XPost: alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism   
   From: Dean"@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/15/2016 8:54 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:   
   > On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 08:46:23 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/14/2016 11:12 PM, Lucifer Morningstar wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:36:12 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 13/11/2016 2:41 AM, Lucifer Morningstar wrote:   
   >>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 02:40:53 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 8/11/2016 11:45 PM, mur@. 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   
   >>>>>> depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the   
   >>>>>> fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end   
   >>>> game nor the purpose of the universe.   
   >>>> But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter   
   >>>> that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one   
   >>>> time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery   
   >>>> 2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck   
   >>>> or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It   
   >>>> was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental   
   >>>> cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly   
   >>>> the values needed for there to be a universe.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't know the answer and neither do you.   
   >>> However life evolved to suit the conditions.   
   >>>   
   >> This is a truism assuming the universe is eternal. But it explains   
   >> nothing regarding the universe itself and how it actually came about.   
   >   
   > So what?   
    >   
   So, you are justifying the absence of curiosity about the history of   
   the universe and how the cosmological constants got their values.   
   The truth is, I agree with Lucifer Morningstar, we do not know,   
   but that doesn't justify the absence of curiosity.   
   >   
   > It is still no reason to invent a maximally defined, omnipotent,   
   > magical superbeing with no justification whatever, let alone its even   
   > more ubjustified attributes.   
    >   
   I am not hard wired favoring the absolute certainty of anything. I   
   have repeatedly stated that I believe that "Q" is the "_BETTER_"   
   explanation.   
   But I am not without doubts.   
   ____.   
   >   
   > At least the cosmologists' scenarios are both parsimonious and fit   
   > what is already known objectively - even though nobody insists they   
   > are fact.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)