Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

JasonChin Doesn't it suck how all the speculation and aspiration of this attempt to inject intelligence or divinity into a natural world falls apart on the basis of that little two-letter word that begins the quote?IF is a huge reminder of just what constitutes valid theory in studying the beginnings of the universe.Why is there such a fuss over the idea of fine-tuning when there is nothing in the universe that demands one value over another? Also what is not certain is whether or not another value could just as readily produce a sentient species that would also consider itself in a universe designed just for it.
There is also the matter of what an alien species that is also sentient and present in this universe would say for the idea of fine-tuning especially if it was other than carbon based.I m also wondering about your use of the word theory as pertains to Robin Collins since what he offers is hardly a theory but rather conjecture.

JasonChin But you are assuming that the existence of a universe neccesitates life.If any other universe was in place of this one there would still be a universe.Just because life would not be a part of it does not mean that that universe would not go on in an existence of whatever sort.
That we are here to argue such matters seems miraculous only because we have no benchmark by which to compare.You say that if the expansion rate were any faster or slower life would not exist.Why is the expansion rate of the universe neccesarily the speed it is? Could it have expanded at any other rate given the initial conditions?
If we were not here to argue the existence of the universe would it be just as miraculous?

Jasonchin Could you tell me what the odds are of a designer existing and whst it means for intelligence to exist outside of the materialistic brains within which reside our conscious intelligencewhich is the only intelligence we know of.Take away the brain and what have you got for intelligence?
Where would you postulate the designer came from and since the designer should be orders of magnitude more complex than that which it designed what designed that complex designer?Also if the universe is fine-tuned for life why do we not find the universe teeming with life?This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-10-2004 10:28 AM

---

When reputable scientists correct flaws in an experiment that produced fantastic results, then fail to get those results when they repeat the test with flaws corrected, they withdraw their original claims. They do not defend them by arguing irrelevantly that the failed replication was successful in some other way, or by making intemperate attacks on whomever dares to criticize their competence.

Jasonchin Then how do you determine a spiritual existence if it has neither a cause nor an effect? And can you explain what the spirit amounts to?How do we determine that such a thing exists other than in our minds?Please also answer the question you missed.

JasonchinYou may also like to check out this website concerning fine-tuning criteria http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/Fine-Tuned-Design.txt

Jasonchin That is true,you did not sir. Care to make up the omission?

JasonchinAnd what would be the means by which a non-physical entity can affect a physical universe unless we are wishing to invoke magic?

Jasonchin I wonder if in order to get a proper perspective on these variables if we should not also ask how many variable are set to destroy life as well.

JasonChin This statement of crashfrog relates to intelligent beings arguing about the likelihood of our universe in which free quarks do not exist and gravity is extremely weak.You state that it is not.Let us see how weak it is.It takes a body the size of planet Earth to produce a sufficient gravitational acceleration to break the electromagentic bond holding the apple's stem to a branch. Now ask yourself how hard it is for you to accomplish the same task and then tell us again that gravity is not weak.This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-12-2004 07:34 AM

Hangdawg13 Hey "Dawg! Can you answer these two questions: Where did your god come from? How did your god create the universe?I have yet to see an answer at all by any believer that amounts to an actual explanation. Sometimes the answer is that we cannot know that without a reason as to why this is so. Sometimes the answer is "because he is god!" as if that was an answer.What is yours? You continue to look beyond the phenomena for an answer without considering that the simplest explanation is that the universe is contained in and follows from natural laws. But there is no reason that the natural laws could not have been otherwise.What is certain is that they had to be somethingIt is only human arrogance and ego that lends us to suppose that the universe came together for our benefit.Science does not know how the universe began.It is in all probability something we cannot resolve. However, what we can piece together is always consistent with what we learn from studying it. Mistakes are made constantly because we are always learning new things about the universe that need to be accounted for.Serious study of the structure of the universe is less than 3 centuries old yet huge strides have been made and we can explain many things and understand the basic outlines of what we see. And what we see is incredible.Can you find a similar consistency between the different gods that people follow?This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-12-2004 10:13 PM

---

When reputable scientists correct flaws in an experiment that produced fantastic results, then fail to get those results when they repeat the test with flaws corrected, they withdraw their original claims. They do not defend them by arguing irrelevantly that the failed replication was successful in some other way, or by making intemperate attacks on whomever dares to criticize their competence.

Hangdawg13 In a universe that is only natural, unplanned, and without conscious design there are no supernatural conclusions but only unnswered natural ones.You yourself ask questions that cannot be directly answered. We do not know the answer to either question. However that does not mean we do not have our understandings that allow us to place borders on just what is possible or not. No. What I am saying is that there is no reason these natural laws had to take the form that they did.In other words no matter what laws came into effect sentient beings that discuss it within those universes cannot use the natural laws as a premise in arguement supporting that which assumes these laws could not be otherwise.{Phew!} Well, We are talking about natural laws are we not? If there are natural laws in place then those natural laws have to be something correct? The law of gravity could just aa easily been one of repulsion.The curve of binding energy could have assumed a different form. The speed of light could be a different one.Whatever
framework they assume it had to be something right?
All I am trying to convey is that there is nothing that prevents the universe from having had a different set of natural laws.We may not understand the means by which natural laws attain the values they have however we learn more and more each day that illuminates previous mysteries thought beyond our grasp. Why do you suppose that? We need only find a mechanism that allows us to explain how the universe ended up with the values it did then we can go a long way towards surmising what it was it wasn't a universe. How do you come to that conclusion?

Hangdawg13 Not necessarily since T=0 signifies the moment of the initiation of the big bang{what a misnomer!}However T

Primordial Egg How is that an answer to anything? With a given like god with properties that we construct to specifically answer that which we cannot or rather have not yet there is no explanation but rather a deflection of investigation.We can invoke fairies and any other creature at all and the explanation is just as valid.
This is non-explanation of the universe not an explantion.

Hangdawg13 Let me get this straight.If the set of infinite possibilties,like the ultimate lottery,allows each of those possibilities to have the same likelihood of being realized you say that somehow our universe {that was realized} could not have occured?Can you please clarify how such a conclusion is reached?

Hangdawg13 Why would you assume there is something "outside" our universe? If we adopt this notion we have no reason to assume there are even any possibilities as these are also a consequence of time and space.
I must also say of course there is no guarantee that what is outside our universe.as you say, is not subject to proabilitiy.The unfortunate thing about such a premise is there is no way to follow it nor learn about it since that would require the use of some part of the natural universe.

---

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses.They laughed at Columbus,they laughed at Fulton,they laughed at the Wright brothers.But they also laughed at Bozo the clown.