Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
According to the fine tuning argument, there is only one way that we a universe could exist and us live in it. So other universes existing in another form is not relative. If they can like this one, then the odds just got even worse.
I don't say it should. I say it could.
Again, the word is "could".
He only showed that in a single universe, a group of monkeys i s unlikely to type out a Shakespearean sonnet. I didn't review his calculations because this has no bearing on the probability of life.
Even presuming that, a supreme creator doesn't appear to be any more probable than a universe which has life as an emergent physical property.
A perfect trifecta with the above-- all three major points above either are incorrect or may be incorrect.
You're confusing the tune and the tuned. We (as in all of life) are tuned to the universe in which we developed, the universe was not tuned just for us so that we would develop, that suggestion is the height of narcissistic egotism.
A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public. Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view. ( Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project )
They're presented as "myths popularly accepted as fact" yet that isn't attributed or backed up in any way. They're the very definition of straw man which is itself dishonest by definition.
No, infinity is the "hero". Infinity is a vital element of the monkey/typewriter concept and it isn't intended to be applied as literally as it is being used here. It applies indirectly but someone else here appears to be trying to address that.
I understand the point. The problem is that if you believe the universe is too complex to have come about without intelligent influence, how could that intelligence come about without some other intelligent influence and so on.
If the universe is fine tuned for life, then that's why there's life in the universe, right? So, evolution is a conclusion based on the fine tuned argument. It's not in contradiction to it. Actually, if the universe is fine tuned for life, then the universe will be filled with life, and as we have found out, there's amino acids in space... And metabolism can spontaneously form without cells (as a recent research showed).
No, it gets higher, since we're in it. We just happen to be in the one that gave life and that's why we can sit here and contemplate about the probability for it to happen.
Exactly!
I have said so myself to others- to deaf ears of course.
Haha.... had to put it just for that last quote. Atheism of the gaps... haha
I don't know what you think you saying here. The fine tuning argument says that not only is everything incredibly unlikely, but that if it is so unlikely, the chances of it happening anywhere else are not likely at all, otherwise the odds get worse. This means that life may not be suitable for us in other universe, if indeed they exist in the first place. If, if, you are saying that they all have the right order for life, then the odds just got worse.
It didn't with the monkeys and that is the point.
no. Throw bricks out of a plane and they will not in this universe assemble into a house. It will not happen in this universe.
It has everything to do with the probablility of life. The point of the fine tuning is that it is unlikely to happen so less likely to happen somewhere else.
An intelligence being behind complex issues, whatever they are, is always MORE probable and not less- especially when we end up with physical sentient beings at the end of it.
It doesn't cover where you come from, which is ultimately what this is about. Perhaps your just not interested in it... but that argument does not cover it that is for sure
It would be quite laughable to think it was ''accidental'' that is the point of the fine tuning argument. Intelligence is demanded for such an event. We would certainly demand it in anything we see here in our world. Why is it that we can accept that it is not needed for bigger things?
Nothing in the science sense is virtual particles in a virtual vacumn. It comes from something (as a general term) and that takes us back through the many layers of consciousness and there own expression, until we enter the Holy of Holies, the Source of all life.
It is about half and half, slightly more atheist being scientists.
Then how does the universe order?
