My god...I am humbled by your response here. You've really shocked me with what I expected. You've shown me more gracious courage here than I have seen in most by meeting me where I am instead of from where you are in your current circumstances. I would be proud to emulate such behavior. A few...
Depends on what you mean by "useful". The proper conjecture is that their is apparent purpose to this universe which implies something that created that purpose. How that purpose was given is irrelevant and beyond our abilities to independently know.
There is no question that things that seem...
Yes...you just say things under the same presumptions a lot of us have some of the time.
That is you just presume the person your talking to knows how you came to your conclusions.
For example...
Why isn't it good? And what's invalid about the statements your referring to? You offer nothing...
Lol, I just caught your reply. You must get pretty bored, pretty quickly when you say something.
I personally take exception to your implications. Why would you care to expend the energy to insult someone instead of productively engaging with them? Especially when you yourself do exactly what...
Yes and Feynman in particular retorted about the findings of quantum mechanics..."...nobody really understands it." What do we do with that?
Its stranger than we CAN think. Yet for some reason many people insist on excluding God, for some reason, from that strangeness.
Originally I started out with a question based on data other more qualified individuals provided.
That question was...IF there IS apparent fine tuning to the cosmological constants and apparent signs of design spread throughout this cosmos - for example; the specificity of the information...
Point taken. I've since clarified my sources to rectify my misunderstanding that the arguments would be familiar with others as a starting point for discussion.
Yes, I can see where that would be confusing. I've offered specific probabilities given by Penrose and Myer's for instance. Of course...
Its not an argument for existence. Its an argument concerning what's more readily apparent concerning purpose or purposelessness. Using interpretable data.
Ultimately we STILL don't know how anything happens yet. What we do know is experience and speculative calculations concerning why something...
Yeah you are...;) Are you here to discuss what you asked me for or is your argument simply to say I'm not worth your time to discuss these things with? I mean you did respond so you must have a little time to explain to me what those debunkers are saying and why it debunks what I've quoted...
Now we have a civil discussion of why you say is doesn't. Point, counterpoint.
OR you just leave it at...I don't want to discuss it further, I've made up my mind and we move on our respective ways.
Um? That a simulation indicates specific purpose. Giving something specific purpose requires...
What do you mean subject to? IF the universe is subject to having purpose then whatever gave the universe its purpose is also subject to being purposeful.
I have no way of knowing what rules the universe IS ultimately subject to nor which if any of those rules would necessarily apply to its...
That depends on what you mean by "god". I'm saying the universe shows more apparent purpose in its existence than it does purposelessness.
The multiverse is a theoretical construct that just kicks the can down the road in order to avoid the apparently uncomfortable proposition that this creation...
As I've told Pogo I figured those on here would be familiar with the arguments of apparent design and fine tuning in the universe and was primarily asking the question of why choose the theory of a purposeless universe over a purposeful one if the former is less probable.
I'm interested in...
Sorry, I was assuming you would be familiar with the arguments of fine tuning, and what presents the appearance of design in the universe etc. since I've had this discussion before with "SkepticThinker", " It Aint Necessarily So", "TagliattelliMonster" and others in various threads.
Apparently...
Um...nooo. Your kicking the problem from a more improbable to a God. The particulars of which are the mental interpretations of mankind.
I'm defining the problem as the more improbable - all natural processes - ,compared to the less improbable - unnatural directed processes.
The particulars of...
That question depends on what makes something so complex, unlikely.
I think your mistaking complexity with probability. The probability of picking 1 blue ball out of ten red ones is the same no matter how complex or simple the balls themselves are.
Your simply asking what is the most probable...
I don't know about other Christians opinions. What I do know is that Christian scripture accommodates, mentions, and even requires the existence of advanced intelligent life beyond just the human.
There is no Christian qualms with assuming life to be abundant through the universe.
The "heavens"...
Some perhaps...but those seem to me to be desperate. If you do a little research on what the founders of quantum physics up to contemporary physicists that are involved in new discoveries about the theory feel about it, you see a trend to towards the mystical when they attempt to describe what...
No question that this must be true...in some fashion.
My point is that given that the universe IS here and it seems to be here in a most unlikely form IF we assume just "natural" undirected processes but not if we assume directed (in some fashion) processes, then why have you chosen to view the...
Since scientists have worked out the shocking odds of this universe being so accommodating to life as we know it for instance I'm not sure why you think how the universe formed is a demonstrated counterpoint to what Hockeycowboy is getting at?
Your basically saying that since we are here and...