Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Ben Dhyan]

Abiogenesis is not up for debate here. Your fallacy is a sign of desperation on your part.

Prove the universe is alive with credible sources. You factually cannot. So you have factual unsubstantiated rhetoric in the absence of evidence to back your claims.

Your nakedness is showing.....materialists are so easily shown to have painted themselves into a corner when trying to pontificate opinions about the 100% Cosmic whole with only limited knowledge of about 5%....

 

[Shad]

The Burden of Proof is still on you, dodge this is pointless sophistry. You made the claim so provide evidence. Shift your burden of proof is a fallacy and displays your irrational thinking.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The Burden of Proof is still on you, dodge this is pointless sophistry. You made the claim so provide evidence. Shift your burden of proof is a fallacy and displays your irrational thinking.

Nonsense.....you are like a blind man...how can I show you when you lack the evolutionary mental development to realize the Cosmos can't be known on the basis of only 5%...

 

[psychoslice]

of course the cosmos is fine turned, it would be here now if it wasn't.

 

[Shad]

Nonsense.....you are like a blind man...how can I show you when you lack the evolutionary mental development to realize the Cosmos can't be known on the basis of only 5%...

Follow your own advice while make baseless assumptions. However you still made the claim, provide evidence for it. You invoked a number of fallacies; ignorance, ad hominem, shifting burden. It seems you lack the education which develops critical thinking skills and arguments. Try again son

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Follow your own advice while make baseless assumptions. However you still made the claim, provide evidence for it. You invoked a number of fallacies; ignorance, ad hominem, shifting burden. It seems you lack the education which develops critical thinking skills and arguments. Try again son

Hmmm...no..it's just you are not bright. As a materialist....you do not apprehend the fullness of the universe...words are only symbols, and your conceptual brain mind can't function in non-time-space reality....which is the absolute reality. Time-space reality of the intellectual mind only deals with relative aspects of the whole, and that's all you know....so how can non-time-space reality be conveyed to your brain mind....it can't.

Now this is no sophistry, if you want to understand more about non-duality, then there are appropriate forums for you to visit.....sorry pal, non-duality is the real state of the Universe....not a relative aspect.

 

[Shad]

Hmmm...no..it's just you are not bright. As a materialist....you do not apprehend the fullness of the universe...words are only symbols, and your conceptual brain mind can't function in non-time-space reality....which is the absolute reality. Time-space reality of the intellectual mind only deals with relative aspects of the whole, and that's all you know....so how can non-time-space reality be conveyed to your brain mind....it can't.

Now this is no sophistry, if you want to understand more about non-duality, then there are appropriate forums for you to visit.....sorry pal, non-duality, is the real state of the Universe....not a relative aspect.

Negative, my education path and progress has always been well above the average curve by 2-3 years. I was enrolled in senior level courses in jr high.

Sophistry, you toss out meaningless terms which are incoherent and think you provide an answer. How does anything act without time? It doesn't, it is static and incapable of doing anything. Providing negative definitions are useless.I already understand non-duality as the incoherant babble it is.

You make a claim and refuse to provide evidence thus I have dismissed your views for the baseless sophistry it is. Perhaps you should enroll in a philosophy course in order to learn how one makes a claim and justifies it. Try again son.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Negative, my education path and progress has always been well above the average curve by 2-3 years. I was enrolled in senior level courses in jr high.

Sophistry, you toss out meaningless terms which are incoherent and think you provide an answer. How does anything act without time? It doesn't, it is static and incapable of doing anything. Providing negative definitions are useless.

You make a claim and refuse to provide evidence thus I have dismissed your views for the baseless sophistry it is. Try again son.

Haha...ego reaction was to be expected...sorry..

The whole exists without time Shad, time is merely a mental abstraction from the state of eternal timelessness, evolved by lower/physical creatures to survive in the physical part (5%) of the 100% Cosmic whole. But the whole does not move...how could it, where could infinity move to if it is infinite....only its differentiated manifested aspects move, and this movement is only relative to each other, within the whole....

 

[Shad]

Haha...ego reaction was to be expected...sorry..

The whole exists without time Shad, time is merely a mental abstraction from the state of eternal timelessness, evolved by lower/physical creatures to survive in the physical part (5%) of the 100% Cosmic whole. But the whole does not move...how could it, where could infinity move to if it is infinite....only its differentiated manifested aspects move, and this movement is only relative to each other, within the whole....

Considering you started off with ad hominems your ego came into play well before my own. Kettle met Pot. All done in the attempt to avoid your burden of proof. Which is telling consider you use a fallacy as a defense of a fallacy.

More sophistry which says nothing and provides no explanation. Time is change thus is not a mental construct but a fact of reality. The "Cosmic" whole is nonsensical as you are invoking a view which has no grounding outside the imagination. Thus is useless as a defense since it must be valid and sound, which it is not. Try again son

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Considering you started off with ad hominems your ego came into play well before my own. Kettle met Pot. All done in the attempt to avoid your burden of proof. Which is telling consider you use a fallacy as a defense of a fallacy.

More sophistry which says nothing and provides no explanation. Time is change thus is not a mental construct but a fact of reality. The "Cosmic" whole is nonsensical as you are invoking a view which has no grounding outside the imagination. Thus is useless as a defense since it must be valid and sound, which it is not. Try again son

Shad, enough of this fallacy nonsense already...did you learn this monkey see monkey do approach at junior high....if you want to engage in a substantial way, try these points....

Now you said....".I already understand non-duality as the incoherant babble it is."

So please elaborate on your understanding....in what way is it incohent?

Now you say...."Time is change thus is not a mental construct but a fact of reality."

Prove to me that time is not a mental construct?

You say..."The "Cosmic" whole is nonsensical as you are invoking a view which has no grounding outside the imagination."

The Cosmos whole actually exists Shad.....how can you believe this view as only imagination?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The answer is...yes.

With as minimal information as I could manage to start this thread, I invite comments, questions, positions, arguments (for or against), criticisms, credit card information, and donations.

It's now found that some of these parameters in the universe are constant, that they cannot be any other than they are.

The constants are the same as one arrives at when one structures mathematics based on 0.

 

[Shad]

Shad, enough of this fallacy nonsense already...did you learn this monkey see monkey do approach at junior high....if you want to engage in a substantial way, try these points....

Now you said....".I already understand non-duality as the incoherant babble it is."

So please elaborate on your understanding....in what way is it incohent?

Now you say...."Time is change thus is not a mental construct but a fact of reality."

Prove to me that time is not a mental construct?

You say..."The "Cosmic" whole is nonsensical as you are invoking a view which has no grounding outside the imagination."

The Cosmos whole actually exists Shad.....how can you believe this view as only imagination?

No I enrolled in a comprehensive philosophy course at university as part of my education in order to augment my major. Being able to make rational arguments which do not rely on fallacious points is a key feature in academy. This is a key difference between a laymen and a professional. If you do not like me pointing out your abuse of fallacious arguments perhaps you should learn how to form a proper argument before posting.

Duality is not based on any observation. All instances of the mind are the products of the body, are influenced by the body and are diminished by issues with the body. By body I am talking about the physical body including the brain. So merely invoking a concept which is not substantiated is incoherent. The incoherence is magnified when one put forward the mind aspect forms the majority of reality under your so-called Cosmic concept

The universe and objects within it has existed before anything had mental abilities. These objects changed without a reference to the mental constructs for billions of years. If you want an example look at supernova. There was one a few years back in which we could observe the light of the nova which actually occurred 10 million years ago. This star's existence ended before our mental constructs were developed thus the construct has no bearing on this change. Time is measured by change hence this example of change does not depend on your idea of mental constructs. Now seconds, minutes, hours, etc are constructs but this is not the same concept as time in physics.

List of Supernovae

You classified the Cosmic as as 95% non-physical. This part is unsubstantiated. While you do acknowledge physical reality and what we have observed you have used an argument by assertion to put forward the other 95%. Since the majority of your concept of Cosmic is based on this assertion I find the whole concept fallacious. Also considering you have provided a percentage you are not merely stating a probability by a true fact. Again this is fallacious reasoning. Since you accept the view you put forward as true it become sophistry. It sounds greats but has no basis from which to ground itself other than imagination.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nonsense.....you are like a blind man...how can I show you when you lack the evolutionary mental development to realize the Cosmos can't be known on the basis of only 5%...

Question: Just how much of "the cosmos" do you know, since you are apparently so knowledgeable on the subject that you can give an accurate estimation of the percentage of the cosmos we know?

Surely, logic dictates, that must mean you are knowledgeable of at least the remaining 95%. Are you?

 

[Parsimony]

If you were presented with a jar of water, without knowing where it came from, would you be able to calculate the probability of it having been filled with water and not some other substance?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No I enrolled in a comprehensive philosophy course at university as part of my education in order to augment my major. Being able to make rational arguments which do not rely on fallacious points is a key feature in academy. This is a key difference between a laymen and a professional. If you do not like me pointing out your abuse of fallacious arguments perhaps you should learn how to form a proper argument before posting.

Truth has nothing to do with your strawman argument about fallacy and ironically, your appeal to authority wrt educational credentials. This forum is about Science and Religion, and it is obvious you are ignorant about both. I really don't understand why you would comment here without some real interest in these two fields, but given you have, let us proceed....

Duality is not based on any observation. All instances of the mind are the products of the body, are influenced by the body and are diminished by issues with the body. By body I am talking about the physical body including the brain. So merely invoking a concept which is not substantiated is incoherent. The incoherence is magnified when one put forward the mind aspect forms the majority of reality under your so-called Cosmic concept

The very reason the concept of duality arises is that the one reality represented by the concept of reality is perceived by the mortal mind as comprisng two apsects, the perceiver/observer otoh, and the observed on the other, ie. subject - object. That is what is meant by the concept of duality in the context of religion.

And please explain what you mean by "the mind aspect forms the majority of reality under your so-called Cosmic concept"?

The universe and objects within it has existed before anything had mental abilities. These objects changed without a reference to the mental constructs for billions of years. If you want an example look at supernova. There was one a few years back in which we could observe the light of the nova which actually occurred 10 million years ago. This star's existence ended before our mental constructs were developed thus the construct has no bearing on this change. Time is measured by change hence this example of change does not depend on your idea of mental constructs. Now seconds, minutes, hours, etc are constructs but this is not the same concept as time in physics.

List of Supernovae

This view is predicated on there being a beginning to reality/existence...whereas it is my understanding that the Cosmos is eternal and that there was never a beginning, so its manifestation likewise has also always been existing...albeit always in a state of transformation. So sentient beings have always existed...So unless you can show otherwise,this talk of Supernove is totally irrelevant to the concept of time.

Time is indeed a concept of physics....and what is a concept? It's an abstraction, and in this case, an abstraction from the reality of eternal duration. Now concepts are not on the same level as the real, for they are merely representations for things, not that they are really that thing. Iow, concepts are not actually real, except of course as concepts, they are forever on the other side of that which they are meant to represent.

The concept of time is meant in principle to be a measurement of finite segments of eternal duration. Now this is a mortal mind's abstracted concept from the real, but is not actually real in itself. Eternal duration/timelessness can't be timed for eternity is to time as what infinity is to size.

So time is a mental construct meant to represent an abstracted segment of the continued persistence/duration of existence.

You classified the Cosmic as as 95% non-physical. This part is unsubstantiated. While you do acknowledge physical reality and what we have observed you have used an argument by assertion to put forward the other 95%. Since the majority of your concept of Cosmic is based on this assertion I find the whole concept fallacious. Also considering you have provided a percentage you are not merely stating a probability by a true fact. Again this is fallacious reasoning. Since you accept the view you put forward as true it become sophistry. It sounds greats but has no basis from which to ground itself other than imagination.

Astounding to learn that you did not know that physical science only can experiment with, with the exception of, imho, zpe Casimir experiments, 4 to 5% of the Cosmos....

“Never in the history of science were we so aware of our ignorance: we know that we do not know anything about what makes up 95% of our universe”

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Question: Just how much of "the cosmos" do you know, since you are apparently so knowledgeable on the subject that you can give an accurate estimation of the percentage of the cosmos we know?

Surely, logic dictates, that must mean you are knowledgeable of at least the remaining 95%. Are you?

Ahhh so...another one who posts on a Science and Religion thread whose interest in the science side at least is obviously lacking if he is not aware of the percentage of the cosmos physical science deals with....

So why does logic dictate, that keeping abreast of the science that suggests 95% of the cosmos is unknown, should mean being knowledgeable on that unknown part?

 

[Shad]

Truth has nothing to do with your strawman argument about fallacy and ironically, your appeal to authority wrt educational credentials. This forum is about Science and Religion, and it is obvious you are ignorant about both. I really don't understand why you would comment here without some real interest in these two fields, but given you have, let us proceed....

If I were to say X, a person, says Y it would be. However I am stating a consensus of philosophy which is taught at universities all over the world. You acusation is without merit since you can not tell the difference between a valid appeal to authority and a fallacious one. If you would like I can start link information from any number of universities to prove this consensus. You abuse of a fallacies still stands.

The very reason the concept of duality arises is that the one reality represented by the concept of reality is perceived by the mortal mind as comprisng two apsects, the perceiver/observer otoh, and the observed on the other, ie. subject - object. That is what is meant by the concept of duality in the context of religion.

You never mentioned with duality. There is duality of philosophy, mind/body, which also can be found in religion. There is also the form of creator/created. The duality you are talking about is scientific not religious. You are in fact making a mistake to think it is religious when in fact it's roots are in natural philosophy which become science. Religion dictate more than observe anything and dictate well beyond what any observation says. Such a methodology is useless when taken beyond it's scope. This is evident by you comparing the 5% physical "Cosmic" with the 95% non-physical. This is the dualism I was talking about physical and X. All you have done is changed what you said in an ad hoc manner, nothing more. Also I said I understand duality, in the context, I just layed out, is babble not non-duality is babble.

And please explain what you mean by "the mind aspect forms the majority of reality under your so-called Cosmic concept"?

This was under the impression you actually knew what duality was in religion but you do not so the point is irrelevant. However this was in respond to your flawed understanding of duality and your 95% non-physical Cosmic

This view is predicated on there being a beginning to reality/existence...whereas it is my understanding that the Cosmos is eternal and that there was never a beginning, so its manifestation likewise has also always been existing...albeit always in a state of transformation. So sentient beings have always existed...So unless you can show otherwise,this talk of Supernove is totally irrelevant to the concept of time.

If the 5% of the Cosmos is finite as cosmologists at the moment state then your idea of Cosmos can not be completely eternal. More so you must prove it is eternal not I disprove you. Argument from ignorance and shifting the burden of proof. Can you provide evidence without special pleading or begging the question? My point stands until you can demonstrate the existences of sentient beings before live on earth. Demonstrate the existences of sentient outside of physical reality. i doubt you can since no one has provided evidence for this just baseless claims and assertions.

Time is indeed a concept of physics....and what is a concept? It's an abstraction, and in this case, an abstraction from the reality of eternal duration. Now concepts are not on the same level as the real, for they are merely representations for things, not that they are really that thing. Iow, concepts are not actually real, except of course as concepts, they are forever on the other side of that which they are meant to represent.

No time is change of objects within the physical universe, it is not a concept but a reality as demonstrated by General Relativity per time dilation, motion . Thus time becomes part of the physical universe not merely tracking of it. It is not an abstraction as my supernovae demonstrates time without any reference to a mental construct since the event precede development of said construct. Eternal is an abstraction from time as a negative definition not as a positive one, it is a concept not a reality. You confuse reality with concepts and concepts with reality.

The concept of time is meant in principle to be a measurement of finite segments of eternal duration. Now this is a mortal mind's abstracted concept from the real, but is not actually real in itself. Eternal duration/timelessness can't be timed for eternity is to time as what infinity is to size.

And this comment is evidence of you lack of understanding between tracking of time in minute, seconds, hours and time as change. One is the perception of time, the other is time as in space-time.

So time is a mental construct meant to represent an abstracted segment of the continued persistence/duration of existence.

See above, already refuted your points about time

Astounding to learn that you did not know that physical science only can experiment with, with the exception of, imho, zpe Casimir experiments, 4 to 5% of the Cosmos....

5% of the physical cosmos. The other 95% is still seen as part of physical reality not some non-physical reality. Notice how you changed the articles wording to fit your meaning rather then letting it speak for itself. Universe becomes Cosmos but your Cosmos includes the non-physical while the Universe excludes the non-physical. Look up the definition of universe, it does not include your non-physical Cosmos nor eternal. It is finite physical reality, a physical process with physical laws and properties. It does not include anything outside these parameters and is not eternal. You have taken the article out of context thus again used fallacious reasoning which makes your point invalid.

It is amazing how people link articles they do not understand, do not understand the basic definitions of words in context with in it then retrofit to match their ignorance and wishful thinking.

Everything that physically exists, including the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. The universe (or cosmos) is usually considered to have begun about 13.7 billion years ago in a gravitational singulary commonly known as the Big Bang, and has been expanding ever since. Some have speculated that this universe is just one of many disconnected universes, which are collectively denoted as the multiverse

This is the definition of universe. Notice the difference?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Shad...you are a particularly slippery character when it comes to honesty in discussion....If you intend to hold someone to what believe. make sure you accurately represent what they explained. You are not doing this, instead you are grossly misrepresenting the valid religion and the science my posts are based on. Either that, or both that and you are just so totally ignorant of Advaita (non-duality) religious doctrine, and science, dark energy, etc., that you show no evidence of understanding what is being said to you. Now the essence of my posts admittedly requires considerable prerequisite understanding, and you apparently do not possess it, so it has been, and will continue to be a waste of time to try to convey it again and again. So with that ...I suggest you to work on your integrity, rather than your false ego.... Do please feel free to have the last word....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Your nakedness is showing.....materialists are so easily shown to have painted themselves into a corner when trying to pontificate opinions about the 100% Cosmic whole with only limited knowledge of about 5%....

It's less than 5% because we're only considering the observable universe. But the worst kind of pontification is "God did it", which is an out-dated Sunday-school answer to questions which are currently beyond human understanding.

 

[Shad]

Shad...you are a particularly slippery character when it comes to honesty in discussion....If you intend to hold someone to what believe. make sure you accurately represent what they explained. You are not doing this, instead you are grossly misrepresenting the valid religion and the science my posts are based on. Either that, or both that and you are just so totally ignorant of Advaita (non-duality) religious doctrine, and science, dark energy, etc., that you show no evidence of understanding what is being said to you. Now the essence of my posts admittedly requires considerable prerequisite understanding, and you apparently do not possess it, so it has been, and will continue to be a waste of time to try to convey it again and again. So with that ...I suggest you to work on your integrity, rather than your false ego.... Do please feel free to have the last word....

Not slippy, I call out bad arguments based on fallacious reasoning when I see it. Your arguments are just such an example. The only misrepresentation I made was nonduality in combination of dualism which I acknowledged and provide reasons for such a mistake. The mistake is based on how you flip/flop between the two in order to support your views. So I am no longer misrepresentation anything. Now I am calling you out for being inconsistent by "borrow" views which are different. Provide evidence your religion as valid otherwise you are just asserting it is valid which is fallacious. Beside valid does not mean true, it must be sound as well. I understand what you are saying. I am merely pointing out that it is fallacious reasoning and mostly sophistry which you have presented here. If you are trying to convince someone your view is correct make an effort greater than unsubstantiated claims, begging the question, arguments from ignorance, quoting out of context and circular reasoning. You have no provided any of this. You minor links with science are fallacious since you do not understand the definition of universe and retrofit this lack of understanding into your arguments. You also flip/flop between physical and non-physical dualism, duality in science and your religion nondualism. This type of mysticism form of spirituality is big on emotions but lacks substance from which one can argue anything. You provided no logical justification for the religion nor the arguments about the cosmos.

Keep in mind you are putting forward a claim. You are not commenting on what you believe but presenting your belief as fact. This requires better arguments then the fallacious ones you have supplied.