Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2013, 10:20 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 10:06 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Cheap.

Uhhh, what? No but for real, what?
You're casting judgement saying people are "frothing at the mouth", all in the name of a troll. Your sarcasm has gone up towards Bucky when he's just trolling back a troll in the same way that the troll is trolling.

You're emotionally invested in free speech for theists which is good, but you're missing the point; trolls get trolled back. The best way to deal with a troll is to ignore them, but there's nothing wrong with trolling back, either. Giving as good as you get, basically.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 10:59 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Hey, Bucky.

You're right. I don't have a fucking clue. That's because you didn't say. I don't know about you, but I know that I'm not psychic. You could be talking about any number of things. I'm not going to waste my time guessing. And until this mystery possibility becomes actual proof, then there's no proof. So if there is proof, then let me know and I'll be happy to review it. Until then, don't pretend that there is any and don't pretend that "about to be" is the same as "is". This is basic stuff.

Hey, Cheap.

Quote:You're casting judgement saying people are "frothing at the mouth", all in the name of a troll.

Frankly I don't give a fuck who they're talking to, the way in which they are talking is disgraceful.

Quote:Your sarcasm has gone up towards Bucky when he's just trolling back a troll in the same way that the troll is trolling.

No actually, I made a statement about there being no proof for either string theory or the multiverse, which is true, and Bucky made a glib counter argument so he got a glib response. But glib as my response was, I made a very serious point. The idiom "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" means that close is meaningless when it comes to other things, like science. Science doesn't care about close, it cares about accurate. It doesn't care if we're close to finding evidence, it wants evidence. Full stop. So if we're close to finding proof of the multiverse, that makes great trivia, but it's irrelevant. At this time, there is no proof. There's nothing beyond that.

Quote:You're emotionally invested in free speech for theists which is good, but you're missing the point; trolls get trolled back.

First, don't tell me what I'm emotionally invested in, because A - you have zero access to my emotions and B - I will not let you dismiss my reasoned point by suggesting it's simply an emotional response.

Second, I disagree with you. I don't think that Wood is trolling. But I KNOW that other people are.

I agree that one shouldn't feed the trolls. But I've been posting in forums for a long time and I know a witch hunt when I see one.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 11:21 AM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2013 12:25 PM by FlyingPizzaMonster.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 03:55 AM)Godexists Wrote:  SNIP
thats a standard escape of atheists. A unfortunate and bad one, which is hardly justifiable.

lets take only the finetuning of our galaxy planet sun moon earth system. There are so many parameters and distances that must be right, so that life can evolve, that alone
shows how silly the argument brought up by atheists actually is.

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-syst...h-apr-2004

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.
WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist.
ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.
THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.
DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.
RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.
DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.
THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.
THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.

Size and gravity: On our own planet, there are life forms that can survive the extreme pressures deep in the ocean. We would be crushed at those depths, and they would explode if pulled to the surface. Adapting to a lighter or heavier planet is no different than adapting to higher or lower pressures.

Atmosphere: Even the moon has an atmosphere (although an extremely thin one). As for its composition see my comment under "Oxygen"

Oxygen: anaerobic bacteria do not require oxygen. Even the life we know of can exist without this

"Rare earth" minerals: what makes you think we inhabit the only place with the byproducts of exploding stars

The sun and distance from the sun: there are quintillions of suns. Ours is pretty average.

Water: I'll concede that one. Life forms that are based on water as a solvent require liquid water. However, water is extremely abundant- comets are mostly water. Look up the "oort cloud". Also, who is to say that water is the only solvent that can exist?

Distance from sun, distance from galactic center: Mars and Venus are theoretically in the habitable zone. If their atmospheres were somewhat different, they would be able to support liquid water.

Volcanic activity,radioactivity: what makes you think these are so rare. Volcanoes have been observed elsewhere in the solar system.

Protection from radiation (your categories of "magnetic field" and "ozone layer"): We are not completely protected from radiation as sunburns and skin cancer show, but we have adapted some protection (pigment and hair). In fact some of this radiation is essential for life as we know it (photosynthesis). We are simply adapted for the amount of radiation that we get on the Earth. As for our specific protections, any spinning planet will have some magnetic field, any planet with an atmosphere will have some shielding (some forms of shielding may be better, and some worse than ozone). Any planet with an ocean will have major shielding below the surface.

Seasons: Not unique to Earth. Any world whose orbit is not 100% symmetric or whose axis has any tilt whatsoever will have seasons. Mars has dry ice polar caps that grow and recede. Also seasonal variation is not necessary for life, as life thrives in the tropics where there is very little difference in seasons.

The moon and tides: Without it we'd have a faster and wobblier spin, different day lengths and different seasonal patterns. Weather patterns would be different, and life would certainly be DIFFERENT. Not nonexistent, just different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like FlyingPizzaMonster's post
15-03-2013, 11:25 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 10:59 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Bucky.

You're right. I don't have a fucking clue. That's because you didn't say. I don't know about you, but I know that I'm not psychic. You could be talking about any number of things. I'm not going to waste my time guessing. And until this mystery possibility becomes actual proof, then there's no proof. So if there is proof, then let me know and I'll be happy to review it. Until then, don't pretend that there is any and don't pretend that "about to be" is the same as "is". This is basic stuff.

Hey, Cheap.

Quote:You're casting judgement saying people are "frothing at the mouth", all in the name of a troll.

Frankly I don't give a fuck who they're talking to, the way in which they are talking is disgraceful.

Quote:Your sarcasm has gone up towards Bucky when he's just trolling back a troll in the same way that the troll is trolling.

No actually, I made a statement about there being no proof for either string theory or the multiverse, which is true, and Bucky made a glib counter argument so he got a glib response. But glib as my response was, I made a very serious point. The idiom "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" means that close is meaningless when it comes to other things, like science. Science doesn't care about close, it cares about accurate. It doesn't care if we're close to finding evidence, it wants evidence. Full stop. So if we're close to finding proof of the multiverse, that makes great trivia, but it's irrelevant. At this time, there is no proof. There's nothing beyond that.

Quote:You're emotionally invested in free speech for theists which is good, but you're missing the point; trolls get trolled back.

First, don't tell me what I'm emotionally invested in, because A - you have zero access to my emotions and B - I will not let you dismiss my reasoned point by suggesting it's simply an emotional response.

Second, I disagree with you. I don't think that Wood is trolling. But I KNOW that other people are.

I agree that one shouldn't feed the trolls. But I've been posting in forums for a long time and I know a witch hunt when I see one.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
You're projecting.

Have a nice day.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Cheap.

You don't understand what projecting means. Have a great weekend!

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 03:13 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2013 03:23 PM by watchman.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
As many of you have guessed this thread is not a debate... there is no debate ... not with "Godexists".
I dont question his right to post but I do think the forum has the right to know his "nature" ...


For the consideration of the Forum as a whole or for the
Admins …


The poster you know as Godexists is in reality a guy from Brazil
named Angelo .. he seems to have developed an unhealthy affection for Lane Craig... any way...


Angelo is a serial “Troll”, he has been doing it for years
over multiple sites some many times. Always he posts from his selection of
collected idiocies (elshamah) , never does he actually post anything original
and seldom does he enter into a real debate.


Angelo posts under many names ,I list some below
:angelosergip , Jireh ,Javan ,godlovesyou , elshaddai888 and many more.


This is Angelo’s welcome message and self introduction from
his “library ?” forum…


His history may go some way to explaining his odd use of grammar
in the English language. (although I have to admit his English is better than
my own Portugese ,Italian or German ,all of which he is impressively fluent
in.)


http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t29-who-...obbies-etc


“my name is Angelo. I am swiss/italian. I was raised
catholic, but when i was 18 years old, i converted myself, and since then, i am
a evangelic, born again christian. I live in brazil, since 1996. I am member of
Igreja Quadrangular church, Aracaju, north east
of brazil,
where i live with my wife Leila. I am a real estate broker.The intend of this
forum, is to dispose a tool, to organize the knowledge of the christian faith,
related to science. Beside this, i like highest-end Audio, and cultivate the
hobby of manufacture and selling of horn-loudspeakers for domestic use.


ElShamah888 ( El Shamah = God is present , 888 = Jesus , Jesus is
present )


welcome, and have fun. Angelo”



#########

If you have some spare time ,check out the list of sites he
has trolled in the past ,up until 2010 he used to “chalk them up on his head
board” rather like a teenage boy .



http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/f12-foru...-id-te-etc



Unfortunately many of the sites no longer exist so some
really funny exchanges are now lost ,like the German Skinheads responses and
there was a memorable response from a Masonic site ,they shut him down in only
2 pages.




Here he posts as TSID8888


http://www.achristianandanatheist.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&...



Here as DIBRI501


http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/40835-how-can-we-best-explain-our...



Here as ACHSAH


http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6327&...



and even here back in 2010 as Angelo


http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/reasons-why-i-am-a-theist?...




Don take my word for it … check it out for your selves.

Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
[/font][/size]

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes watchman's post
15-03-2013, 08:06 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 11:21 AM)FlyingPizzaMonster Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 03:55 AM)Godexists Wrote:  SNIP
thats a standard escape of atheists. A unfortunate and bad one, which is hardly justifiable.

lets take only the finetuning of our galaxy planet sun moon earth system. There are so many parameters and distances that must be right, so that life can evolve, that alone
shows how silly the argument brought up by atheists actually is.

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-syst...h-apr-2004

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.
WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist.
ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.
THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.
DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.
RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.
DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.
THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.
THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.

Size and gravity: On our own planet, there are life forms that can survive the extreme pressures deep in the ocean. We would be crushed at those depths, and they would explode if pulled to the surface. Adapting to a lighter or heavier planet is no different than adapting to higher or lower pressures.

Atmosphere: Even the moon has an atmosphere (although an extremely thin one). As for its composition see my comment under "Oxygen"

Oxygen: anaerobic bacteria do not require oxygen. Even the life we know of can exist without this

"Rare earth" minerals: what makes you think we inhabit the only place with the byproducts of exploding stars

The sun and distance from the sun: there are quintillions of suns. Ours is pretty average.

Water: I'll concede that one. Life forms that are based on water as a solvent require liquid water. However, water is extremely abundant- comets are mostly water. Look up the "oort cloud". Also, who is to say that water is the only solvent that can exist?

Distance from sun, distance from galactic center: Mars and Venus are theoretically in the habitable zone. If their atmospheres were somewhat different, they would be able to support liquid water.

Volcanic activity,radioactivity: what makes you think these are so rare. Volcanoes have been observed elsewhere in the solar system.

Protection from radiation (your categories of "magnetic field" and "ozone layer"): We are not completely protected from radiation as sunburns and skin cancer show, but we have adapted some protection (pigment and hair). In fact some of this radiation is essential for life as we know it (photosynthesis). We are simply adapted for the amount of radiation that we get on the Earth. As for our specific protections, any spinning planet will have some magnetic field, any planet with an atmosphere will have some shielding (some forms of shielding may be better, and some worse than ozone). Any planet with an ocean will have major shielding below the surface.

Seasons: Not unique to Earth. Any world whose orbit is not 100% symmetric or whose axis has any tilt whatsoever will have seasons. Mars has dry ice polar caps that grow and recede. Also seasonal variation is not necessary for life, as life thrives in the tropics where there is very little difference in seasons.

The moon and tides: Without it we'd have a faster and wobblier spin, different day lengths and different seasonal patterns. Weather patterns would be different, and life would certainly be DIFFERENT. Not nonexistent, just different.
this was just a small selection......

feel free to invent more pseudo explanations for all these fine tune parameters :

http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tun...e-universe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 08:12 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 08:06 PM)Godexists Wrote:  this was just a small selection......

feel free to invent more pseudo explanations for all these fine tune parameters :

http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tun...e-universe

Ok, we have established you know how to copy paste. What's the point of all this? Even if I accept your conclusion that the laws are absolutely spot on for any life to exist, what does this prove?

Surely your not saying if we can't explain these things then a god exists? I do recommend you take an introduction to logic class. If we don't know, then the answer is we don't know. Not a god.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
15-03-2013, 08:13 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 04:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Without absolute knowledge of the universe, such probability calculations are terribly inaccurate. They are also only ever posited by creationists and those with biblical agendas, so they're not built to be mathematically sound, they're made to sound impressive to laymen (i.e. sheep like you). They have nothing but a long list of numbers, and NOTHING explaining how they came about determining all of those base numbers that they used for their calculation. Basically, they made them all up to fit their ideological needs, it's an a priori conclusion. They didn't determine the numbers, then draw a conclusion from them. They had a conclusion, and made up numbers to fit their predetermined answer. That isn't even bad science, it's flat our fraud and propaganda.

Try harder troll... Drinking Beverage
Sure.

and these scientists are all delirating......

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christ...theory.htm

Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.125.

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life… It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.


George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”


Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”


Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”


George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”


Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”


Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“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.”


Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”


Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”


Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”


Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”


Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”


Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”


Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”


Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”


Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”


Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”


Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”


Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2013, 09:43 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(15-03-2013 08:06 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(15-03-2013 11:21 AM)FlyingPizzaMonster Wrote:  Size and gravity: On our own planet, there are life forms that can survive the extreme pressures deep in the ocean. We would be crushed at those depths, and they would explode if pulled to the surface. Adapting to a lighter or heavier planet is no different than adapting to higher or lower pressures.

Atmosphere: Even the moon has an atmosphere (although an extremely thin one). As for its composition see my comment under "Oxygen"

Oxygen: anaerobic bacteria do not require oxygen. Even the life we know of can exist without this

"Rare earth" minerals: what makes you think we inhabit the only place with the byproducts of exploding stars

The sun and distance from the sun: there are quintillions of suns. Ours is pretty average.

Water: I'll concede that one. Life forms that are based on water as a solvent require liquid water. However, water is extremely abundant- comets are mostly water. Look up the "oort cloud". Also, who is to say that water is the only solvent that can exist?

Distance from sun, distance from galactic center: Mars and Venus are theoretically in the habitable zone. If their atmospheres were somewhat different, they would be able to support liquid water.

Volcanic activity,radioactivity: what makes you think these are so rare. Volcanoes have been observed elsewhere in the solar system.

Protection from radiation (your categories of "magnetic field" and "ozone layer"): We are not completely protected from radiation as sunburns and skin cancer show, but we have adapted some protection (pigment and hair). In fact some of this radiation is essential for life as we know it (photosynthesis). We are simply adapted for the amount of radiation that we get on the Earth. As for our specific protections, any spinning planet will have some magnetic field, any planet with an atmosphere will have some shielding (some forms of shielding may be better, and some worse than ozone). Any planet with an ocean will have major shielding below the surface.

Seasons: Not unique to Earth. Any world whose orbit is not 100% symmetric or whose axis has any tilt whatsoever will have seasons. Mars has dry ice polar caps that grow and recede. Also seasonal variation is not necessary for life, as life thrives in the tropics where there is very little difference in seasons.

The moon and tides: Without it we'd have a faster and wobblier spin, different day lengths and different seasonal patterns. Weather patterns would be different, and life would certainly be DIFFERENT. Not nonexistent, just different.
this was just a small selection......

feel free to invent more pseudo explanations for all these fine tune parameters :

http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tun...e-universe
There is no fine tuning.

That whole idea rest on the bullshit presupposition that the universe is for something, that if it weren't the way it is then some purpose would not be fulfilled.

If the parameters were different (even supposing they could be), the universe would be different. So what?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: