XPost: alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/13/2016 7:44 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:   
   > On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 18:48:43 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/13/2016 10:04 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE   
   you think   
   >>>>>>> it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN   
   you think   
   >>>>>>> it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a   
   God   
   >>>>>>> associated with this planet.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Why do you keep repeating this lie which has been repeatedly debunked?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> It's been challenged by several scenarios: including denial, ignoring   
   >>>> the evidence, the multiverse hypothesis, Adan's thiking mud puddle   
   >>>> bubble universes etc, but never debunked.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so. You have to   
   >>>>> defend it as such - which you have only been able  to do in your own   
   >>>>> mind.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> Whether the universe was fine tuned by some intelligent agency or   
   >>>> by random natural events, the universe is fine tuned for life, if   
   >>>> it were not we would not be here.   
   >>>   
   >>> False dichotomy between your pre-existing belief and an emotionally   
   >>> prejudicial caricature.   
   >>>   
   >> It matters not what my pre-existing beliefs may have been. Life   
   >   
   > Even though they're the only reason to posit design.   
    >   
   The _only_ reason you claim this for me is because this is what you   
   strongly want it to be, so you don't have to deal with it.   
      
   >   
   >> could not exist where no universe exist.   
   >   
   > So?   
   >   
   You chop up my post to a degree, I don't know what it was befor.   
   >>                                                                 Is it   
   granted that the   
   >> constants could _not_ have had different values?   
   >   
   > Irrelevant.   
   >   
   Did you read what Dr Leonard Susskind Physics professor of Harvard said   
   about the cosmological constants and their values?   
   >   
                                                                                    
   That the strength   
   >> of gravity was "set in stone", and could not been slightly stronger   
   >> or weaker?   
   >   
   > Also irrelevant.   
    >   
   Why?   
   >   
   >>                Or that the rate of expansion and the strength of   
   >> gravity didn't have to balance?   
   >   
   > Again, irrelevant.   
    >   
   Why   
   >   
   >>> You keep getting it bass-ackwards.   
   >>>   
   >> No, I don't think so! As some have stated "life was finely-tuned   
   >> to exist in the universe - not the other way around".   
   >   
   > Like evolved in the universe. That's all that can be said about it.   
   >   
   >> This argument is predicated on an _already_ existing universe. If   
   >   
   > So?   
   >   
   >> the universe were eternal, this argument would have merit. But it   
   >   
   > Why?   
    >   
   You are not reading anything. If you did your responses wouldn't be   
   so nonsensical.   
   >   
   >> is not - the universe had a beginning. And from the Big Bang to   
   >   
   > It depends what you mean by the universe.   
    >   
   Stop playing games!   
   >   
   >> the present formation of the universe is what the anthropic principle   
   >> wrestles with.   
   >   
   > No. It doesn't wrestle with anything.   
    >   
   No, but physicist are. If you bothered to read about the fine tuning   
   you would be able to discuss it.   
   >   
   >>> The universe is not "finely tuned for life".   
   >>>   
   >>> In fact, it is remarkably inhospitable.   
   >>>   
   >> This is true, there is vast "empty" space suns that give off   
   >> gamma rays, x-rays, UV rays etc. But so do other stars, so   
   >> if life is to exist, there has to be protections from such   
   >> harmful rays. And distance is necessary for protection:   
   >> along with the Van Allen belt and another newly discovered   
   >> belt provides additional protection.   
   >   
   > So?   
    >   
   So, it's evidence. Evidence of design.   
   >   
   >>> Life emerged on this particular planet as a result of chemistry,   
   >>> something like ten billion years after the formation of the universe.   
   >>>   
   >> Yes, but why is this mentioned?   
   >   
   > I'm not the one who insists the universe was designed for life, for no   
   > other reason than his pre-existing religious belief that it was, which   
   > he tries and fails to rationalise.   
    >   
   What ever my religious beliefs might be, I do not appeal to religion   
   for evidence.   
   >   
   >>> But you make the unjustified leap from that, to "therefore the   
   >>> universe was designed for life".   
   >>>   
   >> Not at all, had you read my references, you would understand  where   
   >> I am coming from. I don't know it's significance, but the speed of   
   >> light at 186K mi/sec is a fine tuned constant. E=mc^2, then   
   >> m=c^2/E. Is mass then dependent upon the speed of light? I don't   
   >> know. But at least the algebraic works.   
   >   
   > Look up "non sequitur".   
    >   
   I know what it means, but do you. If you do then explain why the speed   
   of light and it's relation with mass (m) is a non sequitur.   
   Did you understand the inversion? If so, explain it.   
   >   
   >>> Which is not a valid conclusion but a pre-existing religious belief,   
   >>>   
   >> Again Chris, it isn't my upbringing that leads me to the conclusions   
   >> I have, but rather from what I have read written by scientist,   
   >> physicist, astronomers and astrophysicist.   
   >   
   > Then you need to learn to read for comprehension.   
    >   
   You don't read anything, so who are you to talk about reading   
   for comprehension? Point is you are so closed minded that you   
   cannot consider the possibility that you don't know it all.   
   >   
   >> Many scientist acknowledge the fine tuning,   
   >   
   > An outright lie.   
   >   
   I gave you references which you refused to read - it's not   
   that you are closed minded, you know it all already, So, you   
   you don't have to read anything.   
      
   >>                                                                       but   
   turn to _multiverses_   
   >> to deal with it.   
   >   
   > And another.   
   >   
   >>                      Example: Richard Dawkins, Leonard Susskind, Paul   
   >> Davies, the late Freedman Dyson, Sir Martin Rees, Laura Danly.   
   >   
   > They describe a common lay misconception, and then go on to explain   
   > why it's a misconception.   
    >   
   This is just an assumption, an unsupported pretense for you own   
   self serving purposes.   
   >   
   > Which has been explained over and over again.   
    >   
   Perhaps, but your words mean nothing since you haven't read   
   anything.   
   >   
   > But you invent reasons they don't have, for saying that it only   
   > _seems_ designed.   
   >   
   > Including the lie that they have a vested interest in there being no   
   > design.   
    >   
   They have invested interest in random, haphazardous naturalism -   
   not design.   
   >   
   >> Just one example By Leonard Susskind, he points out that one   
   >> constant had to be so fine tuned that it was impossible to   
   >> ignore the Cosmological had to be fine tuned to 1 part in   
   >> 10 followed by 120 zeroes. starting at 5 minutes and 20 seconds   
   >> into the video.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)