Putting God's Design In Perspective

[Jollybear]

Fine-tuning is an apologist argument that is so circular it will bite you in the butt. The Laws of Nature determine the nature of the universe, the galaxies, and solar systems, and of course our earth. There is absolutely no evidence that our universe is fine-tuned.

If there is any actual evidence beyond the scientific fact of all objective verifiable evidence determines that the cause is the Laws of Nature, please present it and be specific.

What designed the laws of physics? What controls them?

 

[viole]

What's the prevalent hypothesis now for what causes the wave function to collapse?

That there is no collapse. Obviously.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Basically, nothing will convince you. Your mind is made up, the best evidence wont sway you and you will merely stick to your agenda which is to keep on keeping on in your attempt to deride God and religion.

Please read shunyadragon's reply to you in post 112.

I have given you the best evidence in that article that exists. It wont get any better.

Why do I get the impression that you're in no place to make such an assessment.

.

 

[Salvador]

That there is no collapse. Obviously.

Ciao

- viole

Then, that'd mean the many-worlds interpretation or the the Pilot-wave hypothesis could be the correct interpretation for the results of a double-slit experiment. Right?

 

[Jollybear]

Please read shunyadragon's reply to you in post 112.

I did, and i just asked him a question.

Why do I get the impression that you're in no place to make such an assessment.

.

Actually, i am in that place to make this assesement. I know what the evidence is and is not. Theres fine tunning, intelligent design and spiritual experiences within the millions. These range in kinds from ESP and NDEs.

Thats it man. In a concise nutshell, thats it. Thats the evidence. If your not satisfied with that, gauss what? Nothing will satisfy you because TO DATE, thats the best evidence we have.

 

[shunyadragon]

What designed the laws of physics? What controls them?

The laws of physics that science falsifies are based on the Laws of Nature, for which the only evidence we have is they simply exist. There is no evidence that the Laws of Nature were 'designed,' and beyond this the concept of 'design' is based on an assertion of a Theist belief.

 

[Jollybear]

The laws of physics that science falsifies are based on the Laws of Nature, for which the only evidence we have is they simply exist. There is no evidence that the Laws of Nature were 'designed,' and beyond this the concept of 'design' is based on an assertion of a Theist belief.

So, they existed eternally, or they "just exist" as in they dont know why?

 

[shunyadragon]

So, they existed eternally, or they "just exist" as in they dont know why?

'Don't know why?' . . . meaning what?!?!? All the evidence indicates that the Laws of Nature simply exist. There is no objective verifiable evidence for anything else.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe the reason is that you would understand His greatness.

Obvious problem for ALL who claim to believe and not believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

.

Up until relatively recently people considered our solar system and the stars above (whatever they were) to be thee center of god's creation. Eventually some of the dots in the sky were recognized to be planets that revolved around our earth, as did the Sun, all of which made up our solar system. This was corrected when it was confirmed that the Earth and these other planets went around the Sun. Some time later it was discovered that the stars were just like our sun: our Sun was a star. With better equipment, astronomers then found that some of the other "stars" were actually great "clouds" of light, which they called nebulae. Further investigation revealed that these nebulae were actually tremendous accumulations of stars, which they termed galaxies. (The term "nebula" has since been changed to denote great clouds of interstellar dust and other ionized gasses.) And there are trillions of these galaxies. So our "universe" went from being a solar system, to include the vast reaches of space, But the structure of our universe doesn't end there. The gravity between galaxies has drawn them into enormous clumps, which in turn form galaxy superclusters---our Milky Way galaxy is part of the Laniakea supercluster. Moreover, the distances between all these elements of the universe are enormous, which are denoted in light years; the distance light travels in one year. The closest spiral galaxy to us is the Andromeda Galaxy (M31), which is two million light years away.

To give you an idea of how immense the universe is,

"Right now, the observable universe is thought to consist of roughly:

10 million superclusters
25 billion galaxy groups
350 billion large galaxies
7 trillion dwarf galaxies
30 billion trillion (3×10^22) stars, with almost 30 stars going supernova every second"
source​

Within the Milky Way galaxy our star is 1 among 100-400 billion other stars.

​

And:

So, the question is, "Why"? Why did god bother with it all? While the existence of our plant and the life on it depend on the configuration of our solar system, they don't depend on the existence of neighboring stars, the Milky Way, other galaxies, galaxy superclusters or any other far reaching structures of the universe.

Of course, I don't expect any answer to be more than speculation, but I am looking to see how one squares the enormity of the universe, both in size and content, with the contention that it was all designed by god.

.

You have a propensity for posing interesting questions or at least questions I find interesting. Perhaps it is not so much the question or questions but the build up leading to them. I am not sure.

Looking at the title you have chosen for the thread, I wondered if you were placing God's creation into perspective or alluding to a perspective that puts the basis for human religious claims into perspective.

I think you have provided a quick but reasonable summary of our knowledge of cosmology and how it has advanced from the simple--poor by modern standards--understanding at the time the major modern religions were forming to the much greater, but still limited, state of modern times.

The universe has gotten bigger in our eyes and we have learned a lot about it since the first models were generated to describe it and explain it, but we still know so little about it.

Life as we know it exists within the confines of physical, chemical and biological constraints, but there is no evidence to show anyone that it was the result of design. Speculation about mysterious events or the unknown is just speculation and not evidence. Claiming that the universe shows the existence of a designer is just a claim.

In answer to your question of "why", I do not know an answer. I believe I know a lot of things, but I cannot take that belief and turn it into something that you would look at and say, yes, you are correct. Or worse, no, you are wrong. Here is why.

There are of course others that claim differently, but I have looked at the evidence they claim and their conclusions are usually just speculation that open up more questions that they cannot answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

'Don't know why?' . . . meaning what?!?!? All the evidence indicates that the Laws of Nature simply exist. There is no objective verifiable evidence for anything else.

From a scientific perspective that is all that can be said and that is all that I know. Everything else is claims and speculation. Claims and speculation that others assume to be true without evidence apparently.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Obvious problem for ALL who claim to believe and not believe.

From a Christian perspective, I look and wonder what God's is up to with regards to how things exist, but I do not fill the gaps in my understanding with unverified and unsupported speculation and call that real.

 

[Jollybear]

From a scientific perspective that is all that can be said and that is all that I know. Everything else is claims and speculation. Claims and speculation that others assume to be true without evidence apparently.

Hey dan, wer both rabbits

Are rabbits designed by the way? If you say there not, then why are they cute then?

 

[Jollybear]

'Don't know why?' . . . meaning what?!?!? All the evidence indicates that the Laws of Nature simply exist. There is no objective verifiable evidence for anything else.

The question is, why do the laws exist?

 

[viole]

Then, that'd mean the many-worlds interpretation or the the Pilot-wave hypothesis could be the correct interpretation for the results of a double-slit experiment. Right?

Yes, they are equivalent in results and require an assumption less.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey dan, wer both rabbits

Are rabbits designed by the way? If you say there not, then why are they cute then?

I know of no evidence that rabbits are designed. Cute is in the eye of the beholder. It is how we perceive them that results in their image as cute. It is why I chose a rabbit as my avatar.

You may want to check out Robben Island off the coast of South Africa and let us all know how cute rabbits are in real life. Or ask the Australians that have had to deal with plagues of them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The question is, why do the laws exist?

Here's your answer. We do not know. We do not know if they are as fine tuned as it is claimed. We do not know all there is to know about the universe or have other universes to compare this one too.

Claiming that mind reading and ghosts are the best evidence you have for the existence of God is like me claiming that tuna is the best evidence I have for extraterrestrials. At least tuna can be verified.

 

[Jollybear]

I know of no evidence that rabbits are designed. Cute is in the eye of the beholder. It is how we perceive them that results in their image as cute. It is why I chose a rabbit as my avatar.

You may want to check out Robben Island off the coast of South Africa and let us all know how cute rabbits are in real life. Or ask the Australians that have had to deal with plagues of them.

Everyone thinks rabbits LOOK cute.

So, if there not designed, WHY do they LOOK cute?

 

[Jollybear]

Here's your answer. We do not know. We do not know if they are as fine tuned as it is claimed.

As fine tuned? Are they fine tuned in a general sense to you then?

We do not know all there is to know about the universe or have other universes to compare this one too.

Fair.

Claiming that mind reading and ghosts are the best evidence you have for the existence of God is like me claiming that tuna is the best evidence I have for extraterrestrials. At least tuna can be verified.

This statement dont make coherent sense to me.

The evidence for fine tuning and intelligent design is more sound then tuna being evidence for extra terestrials.

 

[Skwim]

Looking at the title you have chosen for the thread, I wondered if you were placing God's creation into perspective or alluding to a perspective that puts the basis for human religious claims into perspective.

It's the claims Christians and others make for the universe: that it was designed. The incredible vastness of the universe and its innumerable objects implies a designing mind that simply ran amok and couldn't help but create more, more, more, and more. To me it doesn't make sense that a being capable of design would do such a thing. Hence my question: "Why"? Why did god bother with it all?

.

.