claimed animals have been observed sacrificing their own lives to ensure the survival of their species, iirc bats have starved themselves feeding other bats with a better chance of survival in hard times. It would be viewed as altruistic in human terms, but from the bat's gene's point of view it is selfish as the species survives.

[Crazy Horse]

33 minutes ago, pellinore said:

 

'Selfish' with regard to gene replication does not have any moral connotations. It is merely used to explain the gene's inherent need to replicate itself. If that replication required unselfish behaviour (in moral terms) it would carry it out. It is claimed animals have been observed sacrificing their own lives to ensure the survival of their species, iirc bats have starved themselves feeding other bats with a better chance of survival in hard times. It would be viewed as altruistic in human terms, but from the bat's gene's point of view it is selfish as the species survives.

Whether there are moral connotations or not, it is still not a good survival strategy.

And I would suggest that the need to procreate is not "selfish" that's the wrong word to use.

I would use the word, "practical" as being more apt.

Just as love is more practical to help us all survive and thrive.

Edit; I want to add that giving ones life for the survival of the species is hardly an act of selfishness, (its the exact opposite) whether its a bat, or a man, or even Batman.

Just as Christ gave his life for the wellbeing of humanity.

 

 

Edited September 17 by Crazy Horse

[Rlyeh]

2 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

Whether there are moral connotations or not, it is still not a good survival strategy.

Apparently it is.

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

Out of chaos does not come order. Not without the aide and intervention of intelligence. Order does not come about by itself, that is impossible. Simply out of the question. Everything orderly came about by the power of an intelligent mind. Take all the parts of a car or a cell phone and drop them before you. It doesn't matter how many years go by. They will never assemble into a car or a cell phone. All the laws of nature and physics came about by the power of an intelligent mind. Also, not by some horribly creepy looking insect humanoid thing or a weak immoral mind. But by a good and great, powerful and majestic Being.    

[+joc]

40 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Out of chaos does not come order. Not without the aide and intervention of intelligence. Order does not come about by itself, that is impossible. Simply out of the question. Everything orderly came about by the power of an intelligent mind. Take all the parts of a car or a cell phone and drop them before you. It doesn't matter how many years go by. They will never assemble into a car or a cell phone. All the laws of nature and physics came about by the power of an intelligent mind. Also, not by some horribly creepy looking insect humanoid thing or a weak immoral mind. But by a good and great, powerful and majestic Being.    

Your paragraph begs the question...and so I ask it...

And where, oh where, did this great and powerful and majestic Being come from?  Thin air?  Wait, there wasn't any air.  Chaos?  Wait, there wasn't any chaos.  So...another question:  What exactly was there before the Universe was 'created' by the majestic Being?  Obviously there would have been... the Majestic Being.  But how does a powerful majestic intelligent mind come into being?  So, back to the original question:  Where did this Majestic Intelligence originate?  

[+razman]

36 minutes ago, joc said:

Your paragraph begs the question...and so I ask it...

And where, oh where, did this great and powerful and majestic Being come from?  Thin air?  Wait, there wasn't any air.  Chaos?  Wait, there wasn't any chaos.  So...another question:  What exactly was there before the Universe was 'created' by the majestic Being?  Obviously there would have been... the Majestic Being.  But how does a powerful majestic intelligent mind come into being?  So, back to the original question:  Where did this Majestic Intelligence originate?  

Like me and Psych were talking about in that other thread , we see by what we are that the universe evolves intelligence at some point , so somewhere if there was a place where it was billions or even hundreds of billions of years ahead of us , it could be quite advanced from us. We can only see so much of the universe , or say , so far , so it's hard to say what could be beyond it. Or even what exactly is all in what we can see.

Edited September 17 by razman

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Out of chaos does not come order. Not without the aide and intervention of intelligence. Order does not come about by itself, that is impossible. Simply out of the question. Everything orderly came about by the power of an intelligent mind. Take all the parts of a car or a cell phone and drop them before you. It doesn't matter how many years go by. They will never assemble into a car or a cell phone. All the laws of nature and physics came about by the power of an intelligent mind. Also, not by some horribly creepy looking insect humanoid thing or a weak immoral mind. But by a good and great, powerful and majestic Being.    

Read, many natural phenomena exhibit self-organization without any external intelligent intervention. For example, in physical systems like crystallization and flocking behavior in birds, patterns and order emerge spontaneously through simple interactions between the entities involved.

The theory of evolution proposes that complex life forms have evolved through gradual changes over millions of years, driven by natural selection. No intelligence is required for this process. Evolutionary mechanisms explain the diversity and complexity of life on Earth without invoking an intelligent designer.

In physics, emergent properties arise as collective behavior from the interactions of many simple units. For instance, the behavior of a large crowd or traffic flow emerges from the actions of individual people or vehicles, respectively. No intelligence guiding each individual is necessary for these patterns to emerge.

The laws governing the behavior of the universe, such as gravity and electromagnetism, have been observed to operate consistently and predictably. While we don't fully understand the origin of these laws, they do not necessarily require an intelligent mind for their existence.

These above examples highlight instances where order arises naturally without the direct intervention of intelligence. While intelligence can certainly contribute to organizing and manipulating systems, it is not the sole driver of all order in the universe.