note: this discussion has turned for the better;read pgs/Where do the laws come from?

I'll try a different approach.. Things are the way they are because otherwise you would not be here on this forum discussing this issues. The universe only appears to be "fine-tuned" for our existance because we are the product of the universe ourselves. If the universe was different, but was able to produce some other forms of life different from ours, those creatures would be wondering the same thing "wow this universe is so fine-tuned for life!".Edited by Nutcase, : No reason given.Edited by Nutcase, : No reason given.

If you'd manage to pull it off, Aquinas will turn in his grave sideways.

I've read your OP and thought that my first post was closest to what you were getting at initially. I thought you were asking a philosophical question with elements of physics.I think everyone here is a bit vexed by what exactly you are hoping to find out. Could you reiterate what it is, or how you want the question to be addressed?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

-messanjah of one Actually weight and mass are two seperate measurements. Weight is a measure of the gravitational force upon a body by another body at its surface that changes when the body is moved within that to another gravitational position {thus you weigh more on Earth than you do on the moon}.
Mass, however, is the measurement made of the property of matter called inertia {the tendency of a body to maintain its state of being at rest or moving uniformly straight ahead} which increases as a body increases its velocity as a result of the realtionship between energy and mass. The mass of a body at rest is symetrical with respect to location. {The mass of a body is the same on Earth as it is on the moon}Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

-messenjah of one And which shape would that be mess? The atom forms the way it does as a consequence of the balancing of the two strongest forces of nature.{Strong nuclear and electromagentic}. Since forces in interaction can be reasonably assumed to take on some shape what in particular is odd about the shape you have in mind?

-messenjah of one It need not have a reason for being since there is nothing in the laws of nature that demand such a condition. Inherent nature refers, not to a conscious implanted characteristic but to a consequence of the structure of nature itself.
We also look through eyes that are seeing things through an anthromoporphic view and we tend to fill in human characteristics to those of nature even when there is no real connection. Thus we have the literary device of analolgy that simplifies difficult ideas.
The phrase "Nature abhors a vacuum " does not really mean that a vacuum makes some God disgusted but that the attempt at a vacuum is such that nature does her best {and succeds quite admirably} at not allowing a vacuum to occur.

Of course this whole argument can go nowhere.Ultimately all these questions come down to the nature of the objects involved. It is in the nature of masses to mutually attract - probably through the exchange of gravitons.THe only way to answer questions of this sort by any sort of external agency will of necessity appeal to the nature of that external agency and raise the same sort of questions.The scientific approach can avoid this by building models which can be supported by demonstrating their superiority (e.g. by unifying previously seperate observations, making predictions, by producing the same results as previous models in a simpler or more natural way, by making fewer assumptions).The theological approach replaces these by either ignoring the question or declaring it answered by fiat. These can never produce a valid argument, simply a pseudo-argument which falsely convinces naive believers that they have a real case.There is not even a possiblity of producing a valid argument for God here.Instead we must acknowledge that there must be some point where the regress ends. We must acknowledge that we cannot justify asking the question over and over again until we get the answer that we want. We must acknowledge that any proposed answer must be justified on better grounds than its fit with religious dogma. Together these points make this whole exercise pointless.

Some nice universal sentiments there, NJ, until you used a quotation to insinuate that atheists are fools....It's a shame you are unable ponder life's mysteries without the arrogant certainty that you must be right.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Ditto (in a kettle/pot/black sense)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Erm, no.I fully accept that there are things that neither science or anything else understands. I also accept that my views with regards to these things is most likely wrong.

I was referring to the arrogance that supposes that because you are prepared to accept that you could well be wrong about certain things that everyone else must accept that they might be wrong about certain things too.

No.It's not arrogant to suggest that someone might be wrong. Nor is it arrogant to suggest that everyone must be aware of such a thing. It is an entirely logical possibility. If any given problem has a limited number of solutions then some answers will be nescessarily be incorrect.

Its a logical possibility that NJ is wrong and a logical possibility that he is right. You accused him of being arrogant for implying that athiests are fools (because the Bible says athiests are fools). But if it, and thus he, are right then whats arrogant about it?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I doesn't matter whether they right or wrong. They simply have no grounds to know they are right. We ARE talking about life's "mysteries" after all!In any case, we've been over this before. You feel that you "know" what you believe. That's fine by me, just don't expect your "knowledge" to count for anything whatsoever to me or anyone else.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

I'm not asking that it count but you accused NJ of being arrogant. For that you need grounds. Solid grounds. Empiricism has no solid grounds by defintion - there is nothing possible outside empiricism to verify that philosophy is true.Not so faith.You have no grounds to call NJ arrogant.