It seems to me that some Christians on here do not understand Atheists

[JustWondering]

BTW your completely full of it to claim I do not source my data. Now that I remembered our debate I also remember giving you Steve Hawking as one of my sources. I will do so again to both show you your wrong (but you will just ignore the proof your wrong like you always do) and to show how few universes could potentially support life. Let's concentrate on just one of the values fine tuned to unimaginable exactness.

If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, they universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.
Stephen Hawking
A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME
Stephen W. Hawking

one part in a hundred thousand million million
one part in a hundred thousand million million
one part in a hundred thousand million million
one part in a hundred thousand million million
one part in a hundred thousand million million

Exactly how narrow does an arbitrary value have to be, which if it was a miniscule fraction either faster or slower than this, life of any kind would be prohibited half to be before you admit to the obvious fact it was fine tuned?

So, could the rate of expansion have been different than what it is?

 

[JustWondering]

I know all about string theory, however it is the best theory that the best scientists have yet to cough up concerning possible universe. It makes no difference what so ever how close string theory is or whether there are 1 million or 100 billion possible universe that can potentially allow life to exist. They are a mere drop compared to the ocean of possible universe hostile to life.

What if we live in a multiverse where every possible universe exists? Aren't there theories that claim that?

 

[JustWondering]

You have one last chance to discuss this issue meaningfully, competently, civilly, and respectfully. If you fail to do so I will simply toy with your terminal ignorance about anything and everything relevant to this issue until it gets boring.

You expect others to respond to you in a civil and respectful manner yet your posts to others are usually riddled with disrespectful, insulting and needlessly antagonistic comments like the one highlighted above. I'm capable of being civil, are you?

 

[SkepticX]

Okay, but that's not what I asked you. Do you think creation theory has any possible validity at all or is it just hooey?

Do you think [any non-Christian versions of] creation theory [have] any possible validity at all or is it [all] just hooey?

It's really not hard to see through most of what I've seen you post so far. I'm not buying that you can't, and I don't think you're really fooling anyone else either--at least not anyone else who doesn't very much want to be fooled.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Do you think [any non-Christian versions of] creation theory [have] any possible validity at all or is it [all] just hooey?

It's really not hard to see through most of what I've seen you post so far. I'm not buying that you can't, and I don't think you're really fooling anyone else either--at least not anyone else who doesn't very much want to be fooled.

Very well then, if you insist on tip-toeing around the question or if it is just too hard for you I'll withdraw it.

 

[1robin]

You did not provide a source for where 10^500 came from. If you want to use numbers to make your case then you need to provide something to show your numbers are legit. If I said that 10^499 of universes out of 10^500 universes can support life you would want me to back it up, right? Else I'm just pulling random numbers out of my ***.

For the first time in memory you are actually right about something. I thought what you stated (because you formatted it incorrectly) was your own statements. So let me go ahead and get this over with.

In the case of String Theory, the number 10^{500} comes from a (sort of) analogous process to (classical) symmetry breaking. Mathematically, the set of possible String Theories is classified by the (coarse) Moduli Space of Kähler Metrics on 10-dimensional (or 11-D, for M-Theory) spacetime.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-one-...eeds-10-500-Universes-to-explain-our-Universe

In string theory the number of false vacua is thought to be somewhere between 1010 to 10500.[1] The large number of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi–Yau manifolds and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding one with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete,[3] being a version of the subset sum problem.

String theory landscape - Wikipedia

If you want to discuss string theory you must first investigate it but your lifespan is not long enough to accomplish it.

However I do not care if you half that number or even divide it by ten your not really going accomplish anything that makes my argument any less correct.

 

[1robin]

Sorry I'm replying in chunks here but I tried replying before to your whole post but it kept putting quotes in by itself. So I have to rewrite my replies and I don't want it messing up and wasting my time again. Anyway...



First, a multiverse would greatly increase the chances of life producing universes correct?

So you did not like what the actual science was, so you left science all together to swim in the deep end of the metaphysical speculation pool. You find any evidence of more than our own universe existing, then get back to me.

Secondly, we don't know what kind of alien life could exist in an alien universe. Therefore it is impossible for us to assign possibilities for how many different types of universes could produce life.

Do you know that the philosophers who examined the teleological argument predicted that anyone who is so desperate to escape the conclusions of the science we actually have to do anything would appeal to multiple universes or mistakenly say that my argument has anything to do with carbon based life forms.

I dealt with multiple universes so now I will address other life forms. My argument did not have anything to do with any specific life form, my arguments among other things have to do with a universe having any structures at all for life forms to live on. You tell me how life could exist in a universe without material entities in it and only then will I discuss it further. You are really desperate aren't you?

 

[1robin]

So, could the rate of expansion have been different than what it is?

Of course, but if it was it could not have supported any kind of life. You can not have any life of any kind in a universe which expanded so fast that it never formed material bodies in it, or that expended so slowly that it collapsed long before anything could even begin to evolve. Do you have any idea what the stages of a life permitting universe must be? Everything from cosmological, chemical, to biological events that require an unimaginably improbable series of events balanced on a razors edge which must all occur at exactly the right time in exactly the right way.

 

[1robin]

What if we live in a multiverse where every possible universe exists? Aren't there theories that claim that?

You previously asked the same thing. I can invent a theory that we all live in the eyeball of a giant. It does not matter if theories exist. It matters what the justification is for a theory. Theories about other universes are simply preferences who's only merit is that no one can prove it is impossible, but then again you can not disprove the theory I made up, yet no one believes it. Why the double standards? They are strong indicators of a failed argument.

 

[1robin]

You expect others to respond to you in a civil and respectful manner yet your posts to others are usually riddled with disrespectful, insulting and needlessly antagonistic comments like the one highlighted above. I'm capable of being civil, are you?

I said that after I recalled you recent debating history concerning me. Your the one who's original post to me stated that I quit debates after you proved things. That is a lie, so you began by being uncivil but I was just curious to see if you could actually do what you said you had done so I debated you anyway. I found the exact opposite of what you claimed you could do was actually the case. So despite your lying about me and then hypocritically doing exactly what you wrongly accused me of doing, I still debated you. So whatever lack of civility you think I have exhibited (surprise surprise) you started it and lacked even more. So I decided to debate you in the same manner you have been doing with me until I grow bored. I will be just about as civil as you are with me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Claiming it happened a long time ago therefore it's not convincing... is not very convincing. You can go ahead and do that, but also throw out all of ancient history along with it.

Ancient history often is looked at with an attitude of uncertainty, with tentative conclusions, and looking for corroboration.

When it comes to figures with similar support to Jesus, you generally find a fair bit of debate about the person's historicity. Take King Arthur as an example. Or Ragnar Lodbrok.

In the case of Ragnar Lodbrok, we have fairly good historical support for men described as the "sons of Ragnar." Even so, there's still significant debate about whether Ragnar himself existed as a real person, is an amalgam of several different real people, or was just made up entirely... a lot like Jesus.

Short version: for people other than Jesus, when a historical figure has a level of historical support similar to that of Jesus, historians do tend to doubt the figure's existence.

 

[KKawohl]

It is of no importance during our physical life whether God exists or not if one so chooses. Whether or not one believes in a spirit or God really makes no difference to God. Righteous living will determine the continuance and destiny of our spirit/soul.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The reverse is also true. Many atheists do not understand Christians, and many will go out of their way to belittle them, try and prove that their religion is false, and verbally assault anyone that identifies as a Christian.

Most atheists are ex-Christians though, so I think it's from experience that they know how damaging at least the fundamentalist Christian view is.

 

[ArtieE]

Of course, but if it was it could not have supported any kind of life. You can not have any life of any kind in a universe which expanded so fast that it never formed material bodies in it, or that expended so slowly that it collapsed long before anything could even begin to evolve. Do you have any idea what the stages of a life permitting universe must be? Everything from cosmological, chemical, to biological events that require an unimaginably improbable series of events balanced on a razors edge which must all occur at exactly the right time in exactly the right way.

And not only that, the existence of your exact DNA would "require an unimaginably improbable series of events balanced on a razors edge which must all occur at exactly the right time in exactly the right way." So obviously not only did your god fine tune everything for "life" but so that exactly you could exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And not only that, the existence of your exact DNA would "require an unimaginably improbable series of events balanced on a razors edge which must all occur at exactly the right time in exactly the right way." So obviously not only did your god fine tune everything for "life" but so that exactly you could exist.

Good point. Intelligent design and creationism are ultimately hubristic "*I'M so awesome that I couldn't have happened without divine intervention."

 

[Shad]

Actually, I'm not speculating at all. I have dug deep into the history of that time and most authors I've read feel exactly the same way I do about it. Did you also know that Pilate wasn't exactly Caesar's favorite person at that time? Probably you didn't.[/quiote]

People can think up a lot of things this does not mean their speculation is right merely because it is popular. People such as whom? Are these historians or are these people apologists? Name and cite some sources.

You are the one who is speculating.

No I am reading the verses without attempting to preform mind reading based on nothing and what "some people"think. This type of argument from authority can be used by anyone. For example a lot of people think Jesus being God is a misinterpretation of pantheism in that we are all part of God, Jesus is nothing special. It must be true because I studied it and "some people" agree. Unlike your comment I can provide a name to this person, Alan Watts.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I do understand atheists, all too well.

"I cannot prove that no god exists so I'll just choose not to believe any exist, anyway!"

-- sound logic

 

[SkepticX]

I do understand atheists, all too well.

Of course.

The real problem here is that everyone else is talking about the atheists who exist outside of your anxious, dissonant mind.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I do understand atheists, all too well.

"I cannot prove that no god exists so I'll just choose not to believe any exist, anyway!"

-- sound logic

You can't prove that no purple walrus juggling skulls on Mars doesn't exist, but you don't believe it does.
That's because we don't keep encyclopedias of things that can't be disproven, and that would be a silly way to believe. The onus is on you to prove a god exists, not on the atheist to disprove one (unless the atheist is saying gods CAN'T exist, and most atheists don't. Merely that they see no reason to believe one does.)

 

[1robin]

And not only that, the existence of your exact DNA would "require an unimaginably improbable series of events balanced on a razors edge which must all occur at exactly the right time in exactly the right way." So obviously not only did your god fine tune everything for "life" but so that exactly you could exist.

I already spent more than enough time pointing out the huge amount of differences to indicate to any rational persons that what is true of one probability has nothing to do with another type. If your still posting this same issue here then you are not interested in reasonable discussions about these issues. Yes both are improbable, but one is unimaginably more improbable than the other and they are two very different types of improbability which makes any comparison meaningless.