Universe may not be 'fine-tuned' for life

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

the verse in question, I gather, is Gen 1:28. Not a whole lot about the universe there.

At the time that Genesis was written down, the universe was believed to consist of a flat plate with a canopy of water suspended over it. The universe was the Earth.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Assuming for a moment there is a God, do you suppose he should have made all the universe accessible to us?

The original point -- long since lost in thread clutter -- is that creating a universe 99.999999(etc)% of which is dangerously uninhabitable seems a deeply silly thing to do if your main aim in creating the whole show is to dole out belief-strength-tests to certain members of the species that occupies the only habitable 0.00000(etc)1%.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

You should move into preaching

Who'd have me Robin, Who'd have me:(:)

So, as a christian, you don't believe that there's anything special about humans?

Again with the moving goalposts. The 'universe' not being designed 'for humaity', does not equate to not thinking Humans are special.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Who'd have me Robin, Who'd have me:(:)

hmmm... there's always the spot at the top of Grafton street...

JimiTime wrote: »

Again with the moving goalposts. The 'universe' not being designed 'for humaity', does not equate to not thinking Humans are special.

It's less about moving goalposts, and more about the far harder task of trying to find a question that will produce a simple, straight-forward answer!

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

hmmm... there's always the spot at the top of Grafton street...

I contemplated speakers corner in Hyde park on occasion believe it or not, but that was when I thought I knew it all. I'm more the student than the teacher at present, but I'll keep it in mind. I'll be the one getting abused by the local drunks, but from my years of busking, I got my thick skin:)

It's less about moving goalposts, and more about the far harder task of trying to find a question that will produce a simple, straight-forward answer!

If you were asking straight questions, you'd get straight answers. You seem to operate with so many assumptions, I'd hate to lend to you acquiring more, or indeed confirming others.

Flamed Diving

JimiTime wrote: »

I contemplated speakers corner in Hyde park on occasion believe it or not, but that was when I thought I knew it all. I'm more the student than the teacher at present, but I'll keep it in mind. I'll be the one getting abused by the local drunks, but from my years of busking, I got my thick skin:)



If you were asking straight questions, you'd get straight answers. You seem to operate with so many assumptions, I'd hate to lend to you acquiring more, or indeed confirming others.

Erm, I think it is you guys who are operating on so many assumptions. I mean, there are many countless questions about God that require answering which usually result in some long-winded, circular logic and always ends up going nowhere or ending with 'He works in mysterious ways'.

Our requires just one assumption: 'There is no God'.

Simple.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

that was when I thought I knew it all.

I'm glad that things have changed <cough, cough>

JimiTime wrote: »

If you were asking straight questions, you'd get straight answers. You seem to operate with so many assumptions, I'd hate to lend to you acquiring more, or indeed confirming others.

Well, let's rephrase one question from above:

Do you believe that humanity is your deity's most precious creation?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

I'm glad that things have changed <cough, cough>

Touché:)

Well, let's rephrase one question from above:

Do you believe that humanity is your deity's most precious creation?

No. Thats not to say that we're not though. I think it would be presumtuous on my part to think so though. What I 'do know', is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for it. I don't see a need or a reason to start thinking if there are things or beings he 'likes more' or whatever. Our knowledge of his creation and indeed his workings are a mere drop in a bucket.

Overblood

JimiTime wrote: »

Our knowledge of his creation and indeed his workings are a mere drop in a bucket.

It's good that you admit to not having all the answers, a lot of religious folk are only too happy to turn to the bible for answers. But don't fret; science is working to fill that metaphorical bucket.

The bucket would be almost full by now if it weren't for religion, but that's another story for another thread.

JimiTime wrote: »

And you know about designing universes of course.

As I said, science is probing that enigma as we speak. Seems like god is running out of places to hide. Whenever, if ever, scientists find out what caused it all, no doubt the Vatican will steal the discovery and exhibit it as a testament to gods awesomeness, like they've done with evolution and many other findings.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu1iZW29GTw

Dawkins on why Anthropic Principle is a profoundly atheistic argument, not a theistic one.

At 45mins.

5uspect

funky shirt...

Kipperhell

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Dawkins on why Anthropic Principle is a profoundly atheistic argument, not a theistic one.

At 45mins.

What is quite rewarding about watching that is his explanation of argument methods. I would be quite happy to listen to a similar argument from the other side using similar argument methods.
He may have what many consider fundamental views but he certainly appears to be using logic rather than relying on one book of stated belief.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg

Popular YouTube scientist Thunderf00t discusses anthropic principle. I think this is where I must have heard the argument I used above.