Life existing is no more lucky than stars existing.
No you can't test fine-tuning,can we test anything about how the universe begin?
However fine tuning requires a god, and intent, neither of which are known or plausible, whereas the natural explanations account for all the data we have accumulated. Abigenesis is plausible and consistent with all the data we have accumulated. It's just a matter of showing it can happen as theorized.
No laboratory is big enough to run test on the universe my friend.
(Unlike you, apparently) I don't see "Objectivity" VERSUS "Subjectivity" as The Problem, but rather an un-Realistic VAUNTING of one's OWN (supposed) "Objectivity" over against that of others ...
You are a special problem. You do not represent any reasonable position. You acknowledge objectivity only so far as to apply to what can be verified as true. You dispose of it as soon as your beliefs are on the line, and then you are deliberately deceptive. The deception only works on your own thinking (not reasoning), as it gets pointed out to you how your math does not work.
As you know by now, I understand The broad and deep Human Enterprise of Seeking -- and getting and receiving -- Understanding and Knowledge as benefitting from comprehensive and integrated Explorations of Life, The Universe and Everything, rather than REJECTING entire Realms of Seeking ...
It's religion. There is no understanding or knowledge.
I've never been able to fathom the "fine tuning" argument. Obviously, conditions in the universe are such that life was able to arise here. If they hadn't been, we wouldn't be here. But what reason is there for regarding life as an intended outcome? Is the outcome of every sequence of cause and effect intentional? Do we look upon the devastation left by a tsunami and say "A purposeful agent fine-tuned the universe in order to make that happen"? No, but the devastation is as much an outcome of conditions in the universe as life is.
As you know by now, I understand The broad and deep Human Enterprise of Seeking -- and getting and receiving -- Understanding and Knowledge as benefitting from comprehensive and integrated Explorations of Life, The Universe and Everything, rather than REJECTING entire Realms of Seeking ...
I have explored the entire realm of seeking called religion and found absolutely nothing useful for living except the music and art that probably have nothing to do with religion except a payday. Religion tries to hijack every basic human need in the service of whatever God is handy and will pay for the privilege. Intelligent and creative people are happy to accept the paycheck, and some of them may believe, but their belief proves nothing but that even intelligent and creative people can be duped by shamans and priests.
J'Carlin If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
Can you prove it was luck? Would it be stupid to believe that it is luck?
"Luck" is an absurd creationist argument that is, yes, stupid. Luck had nothing to do with it, neither did a god.
No you can't test fine-tuning,can we test anything about how the universe begin?
Yes; with high energy particle colliders.
no laboratory is big enough to run test on the universe my friend.
No need for that.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Can you prove it was luck? Would it be stupid to believe that it is luck?
"Luck" is an absurd creationist argument that is, yes, stupid. Luck had nothing to do with it, neither did a god.
No you can't test fine-tuning,can we test anything about how the universe begin?
Yes; with high energy particle colliders.
no laboratory is big enough to run test on the universe my friend.
No need for that.
Yes, to say it happened by luck is stupid, I agree. High energy particle colliders are not a universe, furthermore they are controlled by conscious beings, the experiment is being controlled under the supervision of intelligent beings.
I've never been able to fathom the "fine tuning" argument. Obviously, conditions in the universe are such that life was able to arise here. If they hadn't been, we wouldn't be here. But what reason is there for regarding life as an intended outcome? Is the outcome of every sequence of cause and effect intentional? Do we look upon the devastation left by a tsunami and say "A purposeful agent fine-tuned the universe in order to make that happen"? No, but the devastation is as much an outcome of conditions in the universe as life is.
The very nature of nature of always being in constant change allowed it to happen. It could be intentional in that the Earth is a living sentient entity. I appreciate the deep question, I luv ya man.
I agree with ken to,that's why I believe in fine-tuning. But did the universe make itself stable? was it chance? luck?
It's no luckier than the "luck" it took for you to arrive here, and not be a misfire, abortion, still birth, etc.
The only logical way to even consider answering such questions is on the basis of what we know: Let's assume the Universe is just a life form, like you, like an ant... but ultimately no different. What we see is that the conditions for life exist-and when they do, life occurs. Not everywhere-but certainly somewhere and apparently all over. The odds of a planet supporting life are likely smaller than say a woman being able to bear children-but the overall concept is no different.
The nature of reality is life. So life exists. No gods necessary, nor are they logical. No matter how much concrete I pour, weeds WILL get through-this is the nature of life. And theists tend to want to die-to get to some false pure land, trapping their mind in some outdated dream and ignoring the potential for purity that THIS land has. The theists want out, they welcome death for it means the end of this impure world. The average atheist rather usually thinks this world is all their is. Point being-when the shite hits the fan, we got better survival instincts and reasoning.
I'm here due to a sexual union between a man and woman, that's make it intentional, an abortion is also something intentional. Yes, I believe the universe is a life form, it goes through six changes that every living thing goes through, It's born, it grows, it stays around for awhile, it produces by products, it dwindles, it dies. the parts of the whole follow in the nature as the whole. I don't think we can calculate the odds of life appearing on different planets through, before we do that we would have to find life on other planets first. Then we would have to examine the conditions since there is no rule that says that life has to follow the same rules everywhere as it does here. As for the gods not being necessary, what if the gods are just by-products of the same universe as we are? if we can exist, why can't gods exist?
(Unlike you, apparently) I don't see "Objectivity" VERSUS "Subjectivity" as The Problem, but rather an un-Realistic VAUNTING of one's OWN (supposed) "Objectivity" over against that of others ...
You are a special problem. You do not represent any reasonable position. You acknowledge objectivity only so far as to apply to what can be verified as true. You dispose of it as soon as your beliefs are on the line, and then you are deliberately deceptive. The deception only works on your own thinking (not reasoning), as it gets pointed out to you how your math does not work.
As you know by now, I understand The broad and deep Human Enterprise of Seeking -- and getting and receiving -- Understanding and Knowledge as benefitting from comprehensive and integrated Explorations of Life, The Universe and Everything, rather than REJECTING entire Realms of Seeking ...
It's religion. There is no understanding or knowledge.
Why do you have this problem with subjectivity? People who practice yoga get a subjective feeling from the practice of yoga. Just because I can't prove to you my subjective experience does not mean I experience no subjective experience from doing yoga. Millions of people do it, I'm quite sure they derive some benefit from doing it. Millions of people exercise to get that " I'm fit feeling" they get a subjective experience from their efforts, but could they prove it to you?
