Zone1 Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Intelligent Design?

[forkup]

I see it as you jumping to conclusions without understanding how the universe was created.

You claim I’m jumping to conclusions, but it’s you who inserts God into every unknown. The origins of the universe are one of the biggest questions humanity has grappled with, yet you act as if you’ve already solved it. Meanwhile, I want my conclusions to be based on more than faith—I want them grounded in evidence, not assumption.

 

[forkup]

Yes, I am asking a series of deep questions. Questions I asked myself and worked through before I ever felt qualified to venture into making a conclusion. It seems to me that you are working the problem backwards by arriving at a conclusion and then making an argument to justify that conclusion. So, no. I didn't do what you are doing.

FWIW... the universe shouldn't have any matter in it. It should only be filled with radiation. In other words, it sure looks like it was intentional.

What makes you qualified besides your faith that you know the answer? It's not scientific inquiry I'll tell you that much.

 

[ding]

The Universe is a living organism.

Probably

But shouldn't you be in that other thread trying to unpaint yourself out of a corner?

 

[forkup]

It doesn't matter how intelligence functions. It only matters what it has done. Of all the hills you could have chosen to die on, I can't believe you selected this one. But please do feel free to ignore the overwhelming proxy evidence for the nature of intelligence is to create intelligence.

Overwhelming evidence of.... humans... recently. But feel free point to any other intelligence that created intelligence. Do you know any other instance where you would state a sample size of one would be considered "overwhelming evidence?"

 

[Moonglow]

Nope. No such implication. I was very clear in laying out the sequence. It's not my fault if you made incorrect assumptions.

I used humans because no other species has created a technological civilization which is obsessed with making smart things. It should be self evident to an intelligent being like you that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. Especially since you are probably aware of ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE which was a man made creation.

You have no way of knowing if that is true or not.

 

[Moonglow]

Probably

But shouldn't you be in that other thread trying to unpaint yourself out of a corner?

I am sure in yer mind there are corners when you know the world is round.

 

[forkup]

You have no way of knowing if that is true or not.

Ssst. ding feels he's so in tune to God that any assumption he makes carries the weight of absolute knowledge.

 

[Moonglow]

Ssst. ding feels he's so in tune to God that any assumption he makes carries the weight of absolute knowledge.

There are no humans who do dat.

 

[forkup]

There are no humans who do dat.

Not sure ding is human. He might be God considering the certainty of things nobody knows the answer to he seems to have.

 

[ding]

What makes you qualified besides your faith that you know the answer. It's not scientific inquiry I'll tell you that much.

It's pretty simple. The only evidence we have to answer this question is studying what was created. Which science is pretty useful for. I'm an engineer by trade and education, so I'm not an idiot when it comes to scientific concepts and principles. So I studied how the universe was created.

Do you think this was a good starting point?

As for your assertion that it's not a scientific inquiry... it most certainly is right up to the point of the moment of creation. Anything before that is the realm of philosophy and logic.

 

[ding]

You have no way of knowing if that is true or not.

Knowing what? That it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence? Yeah, I've observed it.

 

[Moonglow]

Knowing what? That it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence? Yeah, I've observed it.

you are limited in yer line of sight.

 

[forkup]

As for your assertion that it's not a scientific inquiry... it most certainly is right up to the point of the moment of creation. Anything before that is the realm of philosophy and logic.

You admit that anything before the moment of creation isn’t scientific inquiry, yet you claim to know what happened. By your own standard, that means your conclusion isn’t based on science—it’s based on faith. If that’s the case, why should it be treated as a scientific answer?

 

[ding]

Ssst. ding feels he's so in tune to God that any assumption he makes carries the weight of absolute knowledge.

I'm pretty sure God would disagree with that. It's really more like examining all sides of an issue before jumping to conclusions. If you did that, you'd be speaking from the position of authority of truth. This really has nothing to do with me at all. If I made arguments that were not true, it would be pretty easy to discredit them.

The question I have is why are you trying to make this personal?

 

[Moonglow]

I'm pretty sure God would disagree with that. It's really more like examining all sides of an issue before jumping to conclusions. If you did that, you'd be speaking from the position of authority of truth. This really has nothing to do with me at all. If I made arguments that were not true, it would be pretty easy to discredit them.

The question I have is why are you trying to make this personal?

I suggest you get yer God to sign up on USMB.

 

[ding]

Not sure ding is human. He might be God considering the certainty of things nobody knows the answer to he seems to have.

There you go again. Trying to make this personal. Let me share this with you.

 

[ding]

you are limited in yer line of sight.

I'm sure you really do believe that too.

 

[ding]

You admit that anything before the moment of creation isn’t scientific inquiry, yet you claim to know what happened. By your own standard, that means your conclusion isn’t based on science—it’s based on faith. If that’s the case, why should it be treated as a scientific answer?

Can you show me where I claimed to know what happened using the quote feature?

 

[forkup]

It's pretty simple. The only evidence we have to answer this question is studying what was created. Which science is pretty useful for. I'm an engineer by trade and education, so I'm not an idiot when it comes to scientific concepts and principles. So I studied how the universe was created.

Do you think this was a good starting point?

As for your assertion that it's not a scientific inquiry... it most certainly is right up to the point of the moment of creation. Anything before that is the realm of philosophy and logic.

By the way do you think being an engineer makes you qualified as an astrophysicists or theoretical physicists or any other qualification competent enough to even begin to grapple with something as complex as the origin of the universe?

 

[ding]

Overwhelming evidence of.... humans... recently. But feel free point to any other intelligence that created intelligence. Do you know any other instance where you would state a sample size of one would be considered "overwhelming evidence?"

Why isn't using humans as a proxy enough? Do you know of any other species with a higher intelligence than humans? Are you suggesting I should use species with less intelligence to make this point? Because that seems kind of dumb, don't you think?