6 numbers

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you read the article? Some of the numbers, if changed, would mean humans wouldn't exist, but not other types of life. It isn't too difficult to imagine millions of universes springing into existence, some succeeding and some failing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the article?
The point was it's very difficult to imagine a single universe 'popping into existance'. Are you suggesting that far less primitive life forms could exist, like silocone men or something?

[godBoy]

Existance as we know it proves a few things, like what is neccessary for life to exist. It's reasonable to believe that no life can exist outside of these physical constants. They keep all things together.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To those who claim “imperfection” in the design of the universe:

1. Do you mean imperfection in terms of its intended function?

2. If so, what do you consider to be that function?

[/ QUOTE ]

Already answered above, but here you go again. The body of a human is deigned with legs for locomotion. Those that are born without legs seem to indicate a flaw in the design, or a failure, of the reproductive system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without knowledge of the intent of the whole, in this case humanity, no claim of malfunction can be made regarding the parts.

[madnak]

Before enlightenment, argue philosophy. After enlightenment, argue philosophy.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
2. If anything had turned out differently someone else would be here positing that their existance is so unlikely that it could only have come about by design (or not).

[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis do you assume such an astronomically improbable outcome?

[madnak]

The probability of such an outcome can't be evaluated.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Existance as we know it proves a few things, like what is neccessary for life to exist. It's reasonable to believe that no life can exist outside of these physical constants. They keep all things together.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep making the same mistake which is to assume that life as we know it determines the universe rather than the other way around.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the issues of "fine tuning" in cosmology are all rather profound. There exist some very serious papers by some very serious physicists attempting to explain this state of affairs in terms of postulated physical principles (in fact this is a huge issue for superstring theory these days), but apparently nobody here is even willing to admit that the need for fine tuning presents an issue worthy of attention -- essentially for fear of giving the the theists some kind of "upper hand." Oh, well -- it is a poker forum, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you've got this dead right and it's sad but its hard to do anything about it when the scientific issue of fine tuning makes no difference to the design issue but would be used by the obscurers to confuse things further.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Without knowledge of the intent of the whole, in this case humanity, no claim of malfunction can be made regarding the parts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I thought your religion was about individual salvation?

But, otoh, without knowledge of the intent of the whole (the universe) you cannot know whether you god is a god of love or not. The evidence points to the contrary. Don't quote the bible back at me, it is only a part of the universe.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The probability of such an outcome can't be evaluated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least the natural processes at hand don’t account for anything but a vanishing probability.