Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Get in the Ring → One on one matches → Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 09:01 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 08:53 AM
New Britain
Yesterday at 08:17 AM
Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina

 (Read 18136 times)
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #30 - August 15, 2013, 01:22 AM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on August 15, 2013, 01:13 AM
    No, which is my point.

    So the Earth could have been made bigger, could have a perfect orbit (and not be drifting away from the sun), could have had a moon that is not escaping, etc?

    Is the apparent untuned nature of the physical system that life as we know it relies upon part of the fine tuning for life?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #31 - August 15, 2013, 01:31 AM
    I disagree with your statement. The universe in fact seems to be very well attuned for life, for the reasons previously stated. All the properties needed for a universe filled with life are in abundance. Case in point, our own planet. It's also a fact that other worlds suitable for life are being found at an astonishing rate. No one ever predicted the huge amounts of planets not only other life could inhabit but that we could also quite happily inhabit.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #32 - August 15, 2013, 01:37 AM
    Would it be better for life if Earth never moved from a fixed distance from the Sun?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #33 - August 15, 2013, 01:39 AM
    It's not a subject I'm knowledgeable in so I can't answer.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #34 - August 15, 2013, 01:48 AM
    If the universe is fine tuned, why is it changing?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #35 - August 15, 2013, 01:51 AM
    You could of made that exact same point in the hundred million to a billion years before there was a chance for life to take hold. How does change invalidate my argument?
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #36 - August 15, 2013, 01:59 AM
    Was the universe fine tuned for life a billion years ago?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #37 - August 15, 2013, 02:04 AM
    Considering all that happened since the universe cooled and matter formed I'm going to go with yes. The evidence is you're here.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #38 - August 15, 2013, 02:08 AM
    So basically, the universe could really be in any old happenstance state, and if some atomic fart gave rise to some brief flash in the pan attempt at life, then fizzled out just as fast, then the whole universe was fine tuned just for that.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #39 - August 15, 2013, 02:19 AM
    If you ignore every point I put forth that lends credit to the complete opposite and believe the universe consciously creates life/conditions for life.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #40 - August 15, 2013, 02:29 AM
    I'm struggling, I really am. You insist that the universe appears fine tuned for life for no more reason than it looks kinda neat and it happens to have life in it. You have not put a dent in my previous post about how the universe is seemingly almost entirely hostile to life as we know it. You have barely interacted with it at all. I'm not sure where we can go from here.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #41 - August 15, 2013, 02:38 AM
    I haven't really had a counter to my own arguments. I provide facts that from my view support what I say but you never really address them. I even posted a quote from Stephen Hawkings where he said the universe appears fine tuned ie designed. You disagree by posting things which don't address the specifics of what I say, rather coming up with your own argument that, again, doesn't address my own.
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #42 - August 15, 2013, 02:54 AM
    But we both know that's just a quotemine. We both know Stephen Hawking's views on the universe. We know that he doesn't believe the universe is fine tuned by a god.

    Why God Did Not Create the Universe, by Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow
    Quote
    [...] The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.

    Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

    That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

    Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

    Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #43 - August 15, 2013, 03:00 AM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on August 15, 2013, 02:38 AM
    You disagree by posting things which don't address the specifics of what I say, rather coming up with your own argument that, again, doesn't address my own.

    My posts consist almost entirely of questions. Most of them remain unanswered.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #44 - August 15, 2013, 03:06 AM
    Well, I think I'll reread your posts and address them tomorrow after I've slept and am actually alert. To be continued.  Thinking hard
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #45 - August 15, 2013, 03:14 AM
    Coolies.

    Just one more thing. When Stephen Hawking (and pretty much every other scientist) says universal constants are "fine tuned" he doesn't mean they are actively adjusted by an external being according to some design that being has in mind. He means simply that the universal constants are "fine tuned" in a descriptive sense, i.e, they are precise and harmonic within the system, and seemingly persistent. It's a very important distinction.

    You cannot use the scientific rigor that the latter is arrived at to prove the former. There is a massive gap that needs bridging between universal constants and "therefore god".
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #46 - August 15, 2013, 03:25 AM
    I know, it's very hard to argue from the perspective I'm arguing from when I know it's bollocks. But I'll try my best  Smiley
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs. Ishina
     Reply #47 - August 15, 2013, 01:40 PM
    You're doing ok I reckon.

    I'll go back and read your posts later when I've got more time, since you think I have not addressed them properly.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »