Summations Only

With all due respect, that's just your opinion. Many scientists agree that there is at least the appearance of fine-tuning around us. And whether you are Christian or not, I am sort of shocked that you would accuse me of being "sophomoric" and "silly" when I am trying to have a respectful discussion and we have never actually met. I'm sorry if my opinion offends you. You are, of course, entitled to your own. My understanding is that we are free to disagree on the internet and in this forum in particular....have I missed something? We are adults here, yes? In any case, may you be blessed and I wish you the best.

Yes, I can, though I doubt it will satisfy you. Stephen C. Meyer, PHD from Cambridge University. At the time he said this, he was the Director and Senior Fellow at the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, though I'm not sure if that still applies.He has spoken in symposia at various institutes of higher learning such as Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, etc.and has written for The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, National Review, and others.As for the statistic, not being a scientist myself, I have no idea how he arrived at the figure. I am new to all of this and am fascinated by it, so am reading a lot. You are free to try to debunk him....if you are a scientist, you are far better equipped to do so than am I.

It appears your disagreement with me rests on the size of the singularity. Really?I don't really think the size of the singularity is significant because the singularity did not exist at that size for even a millisecond. Perhaps you have already read my second general post (Message 49) in which I quote Steven Weinberg and Paul Davies regarding the standard cosmology of the big bang. I think they explain quite clearly how quickly things changed once the singularity came into existence.Alternatively, you can do a thought experiment. Pick a singularity of any size you like - tennis ball, grape, or the period at the end of this sentence. Or you can think of it as the primeval atom, as LeMaitre did. It doesn't matter. Consider it as it sits there infinitely dense and supremely hot. How long do you think it can stay in that condition before it begins to rapidly expand? I'm certain you understand that heat expands. The answer is clear - not even a millisecond.The singularity is a mathematical concept used because equations break down when they hit infinity. Do not think of the singularity as a physical entity with a long temporal existence. It doesn't work.

Your opinion could not in any way offend me, that would be even sillier than the "Fine Tuning" argument.I said the "Fine Tuning" argument is silly and sophomoric, not that you are silly or sophomoric.It (the Fine Tuning argument as evidence of some Designer or Creator God), like the ideas presented in the OP are simply irrelevant and offer no indication of any designer or Creator God.The Universe is as it is. As I pointed out it is almost universally inimical to life. There is ample evidence to support the existence natural causes but so far no one has presented any evidence of the existence of any Designer or Creator God.When you or someone else actually presents evidence of some Designer or Creator God, then that evidence can be examined and tested. Bring the Designer or Creator God in and put it on the lab table or into evidence and let us take a look at it.

I understand all you're saying, and you make some valid points, and are clearly much more informed than I am, but as for the concept of God being something I imagined... well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but as you know there are literally millions upon millions at least that would disagree, and who've interacted with or seen the results of interactions with said force. I imagine that you will say that this is not a valid argument because personal accounts are unreliable, but if you had millions of personal accounts by scientists who had seen firsthand a certain natural force at work and were forthcoming with all kinds of information describing the force, even though they could not yet explain it, I doubt you would accuse them of suffering from some sort of mass delusion or inferior intellect simply because you personally had not seen the same force at work or had the same experiences. Edited by EWCCC777, : fixed a grammatical and clarified a couple of points

There is no evidence of any god or designers while there is overwhelming evidence that causes are usually trivial, insignificant and transient.I am intrigued by the assertion. However, a theory becomes more persuasive as it is seen to have better explanatory power than competing theories. I'm sorry but the universe did not come into being as the result of a "trivial, insignificant and transient" cause.Just out of curiosity, what is the largest and most complex result you have seen come from a "trivial, insignificant and transient" cause? Obviously, a forest fire from a lighted match does not meet the requirement because it results in less complexity. I'm eager to hear your answer!

If we did that you would say, "See? Told you there was no God. If there was, He wouldn't be lying here on this lab table." Well, perhaps not, but that is certainly how it feels on our end. Can you absolutely prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that He is not real?I'm sorry; perhaps I misinterpreted your tone as is wont to happen via the internet from time to time, but it certainly seemed like you were ridiculing me. I still think you were, no offense.I know you will say that the burden of proof rests with us (Design proponents), but certainly the idea of Design has been around since the beginning of humanity in one form or another, where as evolution is a relatively new theory, so (and I realize that I am flying in the face of many, many scientists who think theists have to "defend" faith as if we are ashamed of it) one could argue that the burden of proof could just as easily rest with science. All about the spin.Edited by EWCCC777, : No reason given.

a: I thought we were talking about the big bang not about evolution.
2: Something being around for a long time doesn't make it true, just old.

I forgot to add that we are not discussing a pothole full of water but an extremely complex universe capable of sustaining life, full of sytems for "producing food, replenishing the air, generating energy, and disposing of wastes." It is full of these processes that center around the survival of life, which are continuous and interdependent. Forgive me, but the odds of that happening in an instant, unprovoked by anything but pressure and energy, seem to have to be the worst odds of all time (or whatever came before--or not "before" since there was no "before", but you get my drift --time).

Well, so far my scrutiny has consisted of asking you a question, which I shall restate: are there (conceivable) universes which would not be compatible with the idea that some omnipotent metaphysical being* wanted them to exist and be the way they are?Yes, of course. The idea common in the 19th and early 20th centuries that the universe was static-state, had always existed and would always exist leaves no room for a creator God or Designer of the universe.When the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in 1965, it shocked the scientific world to the core. Of course, some experts in General Relativity like Albert Einstein and Arthur Eddington had already come to the conclusion LeMaitre was correct. But Fred Hoyle still had a number of followers in 1965. I will pull together some quotes by Robert Jastrow and others about how the discovery of CMB radiation changed cosmology. Jastrow wrote a famous book on it titled God and the Astronomers. It is a short book on this very important period in the history of science. I'm certain you can find it in your local library. It is well worth the investment of time.

I'm stunned, a cdesign proponentsist from stem to stern.Meyer is not a scientist. He's not even really a philosopher. He a Christian dominionist who runs a think tank dedicated to undermining science. From their own website:

I am trying to focus on very narrow points. It is far to easy to get pulled in different directions and never come to agreement on the foundational issues.My post in Message 49 develops my thought into the next step.

And if there is a Big Banger, there has to be a Big Banger Factory, or whatever it is you want to call the thing that created the Big Banger.First, I love your nickname. Very clever.Second, my post in Message 49 unpacks this a little. You might want to check it out for more context. Briefly, the Big Banger (because he/she pre-exists time and space) is best thought of as non-temporal, eternal. Therefore, he/she does not need a beginning or a factory.

Ok then. You're right, we are discussing the Big Bang...I made a mental leap by myself, so I stand corrected. Even so, the Big Bang is an even newer theory than evolution...a theory which, by the way, I do not contest. All I contest is the idea that it happened spontaneously.Additionally, you probably already know this, but I never said that an idea being old made it true...I was just pointing out that design is a theory; so is evolution (and so is the BB for that matter), but design theory in some form has been around the longest, so the idea that the burden of proof rests with design just because someone says so doesn't make sense. Many, many people have believed in a creator since the beginning of humanity, and believe they have seen evidence of His existence. You may disagree, but the fact that in the past two hundred years or so people have questioned design more and have found "evidence" of evolution (but not conclusive, once-for-all proof) does not automatically make evolution theory true...any more than being "old" makes design theory true.Edited by EWCCC777, : changed pronouns to nouns for clarity

So you're apparently of the belief that the older an idea is the less the burden of proof. Curiouser and curiouser.