Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

No, I did not just read the first paragraph, and you had no reason to believe I did. The foundation of Collin's position, and it's errors are outlined in that opening passage. If you would care to respond to that, I would be happy to engage you.However, on a personal note, I have been nothing but polite in any posting to you and you are responding rudely, assusing me of glossing an issue as well as being close minded. There is no reason for me to stomach such insults and I will not do so.If your care to respond in a civil, meaningful way, then I will have a discussion with you. Otherwise, I will ignore you.

Any potential "fine tuner(s)" must be complex, ordered entities.Therefore there must be more basic regularities that permit them to operate. How is this possible without more fine tuning ?Any potential "fine tuner(s)" must be considered "alive" in at least a broad sense of the term. If their existence does not require further fine tuning of any sort then it follows that life itself does not require a fine-tuned universe - or to the extent it does, it is because the "fine tuner(s)" fall short of being "alive" in important respects.

Paulk is ably pointing out one of the classic responses to the argument from design that I mentioned earlier.Why is a high degree of complexity with no designer allowed on one level (i.e. the creator) but not on any other?

When you make a statement you don't have to back it up right away; UNLESS someone asks for the backup.Then you are obligated if you are dicussing in good faith to either back up the statment or withdraw it. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.Jason: You are a candidate for the boot camp if you can't understand some simple things about an honest discussion. I haven't noticed you backing up even one of your claims. Please show me three places where you have; start backing them up now or you will be assigned a spot in boot camp so others can assist you in how you should conduct yourself.You seem to have ducked out of the golden ratio discussion which, IIRC, you started. That is a particularly lazy, dishonest and annoying thing to do.

I'm sorry, but I do not see how anyone, anyone, anyone that is sentient, that is capable of making even basic observations, that has spent anytime looking through a telescope could possibly believe for even a moment that the universe is finely and precisely balanced.That is one of those totally stupid remarks that even a few minutes research should destroy. It's one of those things that sometimes slips out, but most folk realize that once they said it, it is time to simply say "Ooops, did I say that?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

"Ah, screw it, that's just the way it is" isn't an honest question........it's a close-minded, groundless assertion that's inherantly anti-scientific. I'm referring to the collapse of the wave-function when it's conciously contemplated......evidence that our conciousnesses are more than just illusions.

So, the quanta travels falls in and out of our universe at such speeds that it appears to be in multiple locations at once, correct?Well, that's not the same as actually BEING in three places at once.........and, therefore, the wave-function and the quanta are still two seperate things.........unless I'm missing something?

So, now we're quibbling over the definition of "all"........fantastic, this is illuminating stuff......

No, it's just in three places at once. I said you could think of it as moving about; not that it was doing that. Yes, you're missing the difference between a clarifying mental model that I offered and what the particle is actually doing. It's literally in all those places at once, because to say that it wasn't would contradict the uncertainty principle.

Actually, we're debating the theological applications of science........By bickering over the smallest minutae of the subject, like the definition of "all", you're intentionally distracting the attention away from the forrest by saying "hey, look at this tree". And you're doing so purely for the purpose of avoiding the fact that the forrest is pruned to spell "G-O-D".It's counter-productive.......when we do this, I'm not learning anything from you and you're not learning anything from me, so let's not engage in this kind of intellectual masterbation.......ok?

No, we're both using the same definition of "all." There's no quibble there whatsoever.What we're "quibbling" over is the fact that you make up assertions, do not support them, and then refuse to admit your error when it is demonstrated to you.These are not traits indicative of someone who wishes to engage in honest debate; rather, they're indicative of someone all too willing to use deception or poor logic if it serves their argument. That's why you see that people are beginning to get rather short with you and threaten to stop talking to you, or - in the case of the admins - prevent you from talking to others unless you shape up.Me, I can think of nothing better to do but track you down in every forum on EvC and expose your inconsistencies and errors, but I'm an asshole like that, I guess.

So, what you're saying is, when you meant "all scientists", you didn't really mean all of them?I've been using the same definition of "all" as in English; apparently you're speaking your own language. The only one with definition issues here is you. I have no quibble with the definition, only with your unsupported, erroneous assertions.

But how do we know that it isn't just falling through wormholes and reappearing? I thought the uncertainty principle stated that it's impossible to know which of a certain number of locations a quantum particle resided, not that it was in all three at once.......

Yeah, most people speak in my language........it's called the "vernacular"........and I bet even you speak it when you're not so concerned with distracting attention away from the greater topic.......

What wormholes?The reason we know it isn't actually traveling is because for it to be traveling, it would have to be actually in one of the locations, discreetly, and we know that would violate uncertainty. Because we know that the uncertainty principle is true, we know that the particle must be in all those places, at once. Think it through. If it's not behind door number 1, or door number 2, we would know it was in door number 3; therefore, it has to be in all three at once, or else uncertainty is violated.