If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?".

Hi kbertsche,I tried following this discussion back to see how it started, and it ended at Peg and Huntard talking about gravity.So my question is... ...what's your point?Are you implying that something had to tune it to the degree it is, OR, that its the result of some deeper aspect of reality?If you are asking why its tune that way, wouldn't that beg the question of why would it be tuned that way? For what purpose, etc.?Your logic here leads to infinite regression, which is pointless of course, unless you have an a priori belief in God, which you then choose to stop the regression at him. But that would be some serious special pleading.- Oni

I never had a problem with the belief in god, its when that god is said to be the cause of some phenomenon in reality that I ask for evidence.Fine-tuning is one of those, that if someone said god-did-it, I would ask for evidence. Just as with others on this site who say the universe needed a creator and thus (one of the possible dudes for that project) is their personal god.First, what evidence are they looking at that is not available to me that suggests the universe needed creation? - If there is an absence of THAT evidence, the persons conclusion is irrelevant; what would be the point, right? - This has been my issue with RAZD from the start. He says that some people ask why, well, some people have no basis for asking why and should recognize that.But back to fine-tuning.Lets say god (pick one) actually did fine-tune the universe, ok, now what? Does that lead anyone any closer to understanding how the universe is fine-tuned? No, so what's the point? None.God as an answer to any phenomenon in reality (IMO) is, in a way, a non sequitur. It brings nothing to the table, and is a deviation from the actual work of finding out how things work.IMO, there is a lack of evidence to disprove things that humans imagine, obviously. God (in his infinte forms) is one of those things.So I think the approach is, not to find evidence to disprove god, thats ridiculous, the approach should be to show there is no reason (or a lack of evidence) to ask the question of "is there a god?"Honestly, and I don't mean to insult anyone, but really, who gives a shit?- Oni

As currently observed and described by us, yes. It does seem unique. Here's where you lose me...Not to sound redundent, but why does it beg the question of why? And wouldn't that also beg the question of why not...? Right, a simply explanation, not some outrageously complex explanation like that of a God, wouldn't you agree? Except that the tea-pot involved a known-to-be conscious human being for which thirst is a known attribute.What aspect of our universe gives off the same attribute of a conscious entity creating it and fine-tuning it?- Oni