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

Being inherent properties of the universe, how can they not exist?

Uh-huh. And when you attempt to answer these questions, exactly what are you doing? Are you gathering and weighing the evidence for both propositions; or are you merely choosing which conclusion you'd prefer to be true and jumping to it? What perfection? If it's so perfect, why are things so random? Wouldn't we expect the random universe we live in to be a product of randomness? So, sprituality for you means nothing more than calling atheists idiots? How enlightened.

Why would they have to be initialized? What universes exist where there's no gravity, or magnetism? What makes you think these "rules", these behaviors, don't simply exist because it's impossible for them not to exist? That question assumes your premise. Have we even established that laws are not inevitable, and would be inconsistent with randomness? The observable truth is that God plays dice with the universe. How is that inconsistent with predictable behaviors that we can encapsulate in law form? Nonetheless - I find it significant that you're unable to envision a sprituality that doesn't mandate assertions of your superiority to others; the inferiority of those who have reason to disagree with you. It really is about pride, isn't it? The breathtaking arrogance of the believer.

I don't know why, but haven't you noticed that there's no universe we're aware of where there isn't gravity, electromagnetism, matter, energy, etc? As it turned out, he was wrong. Not surprising, really - it wasn't exactly his field of expertise. Even Einstein was not infallible. We don't know that the "variables" you refer to are actually all that variable. We absolutely don't know what forms of life are possible or impossible under alternate values of those variables, if alternate values can even exist.What you're asking is akin to asking why the tea inside the teacup is so coincidentally shaped exactly like the inside of a teacup. Look, if the initial conditions of the universe are so apparently "fine-tuned" for life as we know it, why is life as we know it such a rare occurance in the universe? It does, after all, exist on one unremarkable planet orbiting an unremarkable star in a completely unremarkable spiral galaxy. I mean it seems pretty obvious to me that the universe is a place astronomically hostile to life as we know it, not a place fine-tuned to be its cradle.Here's a paper on the subject that I've always enjoyed: System Unavailable You don't think you're acting superior when you refer to atheists as "fools"? You don't find that language condescending? I don't know about you but my mother taught me a little better than that.

Maybe you should do some research instead of making up your own facts? Here's a basic sanity check you can do, for instance. The Earth's orbit around the Sun is elliptical, which means that the distance from the Earth to the Sun - which you said could not vary without making life impossible - changes throughout the year.Look up the total change between apogee and perigee. (Those may not be the right terms, actually.) That number represents a floor for your estimate of how much closer or farther away from the Sun the Earth would have to be to prevent the existence of life on Earth.

My thanks. I couldn't remember and I didn't have the time to look it up. On Earth, aphelion occurs around the beginning of July, when half the planet is experiencing summer. Would it really get that cold? I don't see it. Like, atmospheric temperatures would surely be at a lower average, but would it trigger an ice age or something? I don't see that a circular orbit at current aphelion is going to turn Earth into the icy planet Hoth. But I could be wrong.All I was suggesting to NJ was that if he's going to fly by the seat of his pants and make up numbers to support his arguments, the least he could do would be some basic sanity checks. In regards to the claim that the Earth has to be at a fine-tuned distance from the sun, and can't vary more than a certain amount, the basic sanity check for that certain amount is obviously that it has to be a lot more than the amount the Earth's distance from the sun actually does vary. Right?

Sure, but there's been no experimental or observational verification of any of that. It's just mathematical musings, at this point. Nothing, as far as I can see. You're the one who brought Einstein into it. Why are you asking me? Believe it or not, I'm not an idiot; I did actually know about Einstein's famous quote that "God does not play dice with the universe." You haven't shown that it's possible for there not to be physical laws. If laws can't not exist, there need be no reason for their existence. That's the point, exactly. That's why it's the exactly appropriate analogy. The tea is simply conforming to the rules of the cup, which came first; life as we know it simply conforms to the rules of the universe that predate it. Life is shaped by the universe; the universe need not be shaped for life. But that doesn't make any sense. A teacup is designed for tea (or beverages in general), and the reason that's obvious is because a teacup holds a serving of tea without spilling it all over your lap. Teacups are very, very good at holding tea.A fork is not fine-tuned to hold tea, that should be obvious, although it's certainly true that a miniscule amount of tea can be held on a fork. If you pour hot tea onto a fork, though, it's going all over your nice linens. Forks are not fine-tuned to hold tea.So too, a universe fine-tuned to hold life would be teeming with life. Life would be all over the place. But what kind of universe do we live in? A universe that holds only a miniscule amount of life. Just as a fork is not tuned for tea, the universe is not tuned for life. Did you even read it? Here's what the abstract says:

quote:

---

We argue that if string theory as an approach to the fundamental laws of physics is correct, then there is almost no room for anthropic arguments in cosmology.

---

They've proven that, under string theory as it is understood currently, the universe is not fine-tuned for anything. Not even because a multiverse exists; that's not their argument. Rather, simply because the values that are held to be arbitrary variables that have to be "just so" for life are actually derived values from natural principles. You're free at any time to object to whatever language I've been using that you find condenscending. But I don't frame my personal spirituality in terms of what idiots people are for disagreeing with it. Unlike you, my initial reaction to the splendor of the natural world is not to say "man, this is all so beautiful; anybody who believes in God must be a total frickin' idiot."Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.