Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Ben Dhyan]

It's off topic, a straw-man.

Instead of continually attacking science, why don't you produce some evidence for intelligent design?

Then why did you respond to my question and link to a wiki page that I commented on about electrons.. It is not off topic because I was making the point that if orthodox science is in the dark about what all the particles that constitute matter in the universe are made off...then the science is not settled and therefore other non-orthodox theories should get a fair hearing....

I am not attacking science, it is of great interest to me, I have consistently used the term orthodox to make it clear that is not science itself I was talking about, but the orthodox gate keepers and their true believers who are holding the progress of science back...y

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course I do. I was merely using the subject of your own analogy to make my own point that was counter to your "there must be a creator because the 'creation' is so deterministic" nonsense - that being the degradation of ideation behind subsequent forms of reality. The man-made structure, to the animal-made, to the naturally formed to the unformed. I was perfectly within my rights to use your "analogous" object of choice. So what's your prob man?

You say that my position was.....""there must be a creator because the 'creation' is so deterministic" nonsense - that being the degradation of ideation behind subsequent forms of reality."

I have a problem understanding exactly what you think my position is from reading that...can you elabourate?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ID is pseudoscience. It amounts to theistic imagination to combat how far science has pushed creationist into a corner with knowledge and education that has shined its light in what creation mythology actually is, and how much of it has been removed from any possible reality in our knowledge.

So ID was a modern invention from desperate theist with absolutely no evidence to support it, to save creationism from reality.

Outhouse...you like so many atheists and theists are one trick ponies...by this I mean those who have a belief in something to the exclusion of everything else...and live by the dictum, if you are not for me, you are against me...

If you have understood from my many posts, my understanding comes form non-duality, and as such I can see the underlying truth behind ID and evolution as I understand these concepts, and the errors of many theist and atheist understanding as they understand the concepts.

If you want to actually want an intelligent discussion with me, you need to know what the concepts of ID and Science means as I understand it...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Speak for yourself. We have a good enough grasp to not inject mythology into the gaps of our knowledge.

Oh is that so....should I accept that on your authority or put you to a simple test? Ok, since you claim you have a good enough grasp...what is an simple electron made of?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No one understands what the cosmos is all about, but some of us can clearly demonstrate, both by data and honesty of behavior that we are on the correct path. Our understanding grows daily. The "churches" already have their answers and must spend their time force-fitting an ever unfolding reality to their bronze-age mythology that has never been correct, but like Ptolemy's model of the solar system was "common sense" back before the reality was known.

There was noting there to respond to save a strawman. As I suggested ... if your going to lie, use the lie you're better at ... a quote mine.
Science does not, "to understand that on matters concerning the bigger picture." Science works to account for what is known and does not, like the "churches" make it up as they go along, opposing the advance of knowledge so that they may continue to wallow in the mudhole of ancient ignorance.

The point is (and there you go with another strawman) that contemporary science does not set itself up as "an ultimate authority on reality," but merely represents itself as the best available way to explain the universe and make accurate, demonstrable predictions. The best the "churches" can do is to demand that people have "faith" even though the best that the "churches" can do are not the accurate models of the universe that lead to powerful predictions but rather, apocryphal babble.

I will address each para in order...
Of course science is progressing...but that is not thanks to the orthodox science gatekeepers, by that I mean those orthodox scientists and their unquestioning followers who resist challenges to the orthodox prevailing theories, What have the churches got to do with this...you, like so many atheists, are like a dog with a bone...the question of the problems with science orthodoxy and corruption has got nothing to do with the churches that I am aware of....but fwiw, I am well aware that the churches are corrupt...and apostate to boot..

You again raise the strawman of the wrongs of the churches as if that automatically makes science right...c'mon doggy, let the bone go! You say "science works to account for what is known.." ..in the physical domain yes..and it is making progress, but I repeat...there is dead wood in the some parts of the science community that is holding science back. In the non-physical domain, it has no authority by its own admission.. Unfortunately, wrt religion, the same sort of corruption exists with the churches as is present with contemporary science, and this holds true religion back..

Again you attack the churches....please, if want to discuss church corruption with me, I will not argue except to say that there is also corruption afflicting science today...brainwashing of the masses to believe science knows best and to not question the present orthodoxy.

 

[Sapiens]

I will address each para in order...
Of course science is progressing...but that is not thanks to the orthodox science gatekeepers, by that I mean those orthodox scientists and their unquestioning followers who resist challenges to the orthodox prevailing theories, What have the churches got to do with this...you, like so many atheists, are like a dog with a bone...the question of the problems with science orthodoxy and corruption has got nothing to do with the churches that I am aware of....but fwiw, I am well aware that the churches are corrupt...and apostate to boot..

I've been going through those gates since I was a small child and I have yet to see any orthodox science gatekeepers, quite the opposite. I have observed, at close hand, several revolutions in a number of different fields and I have yet to see any orthodox science gatekeepers break into the lab or office and put an end to progress. I have seen more conservative members of the community hold back and not jump right on every bandwagon that marches by, but in the end, when change was "proven" they've always moved right on along with the rest of the community.

You again raise the strawman of the wrongs of the churches as if that automatically makes science right...c'mon doggy, let the bone go!

No Ben, that's not the case. Science is always right in the end and the churches are always wrong in the end because science uses methodologies that assure that it will right in the end and churches just battle to maintain a multi-millenia old status quo that any sane person knows is BS. But you religionists just keep on keepin on. Your very accusation "You again raise the strawman of the wrongs of the churches as if that automatically makes science right" is just another of your strawmen. Cute, but no cigar.

You say "science works to account for what is known.." ..in the physical domain yes..and it is making progress, but I repeat...there is dead wood in the some parts of the science community that is holding science back.

As there are in all fields, but they get up to speed and rediscover productivity or they are put out to pasture in administration or buried under committee assignments that usually keep them out or trouble until they're forced retirement. In the church world the dead heads just go on and on and on increasing their power and influence in even measure with their age rather than with their current capabilities. Thus we see Billy Graham kissing Nixon's butt, Jerry Falwell, most of the dottering Popes, etc.

In the non-physical domain, it has no authority by its own admission..

You mean that domain that you have no evidence exists? Ii don't need nor do I desire any authority there, you might as well have complete authority over the rubber room.

Unfortunately, wrt religion, the same sort of corruption exists with the churches as is present with contemporary science, and this holds true religion back..

From what I can see it is far worse and far more corrupt in the churches, after all science produces a testable product, the churches produce what?

Again you attack the churches....please, if want to discuss church corruption with me, I will not argue except to say that there is also corruption afflicting science today...brainwashing of the masses to believe science knows best and to not question the present orthodoxy.

Again with the strawman ... will you ever learn? Science is unusually uncorrupted, there are some singular and rare examples, but compared to the world or religion? Science is unbelievably bad at brainwashing, if we were any good at it why does most of science look down on it's best popularizers and why does the general public have such a poor grounding in basic science and math?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You say that my position was.....""there must be a creator because the 'creation' is so deterministic" nonsense - that being the degradation of ideation behind subsequent forms of reality."

I have a problem understanding exactly what you think my position is from reading that...can you elabourate?

Your post using the "Cathedral" analogy - it was very reminiscent to me of this "revelation" Kirk Cameron called a campus full of non-believers to "behold" - saying he had evidence that God exists. His "evidence" went something like this:

"If you see a beautiful painting, you know there must have been a painter - and so, as beautiful as the Earth/universe is, there must also have been a creator (i.e. God)."

The best part was that, by the look on his face when the people all started going at him with questions and intellectual arguments, he truly seemed to expect NO OPPOSITION to his claim. The video is really worth a watch for simply that moment alone.

Anyway - if that's not what you were saying, then I apologize - but that is the way I took it.

Oh, and by the way, the part you quoted of "the degradation of ideation behind subsequent forms of reality" was a summary of MY position in response to what I perceived was yours.

 

[Ouroboros]

"If you see a beautiful painting, you know there must have been a painter - and so, as beautiful as the Earth/universe is, there must also have been a creator (i.e. God)."

I wonder what an ugly painting shows then? If only beautiful paintings relate to a beautiful world, then ugly paintings must relate to what's ugly in the world and an ugly creator.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I've been going through those gates since I was a small child and I have yet to see any orthodox science gatekeepers, quite the opposite. I have observed, at close hand, several revolutions in a number of different fields and I have yet to see any orthodox science gatekeepers break into the lab or office and put an end to progress. I have seen more conservative members of the community hold back and not jump right on every bandwagon that marches by, but in the end, when change was "proven" they've always moved right on along with the rest of the community.

No Ben, that's not the case. Science is always right in the end and the churches are always wrong in the end because science uses methodologies that assure that it will right in the end and churches just battle to maintain a multi-millenia old status quo that any sane person knows is BS. But you religionists just keep on keepin on. Your very accusation "You again raise the strawman of the wrongs of the churches as if that automatically makes science right" is just another of your strawmen. Cute, but no cigar.
As there are in all fields, but they get up to speed and rediscover productivity or they are put out to pasture in administration or buried under committee assignments that usually keep them out or trouble until they're forced retirement. In the church world the dead heads just go on and on and on increasing their power and influence in even measure with their age rather than with their current capabilities. Thus we see Billy Graham kissing Nixon's butt, Jerry Falwell, most of the dottering Popes, etc.
You mean that domain that you have no evidence exists? Ii don't need nor do I desire any authority there, you might as well have complete authority over the rubber room.
From what I can see it is far worse and far more corrupt in the churches, after all science produces a testable product, the churches produce what?

Again with the strawman ... will you ever learn? Science is unusually uncorrupted, there are some singular and rare examples, but compared to the world or religion? Science is unbelievably bad at brainwashing, if we were any good at it why does most of science look down on it's best popularizers and why does the general public have such a poor grounding in basic science and math?

I this I that...reading your first para reveals such an egocentric a view that it now clear why you write the things you do... Your egocentric view of reality is just that...an opinion from a temporal blip on the radar of eternity, and you think you know it all based on limited temporal perceptions and conceptions of your own ego self about existence, along with those you've formed from reading about contemporary anthropocentric physical science...which...relatively speaking is also a temporary blip on the radar of eternity....and from a planet that is just one of an infinite number throughout infinity...

Cosmic reality is alive in vibrations from the infinite to the infinitesimal....how much of a percentage of vibrations do those of the human senses have....lets see...feeling, tasting, smelling, hearing , and seeing...add to that the extended vibrational spectrum of radio, infrared, ultra violet, gamma, X, and cosmic rays...and together comprise an insignificantly small proportion of the whole vibrational range of cosmic existence. Humans are naturally egocentric....and thus contemporary physical science is naturally anthropocentric...it pursues knowledge that is applicable and relevant to mortal beings at the level of evolutionary development they are at.....this is fine and the way it should be... But what about the bigger picture that includes knowledge of no application to physical human life....understanding about the vibrational range beyond human scientific ability to detect...understanding that is not based on antropocentricism, but on omnipresence?

What do you know beyond an egocentric and anthropocentric view of cosmos? What have you realized about the cosmos from a non-egocentric viewpoint?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your post using the "Cathedral" analogy - it was very reminiscent to me of this "revelation" Kirk Cameron called a campus full of non-believers to "behold" - saying he had evidence that God exists. His "evidence" went something like this:

"If you see a beautiful painting, you know there must have been a painter - and so, as beautiful as the Earth/universe is, there must also have been a creator (i.e. God)."

The best part was that, by the look on his face when the people all started going at him with questions and intellectual arguments, he truly seemed to expect NO OPPOSITION to his claim. The video is really worth a watch for simply that moment alone.

Anyway - if that's not what you were saying, then I apologize - but that is the way I took it.

Oh, and by the way, the part you quoted of "the degradation of ideation behind subsequent forms of reality" was a summary of MY position in response to what I perceived was yours.

That's correct...the analogy was just that....and written by a theosophist as a part of introducing people to the theosophical view of existence... Theosophy does not ever try to provide evidence of anything on the basis of an analogy.... except a principle....the principle being that complex existence is no accident...there needs to be preexisting human order to allow for the creation of a human structure.....and the universe also is ordered, so all the apparent parts exist and act according to the cosmic order.....

 

[outhouse]

...what is an simple electron made of?

It is not filled with mythology in gaps of knowledge

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is not filled with mythology in gaps of knowledge

Who implied a mythological source to its constitution...provide the quote...or are you just trolling? In any case, at least as a result of your search for an answer from orthodox science, you have learn that they haven't a clue...a humble electron...who'd a thunk it...haha

 

[outhouse]

Yet without them, you would not even know an electron existed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yet without them, you would not even know an electron existed.

By them you mean members of the earth human race of which we area part as temporary blips on the radar screen of eternity....of course it was bound to happen as that is how evolution works... But your response to my statement......."No mortal, singular or plural, understands what this cosmos is wholly about.....contemporary science, primitive as it is cosmically speaking, has just in relatively recent times learned that they have only been dealing with 5% physical matter of the universe..."....that..."Speak for yourself. We have a good enough grasp to not inject mythology into the gaps of our knowledge."...shows how wrong were about the evolutionary state of play of contemporary orthodox science wrt unknowns.. So sonny....open your mind to possibilities that one day, knowledge of what an electron is composed of will be known...in the mean time, some of us already know...

 

[outhouse]

You can ?glass if half empty" all you want

Meanwhile, you sure seem devoted to a thread where you have brought ZERO evidence to the table in support of any kind of tuning.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can ?glass if half empty" all you want

Meanwhile, you sure seem devoted to a thread where you have brought ZERO evidence to the table in support of any kind of tuning.

And what evidence is it you think I should have brought to the table....or are you still trolling?

 

[outhouse]

The OP is about a fine tuned universe.

You have implied you think it is. Wondering what you have beyond faith.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The OP is about a fine tuned universe.

You have implied you think it is. Wondering what you have beyond faith.

Where did you get that from...please provide some evidence?

 

[Sapiens]

I this I that...reading your first para reveals such an egocentric a view that it now clear why you write the things you do... Your egocentric view of reality is just that...an opinion from a temporal blip on the radar of eternity, and you think you know it all based on limited temporal perceptions and conceptions of your own ego self about existence, along with those you've formed from reading about contemporary anthropocentric physical science...which...relatively speaking is also a temporary blip on the radar of eternity....and from a planet that is just one of an infinite number throughout infinity...

Cosmic reality is alive in vibrations from the infinite to the infinitesimal....how much of a percentage of vibrations do those of the human senses have....lets see...feeling, tasting, smelling, hearing , and seeing...add to that the extended vibrational spectrum of radio, infrared, ultra violet, gamma, X, and cosmic rays...and together comprise an insignificantly small proportion of the whole vibrational range of cosmic existence. Humans are naturally egocentric....and thus contemporary physical science is naturally anthropocentric...it pursues knowledge that is applicable and relevant to mortal beings at the level of evolutionary development they are at.....this is fine and the way it should be... But what about the bigger picture that includes knowledge of no application to physical human life....understanding about the vibrational range beyond human scientific ability to detect...understanding that is not based on antropocentricism, but on omnipresence?

What do you know beyond an egocentric and anthropocentric view of cosmos? What have you realized about the cosmos from a non-egocentric viewpoint?

So you try to insult me but the best you can do is make an argument from ignorance, e.g., there are vibrations that we can not detect that support your views (talk about ego ... the universe itself bows down to you). As they say in Boston, "You are some piece of work."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So you try to insult me but the best you can do is make an argument from ignorance, e.g., there are vibrations that we can not detect that support your views (talk about ego ... the universe itself bows down to you). As they say in Boston, "You are some piece of work."

Well thank you very much...you can lead a horse to water but....