Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > dhw: [i]...Of course there would be no life if there was no universe, but without the biological and environmental levels it is not “fine-tuned” for life. […]. You accepted my definition on March 3rd [...] and agreed to close this discussion.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]It can't be closed. You have it backward. See today's entry from Ethan Siegel[/i]. 
> > 
> > [i]There are 26 essential constant factors that make this universe as it is:[/i]
> > https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/multiverse-explain-fundamental-constants/?utm_s...
> > 
> > QUOTES: "[b][i]Importantly, these fundamental constants are needed to reproduce the Universe we have; if they were different, our Universe would be correspondingly different as well. [/i][/b](David’s bold) 
> > 
> > "[…] [b][i]we, observers who can measure the Universe, could only have arisen in a universe that took on values that allowed the emergence of intelligent observers to be physically possible.” [/i][/b](David’s bold)
> > 
> > dhw:  Both statements totally accepted by me.
> 
> > DAVID: [i]please read my bolds carefully. This is a specific universe of a type that allows life to appear anywhere in it. In any other form of universe life would not/could not happen. We observe the 26 constants but cannot explain the underlying mechanism that makes them the way they are. Secondarily, a life-friendly environment is required as on the Earth. This is the accepted version of fine-tuning.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: The third quote is Siegel’s sole mention of fine-tuning, but he has left out the crucial  biochemical and environmental fine-tuning.[b] [color=#f00]Of course  the universe as it is ALLOWS life, or makes life POSSIBLE[/color][/b]. But that doesn't mean that ”[b]the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear[/b]”. [b]Without biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, life could NOT appear[/b], and the only place that we know has this fine tuning is Planet Earth. Therefore, as you agreed on March 3rd, the entire universe is [b]NOT[/b] fine-tuned for life to appear. Please stop disagreeing with yourself?
> 
> The first bolded/colored statement above is the essence of the fine-tuning concept. I have agreed to your point to add secondarily a local friendly-to-life climate.
> > 
> > [b]Theodicy[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Without the good there is no evil.[/i]
> > And:
> > DAVID: [i]Without life no evil people would exist[/i].
> > 
> > dhw: So how does that explain why a supposedly all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of everything created evil people, murderous viruses, lethal “natural” disasters etc.? Did he want evil? Was he powerless to prevent it?
> 
> The good came with the evil side effects. God had to accept them.
> > 
> > [b]Climate change
> > 
> > Timing a probable glacial period[/b]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Please tell me which of your agreements you now disagree with.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I only protest your degree of urgency.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw:  Please answer the first (now bolded) question above.
> 
> We agree on the effects humans have and should mitigate them, but you want it faster than I do.
> > 
> > [b]Evolution[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]It is dog-eat-dog with a designed evolution creating humans.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Interesting. Instead of all evolution being geared to us and our food, you now seem to agree that your God might have created a free-for-all, but later intervened with dabbles to create humans. Please confirm.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]All one process with dog-eat-dog from the very beginning.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]The free-for-all dog-eat-dog from the very beginning is the opposite of an evolution designed solely to create humans plus food. Humans as a new idea and a late dabble would neatly counter your ridicule of your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]You are still confused by God using evolution to produce humans. It worked.[/i]
> > 
> > The confusion is entirely yours. You now have a free-for-all which is not a free-for-all! “Messy, cumbersome and inefficient.” Same again under “Earliest water”, where you have him designing and exploding countless stars in order to produce one piece of the gigantic jigsaw puzzle of life.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]God evolves all. You don't like it, but it works eventually.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw:  I have no objection to the theory of evolution. I only object to the absurdity of an all-powerful God who is messy and inefficient. You refuse to consider alternatives.
> 
> I refuse to accept humanized God forms.