From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 2/5/2026 4:11 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 19:01:10 -0600, sticks    
   > wrote:   
      
   ---snip---   
      
   >>>>>>> Please explain to me why you think all that fine tuning had to be   
   >>>>>>> predetermined so that a particular kind of life could develop rather   
   >>>>>>> than that a form developing to match the conditions that existed?   
   >>   
   >> Putting aside that your question seems to claim I have made this   
   >> argument of yours for now.   
   >   
   > It's how everybody I know of uses the anthropic principle. You talk   
   > only about the sheer improbability of the various constants that make   
   > up the anthropic principle but those who use it as an argument for God   
   > do so on the basis that life could not have developed if even one of   
   > those constants had been fractionally different. That is how the   
   > authors use it, quoting for example Steven Weinberg: "Life as we know   
   > it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had   
   > slightly different values" and Arno Penzias: "Astronomy leads us to a   
   > unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with   
   > the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions   
   > required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might   
   > say 'supernatural') plan."   
   >   
   > That understanding of the relevance of fine tuning is what drove my   
   > question to you; if you have some other understanding of the relevance   
   > then it would be helpful if you would explain it.   
      
   I think part of my problem with your question is possibly how it is   
   worded.  It is unclear to me where you are going when you ask about a   
   "form developing to match the conditions that existed".  I realize the   
   fine tuning parameters and eventual arrival of the Anthropic principle   
   are used by both creationists and materialists to suit their needs.  For   
   example the question you might be asking is why did it need to be carbon   
   based life?  Or, doesn't the fact we are here to witness these   
   conditions lead to the possibility of the existence of multiple   
   universes...the Multiverse?  It is all a fascinating attempt to explain   
   the simple fact that the fine tuning actually exists.   
      
   The fine tuning chapter follows the chapter on the Big Bang and the   
   implications of what the scientific consensus is and what that means.   
   They have done the best job of explaining this I have ever read.  When   
   you understand that and immediately go into the details of the fine   
   tuning and the complete mathematical improbability of them being the way   
   they are, things certainly appear to be designed and not possible from   
   purely materialistic means.  Next they spend time on the Multiverse.  It   
   is currently the best and really only alternative the naturalist has to   
   counter the conclusions of the evidence the book presents as current   
   scientific consensus.  I see why they did the chapter, especially since   
   I personally think it is a batshit crazy idea, but it was not necessary   
   to include it in the book.  It's a purely theoretical idea, and simply   
   is not scientific.  To the materialist it just gives an example of   
   something that might have happened since we know the supernatural   
   doesn't.  It gives them more time.   
      
   They then go into OoL with the chapter they title "Biology: The   
   Incredible Leap from Inert to Living Matter."  Again, the numbers are   
   not new, but the mathematical probabilities of this happening is shown   
   by research to be effectively impossible.  As with the first two, the   
   Big Bang and the Fine Tuning, the materialist does not accept this   
   mathematical impossibility and continues in their search.  An example is   
   the article Pro Plyd just posted showing the discovery of a complex   
   molecule they say has, "significant implications for the study of the   
   cosmic origins of life."  I would EXPECT findings like this and suggest   
   it is wonderful to see things being discovered, but it really does   
   nothing to explain the real difficulties with Ool.  It just gives them   
   more time.   
      
      
   >> The important part and something you snipped   
   >> is the authors stated purpose of the book: "shed light for you on the   
   >> question of the existence or non-existence of a creator God, one of the   
   >> most important questions of our lives which is being posed today in   
   >> completely new terms."   
   >   
   > That is only one part of their purpose, they want to use *evidence*,   
   > including from science, to support their claim - that is demonstrated   
   > in the very title of the book. Also, in that introductory section that   
   > you quote from, they go on to say "Until recently, believing in God   
   > seemed incompatible with science. Now, unexpectedly, science appears   
   > to have become God's ally. Materialism, which has always been a belief   
   > just like any other, is seriously shaken as a result."   
      
   I suppose I will have to explain at some point what I meant in my   
   original post recommending the book to MarkE about this not being a God   
   of the Gaps scenario, and why it is not perceived to  ID as a gap   
   at all.  It doesn't matter to me that materialists just write my views   
   off, but I do believe there is merit in this line of thinking the   
   authors and Meyer have proposed.   
      
   >> Later I state what matters to me, "The important   
   >> thing, and the purpose of the book, is the existence or non-existence of   
   >> God."   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)