There is no chance or coincidence involved in our development. We exist the way we are now because of billions of years of very small changes caused by environmental pressures.
If you look at the other side of your argument creation isn't that perfect. We exist on the thin crust of our planet some of the time in only certain parts. The universe is a unknowabley large vacuum that so far seems a bit of a wast of space on god's part.
If one starts with the assumption that humanity is an accident, the fine tuning argument makes no sense since if we are an accident, no fine tuning was necessary. For the fine tuning argument to make any sense, one has to start with the assumption that humanity is not an accident, which begs the question of a creator. But since the purpose of the fine tune argument is to prove that there is a god who created us, any such assumption renders the argument circular.
The events at the singularity itself, as predicted by the big bang theory, are not understood by current cosmologists. Before a certain point, we cannot say what happened, let alone any possible events that took place before the singularity. This having been admitted, ignorance is not a justification for an insertion of supernatural causation.
Our inability to comprehend the nature of this enigma, however mind-boggling it is, is not sufficient to insert an answer that would require the same explanation. This god of the gaps argument — that because we don't know some supernatural thing must intervene—is not reasonable. There is no reason to reject, out of hand, that the universe can't be an actual infinite (or, for that matter, that it is incapable of self-cause) no matter how non-sensible it sounds.
Without a conclusion as to why an actual infinite can't exist or why time cannot be infinite you have no voice. Mathematicians such as Georg Cantor and Michael Dummett have argued that actual infinites can, in fact, exist! Quantum physics tells us SOMETHING is more stable than NOTHING, and being stable we can conclude that the SOMETHING by default has "order."
it still doesnt answer what created the molecules that created this earth that thought to put an atmosphere to PROTECT us...dude, even look at us...our lungs/heart are PROTECTED, are brain is PROTECTED...life would evolve too slowly to evolve a freakin RIBCAGE to have not been wiped out long b4 with a VULNERABLE heart, lungs and brain!...the only reason our wang isnt protected in the same way is for REPRODUCTION...how the HELL would RANDOMNESS know to do that?
Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.
so then how can you believe in something you dont even understand?...the FUNCTIONALITY from soemthing totally 'random' implies that it was created intelligently...so things could help and facilitate evolution to THIS point...so its not IGNORANT to theorize something that exists which is so vast and purposely designed was CREATED, as an antithesis to "just happened"
If there were a creator who "fine tuned" the universe for our existence, who "fine tuned" the universe in order for said creator to exist? The argument of a creator is infinitely paradoxical.
so ur basically goin on; if there is a creator, who created the creator?...u said if there was a creator, who created the universe...who fine tuned the universe for the creator to exist??
1 ) if the creator CREATED the universe...then he probably would create it so he could exist dont u think?
2) God by definition is Eternal and not infinite...infinite has start, but no end...so something outside of time and space (eternal) would be able to create it
3) If #2 doesnt fly with u...even still, it makes more sense that SOMETHING created this universe that is perfectly functional...if it WAS accidental, whose to say 'life' as we know it would be functional...if it were random 'life' as we know it could be something totally different...ur focusing more on 'who created the creater" to dodge the real question of how could an ACCIDENT create functionality...its like breaking a vase accidentally but saying it will evolve into a VCR in a billion years
Scientific research about the universe's origins seem to point to a beginning to the universe in its current form, but not necessarily to the beginning of matter itself, and thus not of time either. Considerable debate exists over this question among scientists, so it is premature to declare that space-time is, by default, a thing with a beginning.
First of all, there's infinite number of solutions for equation 'x+y=z'. And when you move to equations like x+3=5, they follow algebra, which is a man-made set of calculation rules.
Science is continous seek of knowlegde. No responsible sciencetific person would be so arrogant and claim to know "the truth". In science, evidence and facts are best SO FAR. So far, all the evidence and facts points to evolution. So far, the best explanation for life emerging is through abiongenesis, etc.
so all ur sayin is that science COULD prove in time that there IS a creator...science still doesnt explain HOW 2 molecules in an infinite amount of space randomly found eachother and created this thing called earth perfectly distanced from the sun and moon to not be fried or flooded, and then 'randomly' creating conditions conducive to evolution, and 'randomly' creating things like oxygen and plants to SUSTAIN that life...how could 'life' LEARN to adapt to such conditions if that takes eras
...thats like saying...after being shot 20 times, the body will adapt and create a magnetic force field to protect itself....but the body woulda been DEAD after shot # 10 if not before, and that defence would not have been ABLE to evolve...therefore ending any chance of reproduction and thus, evolution...and im not saying evolution isnt POSSIBLE, but SOMETHING must exist to evolve, and therefore, something has to be CREATED in order for something to exist and therefore, evolve
...Even if u look in the bible, the order in which things are created are parallel with evolution....the timeline of 7 DAYS...isnt necessarily our 24hr thinking of a day...when ur Eternal, a day could be a million years....so again, im not saying evolution isnt POSSIBLE, im saying something had to be created in order to evolve, and the conditions to evolve seem to purposeful to be 'random'
evolution does not comment on the formation of the universe and the examples which could be interpreted to be a description of evolution do not match the evidence.
for example, it says fish and birds were created in the same day, ignoring reptiles and amphibians
Abiogenesis, although not fullt comprehensive is the best explanation at the moment instead of involking something supernatural which cannot be tested...
7)Oxygen occurs naturally- it does not happen 'randomly' it is a neccessity- your argument is that 'if things were different, things would be different'
8)The ability to learn has a certain evolutionary advantage.
6) I dont doubt Abiogenesis could be responsible for some living things...but it still doesnt answer HOW stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur came into existence and just HAPPENED to result and work in photosynthesis...if it was random it more than likely SHOULDNT have produced a functional result
7) Oxygen being a necessity only furthers my argument...ur the one saying everything is random and therefore out of a billion, the right gas jus 'happened' to be a necessity, not a deterrent
1)There is evidence that the universe is 13.6 billion years old- therefore the size of the universe must be less than that timeframe x light. this viewpoint was thrown away like 80 years ago...
2)e=mc^2
3)please give an example
4)"we don't get flooded"?- interesting...such organisms could exist, but in less favourable conditions...
5)OMG, do you know what a "theory" is? "the theory of gravity", "atomic theory" etc... theory in science isn't the same thing as a theory in everyday talk in the same way that a segment in everyday life is not the same thingas a segment in mathematics...
other scientists believe in creation? like 'dr' kent hovind? no scientist has put forward a peer-review paper arguing for creation. more historians (percentile) deny the holocaust than scientists who deny evolution...
you are free to believe what you want, but that doesn't mean that we are equally right, especially seeing as my view is supported by evidence, yours isn't.
There is no chance or coincidence involved in our development. We exist the way we are now because of billions of years of very small changes caused by environmental pressures.
If you look at the other side of your argument creation isn't that perfect. We exist on the thin crust of our planet some of the time in only certain parts. The universe is a unknowabley large vacuum that so far seems a bit of a wast of space on god's part.
ptango101 2 years ago
"believe in science"
idontbelievereligion 3 years ago
If one starts with the assumption that humanity is an accident, the fine tuning argument makes no sense since if we are an accident, no fine tuning was necessary. For the fine tuning argument to make any sense, one has to start with the assumption that humanity is not an accident, which begs the question of a creator. But since the purpose of the fine tune argument is to prove that there is a god who created us, any such assumption renders the argument circular.
yottaparsec 3 years ago
The events at the singularity itself, as predicted by the big bang theory, are not understood by current cosmologists. Before a certain point, we cannot say what happened, let alone any possible events that took place before the singularity. This having been admitted, ignorance is not a justification for an insertion of supernatural causation.
yottaparsec 3 years ago
Our inability to comprehend the nature of this enigma, however mind-boggling it is, is not sufficient to insert an answer that would require the same explanation. This god of the gaps argument — that because we don't know some supernatural thing must intervene—is not reasonable. There is no reason to reject, out of hand, that the universe can't be an actual infinite (or, for that matter, that it is incapable of self-cause) no matter how non-sensible it sounds.
yottaparsec 3 years ago
Without a conclusion as to why an actual infinite can't exist or why time cannot be infinite you have no voice. Mathematicians such as Georg Cantor and Michael Dummett have argued that actual infinites can, in fact, exist! Quantum physics tells us SOMETHING is more stable than NOTHING, and being stable we can conclude that the SOMETHING by default has "order."
yottaparsec 3 years ago
whats ur point here? I SAID there are infinites...something is more stable than nothing, but SOMETHING cant come from NOTHING
indigochildforever 3 years ago
Apply the actual infinite to the SOMETHING.
yottaparsec 3 years ago
it still doesnt answer what created the molecules that created this earth that thought to put an atmosphere to PROTECT us...dude, even look at us...our lungs/heart are PROTECTED, are brain is PROTECTED...life would evolve too slowly to evolve a freakin RIBCAGE to have not been wiped out long b4 with a VULNERABLE heart, lungs and brain!...the only reason our wang isnt protected in the same way is for REPRODUCTION...how the HELL would RANDOMNESS know to do that?
indigochildforever 3 years ago
Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.
yottaparsec 3 years ago
if u urself are calling it 'non-sensible'...how can it be 'scientific'
indigochildforever 3 years ago
so then how can you believe in something you dont even understand?...the FUNCTIONALITY from soemthing totally 'random' implies that it was created intelligently...so things could help and facilitate evolution to THIS point...so its not IGNORANT to theorize something that exists which is so vast and purposely designed was CREATED, as an antithesis to "just happened"
indigochildforever 3 years ago
If there were a creator who "fine tuned" the universe for our existence, who "fine tuned" the universe in order for said creator to exist? The argument of a creator is infinitely paradoxical.
yottaparsec 3 years ago
so ur basically goin on; if there is a creator, who created the creator?...u said if there was a creator, who created the universe...who fine tuned the universe for the creator to exist??
1 ) if the creator CREATED the universe...then he probably would create it so he could exist dont u think?
2) God by definition is Eternal and not infinite...infinite has start, but no end...so something outside of time and space (eternal) would be able to create it
indigochildforever 3 years ago
3) If #2 doesnt fly with u...even still, it makes more sense that SOMETHING created this universe that is perfectly functional...if it WAS accidental, whose to say 'life' as we know it would be functional...if it were random 'life' as we know it could be something totally different...ur focusing more on 'who created the creater" to dodge the real question of how could an ACCIDENT create functionality...its like breaking a vase accidentally but saying it will evolve into a VCR in a billion years
indigochildforever 3 years ago
Scientific research about the universe's origins seem to point to a beginning to the universe in its current form, but not necessarily to the beginning of matter itself, and thus not of time either. Considerable debate exists over this question among scientists, so it is premature to declare that space-time is, by default, a thing with a beginning.
yottaparsec 3 years ago
First of all, there's infinite number of solutions for equation 'x+y=z'. And when you move to equations like x+3=5, they follow algebra, which is a man-made set of calculation rules.
Science is continous seek of knowlegde. No responsible sciencetific person would be so arrogant and claim to know "the truth". In science, evidence and facts are best SO FAR. So far, all the evidence and facts points to evolution. So far, the best explanation for life emerging is through abiongenesis, etc.
StandForScience 3 years ago
so all ur sayin is that science COULD prove in time that there IS a creator...science still doesnt explain HOW 2 molecules in an infinite amount of space randomly found eachother and created this thing called earth perfectly distanced from the sun and moon to not be fried or flooded, and then 'randomly' creating conditions conducive to evolution, and 'randomly' creating things like oxygen and plants to SUSTAIN that life...how could 'life' LEARN to adapt to such conditions if that takes eras
indigochildforever 3 years ago
...thats like saying...after being shot 20 times, the body will adapt and create a magnetic force field to protect itself....but the body woulda been DEAD after shot # 10 if not before, and that defence would not have been ABLE to evolve...therefore ending any chance of reproduction and thus, evolution...and im not saying evolution isnt POSSIBLE, but SOMETHING must exist to evolve, and therefore, something has to be CREATED in order for something to exist and therefore, evolve
indigochildforever 3 years ago
...Even if u look in the bible, the order in which things are created are parallel with evolution....the timeline of 7 DAYS...isnt necessarily our 24hr thinking of a day...when ur Eternal, a day could be a million years....so again, im not saying evolution isnt POSSIBLE, im saying something had to be created in order to evolve, and the conditions to evolve seem to purposeful to be 'random'
indigochildforever 3 years ago
"in parallel with evolution"?
evolution does not comment on the formation of the universe and the examples which could be interpreted to be a description of evolution do not match the evidence.
for example, it says fish and birds were created in the same day, ignoring reptiles and amphibians
idontbelievereligion 3 years ago
Abiogenesis, although not fullt comprehensive is the best explanation at the moment instead of involking something supernatural which cannot be tested...
idontbelievereligion 3 years ago
1)Space is not infinite
2)2 molecules = the trillions upon trillions of molecules in the earth?
3)Do you not consider than in a vast amount of space there maybe one planet like earth
4)Life evolves to it's surroundings
5)Flooding is benificial to some organisms...
6)There may be multiple situations in which abiogenesis could occur, not just those which are found on earth.
idontbelievereligion 3 years ago
7)Oxygen occurs naturally- it does not happen 'randomly' it is a neccessity- your argument is that 'if things were different, things would be different'
8)The ability to learn has a certain evolutionary advantage.
idontbelievereligion 3 years ago
6) I dont doubt Abiogenesis could be responsible for some living things...but it still doesnt answer HOW stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur came into existence and just HAPPENED to result and work in photosynthesis...if it was random it more than likely SHOULDNT have produced a functional result
7) Oxygen being a necessity only furthers my argument...ur the one saying everything is random and therefore out of a billion, the right gas jus 'happened' to be a necessity, not a deterrent
indigochildforever 3 years ago
8) Something must be CREATED to evolve
indigochildforever 3 years ago
1) How do you know? What evidence shows theres an end?
2) HOW did those trillions of molecules come into existence
3) Life evolves too slowly to adapt to surroundings that would otherwise kill a species therefore stunting reproduction and evolution
4) so what? the point is, we DONT get flooded...so again, those organisms wouldnt be able to exist then would they?
5) Abiogenesis is also a THEORY..some scientists believe it, others believe in creationism...u believe what u want, i'll do the same
indigochildforever 3 years ago
1)There is evidence that the universe is 13.6 billion years old- therefore the size of the universe must be less than that timeframe x light. this viewpoint was thrown away like 80 years ago...
2)e=mc^2
3)please give an example
4)"we don't get flooded"?- interesting...such organisms could exist, but in less favourable conditions...
idontbelievereligion 3 years ago
5)OMG, do you know what a "theory" is? "the theory of gravity", "atomic theory" etc... theory in science isn't the same thing as a theory in everyday talk in the same way that a segment in everyday life is not the same thingas a segment in mathematics...
other scientists believe in creation? like 'dr' kent hovind? no scientist has put forward a peer-review paper arguing for creation. more historians (percentile) deny the holocaust than scientists who deny evolution...
idontbelievereligion 3 years ago
you are free to believe what you want, but that doesn't mean that we are equally right, especially seeing as my view is supported by evidence, yours isn't.
idontbelievereligion 3 years ago