The universe doesn't seem designed to me

If you want to get a stiff dose, starting with uncanny "coincidences" in products of the early big bang, try The God Problem by Howard Bloom.

 

Many of your comments remind me of the Lotto winner who says "God made me win!" One of the reason life arose on Earth is precisely because it had a large moon and was in the Goldilocks zone. If I make bread and put it in the oven, I expect it to come out bread. If I make bread and it comes out pot roast, then I'd say we have proof of the Hand of God.

I believe in a spiritual power behind the Universe, but I do not accept the "personal God" as most Christians do. God created the Universe under a specific set of rules and the Universe continues to play out by those rules without outside interference.

 

Your ability to 'read' and 'comprehend' is astoundingly lacking. Playing 'devils advocate' I took the position of 'pro-creationist'.
Where did I state that this was my belief. Now I'll quote you; [ One of the reason life arose on Earth is precisely because it had a large moon and was in the Goldilocks zone] Precisely what I said.

 

Ooooh, touchy. Get another cup of coffee or more sleep. Whichever helps best.

 

Took your advise..got another cup of coffee Thanks, I needed that.

 

Thanks. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

I think you and I are essentially on the same page, but text is a difficult medium for communication.

 

I have absolutely 'no agenda' So I may appear to come from one direction in one post, and the opposite direction in another. So those that wish to pick an argument with me will usually be disappointed. I kinda throw things out there to either stir the pot, or elicit a reaction. For me, it's simply interesting to read these reactions. I try to imagine what these people are like in real life. Some are quite transparent, others not so. You'd be surprised at how many responses I get...I was. So, there's no "misunderstanding" really. Have a good day.

 

The Moon used to be closer to the Earth and is drifting farther and farther away from the Earth, so the changing distance can hardly be called "precise."

 

True enough. But that reality could be interpreted as even further proof of 'precision' in that when it was closer, there was no 'scientific inquiry' into the universe and how it works. No Einstein's theory of the effects of gravity on light to observe. And when the Moon gets further away and smaller in perspective, we will have already answered our questions....So, one could say that the Moon is 'precisely' in the right place...at 'precisely' the right time.(?)

 

Yes.
Insanity is defined as "living in fantasy worlds."

The species and humans who do that become extinct.
"God," (almighty Reality), kills them off, as a species.

 

Dunno why not. After all, I "dignified" your tedious atheist boilerplate OP with a response.

I'm afraid I'm at a loss to understand why any comment from the likes of you would make anybody feel anything.

Spare us the weaselly, evasive gobbledygook, if you don't mind. You claim one of the laws "formed by the big bang" led to abiogenesis, so tell us exactly what law that is, if you dare.

Neither is there anything obvious about the blazing noonday sun, to a guy who insist on hiding in a cave with his hands over his eyes.

What exactly does the Moon have to do with the axial tilt of the Earth?

Dunno why not, since the lunar recession and the Earth's loss of angular velocity WRT its own center of mass are thought to be in conformance with Newton's Third Law of Motion.

 

The megalithic yard and its subdivisions have remarkable correlations and ratios with modern units and conversion factors; their applications to aspects of the inner solar system have an impressively smooth fit. The moon, etc., has been in the right place for the ancients to make amazing discoveries involving pendulum parameters and astronomical sight lines.They didn't get hung up on either the 360 degree circle like the Sumerians did, or the solar year (365.25+), and instead hit paydirt using a 366-day star basis (sidereal year).

 

The first 4 remarks weren't actual arguments. Just vitriol and ad hominem.

I never claimed that a singular law lead to abiogenesis. You are either intentionally misinterpreting my words or have such issues with understanding the words of others that you must have serious trouble functioning in society. Abiogenesis isn't fully understood, but there was also a point in history where the cause of illness wasn't fully understood, so that doesn't really mean anything.

And that remark about the sun really isn't a convincing argument, though I have no doubt that you grinned smugly as you typed that out, thinking about how witty you are. Your holier-than-thou attitude permeates everything you do. God cannot be observed or detected by the senses in any manner. God is not evident from observing anything that may point to his existence in a less direct way. If god is out there, he's failed to introduce himself.

 

Absolutely nothing. I got my info screwed up. I'd print an official retraction..but it's over. It'll probably never be read again, I feel bad for those that hang on my every word. I have misled them. One day they may even get in a fight because of my inaccurate information. Thank God you weren't duped as well.

 

thanks

 

I have to agree I am one sometimes, but age and sense has softened my hard edge. If I were the same constitution I was twenty years ago, a non-christian etc there is no doubt I would be in rIslam land somewhere hunting.


reva

 

That's right. It's as easy as proving that you can't square a circle.

 

There's no such thing as a 'circle'. http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/44880/can-a-circle-truly-exist
Some other analogy would be better.

 

A set doesn't need to be finite to be real.

 

Your claim was as follows:

The laws formed by the big bang do the same things when applied in the same ways. One of these eventually lead to abiogenesis[.]​

For the claim to be at least superficially coherent, the referent of "these" has to be either "laws" or "things". If the latter, the claim is meaningless. Either way it's clear you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Neither are flying spaghetti monsters.

Which might be interesting if there was ever a point in history at which illness wasn't known to exist.

Really, old bean, I do understand the difficulty in defending an idea which is so patently idiotic that no combination of pejoratives is sufficiently derisive, but your attempts are among the most retarded I've ever seen.

And they say atheists have no faith.

Fat chance of that now, Captain Buzzkill.

 

It's become obvious now that you have no actual arguments, nothing to actually say other than insulting me and nitpicking at my phrasing. I will not continue humoring you, lest you gain the idea that you're worth anyone's time to try to debate. Once you're willing to engage in a discussion like a civilized and rational human being I will gladly continue this.

 

There is nothing chaotic about the universe whatsoever. Everything out there, everything that can be seen or measured, has followed the laws of physics. Just because we don't know all the laws doesn't make the universe chaotic.

 

Seeing your operating definition of the phrase is so redolent with puerility, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you...

...or maybe I would, come to think of it.

 

Nothing is really solid either, it's all permeable at some point. However, for humans and practical usage, circles and solid objects exist.

 

Theorem?