Why do you think

[WhoAreYou]

@CyberLN

Are you a trained and credentialed cosmologist? If so, did your uni teach you about ‘fine tuning’? If not, who taught you that anything, other than a cello, is fine tuned? Were they a trained and credentialed cosmologist?

Hoyle, who before studying carbon was atheist.

[Cognostic]

@WhoAreYou

Hoyle,

So, I looked up Hoyle and read this. “Hoyle did not want to believe that the universe was created from a big bang, because that would imply that there was a creator, and to him, that idea wasn’t a possibility because he was an atheist.”

Obviously, either Hoyle or the person writing the article had no understanding at all of Atheism or the Big Bang. They seem just as confused as WhoAreYou.

Hoyle’s position before his death was that he, "believed that life, as we know it today, “must have been the result of some unseen intelligence and that ‘there is a coherent plan for the universe, although I admit I have no idea what it is’” (Easterbrook 2003). "

What does the article conclude? “Fred Hoyle kept the scientific community on its toes until his death on August 20, 2001. While most of his ideas are now regarded as false, his work on the creation of heavy elements in the heart of stars through the process of nucleosynthesis revolutionized the field of astrophysics.”

Fred Hoyle: Father of Nucleosynthesis

So you really want to use Hoyle as an argument from authority? It’s a worthless venture, empty of evidence and reason.

[Nyarlathotep]

@WhoAreYou

Actually in all truth all people do, including atheists but if you say you don’t it’s because you suppress it and instead give your glory to nature and man, which is exactly what atheists do.

Another supposed mind reader who has come to this forum to tell us we are all lying about not believing in their imaginary friend. Fuck me.

[WhoAreYou]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/helfus.html

[Cognostic]

@Cognostic

his work on the creation of heavy elements in the heart of stars through the process of nucleosynthesis revolutionized the field of astrophysics.”

What part of what I wrote was too complex for you to understand. People around here write to you, hoping to give you information, and you just blindly see what you want to see. What a fucked up way to go through life. I feel sorry for you.

[WhoAreYou]

@Cognostic

@Cognostic

his work on the creation of heavy elements in the heart of stars through the process of nucleosynthesis revolutionized the field of astrophysics.”

What part of what I wrote was too complex for you to understand. People around here write to you, hoping to give you information, and you just blindly see what you want to see. What a fucked up way to go through life. I feel sorry for you.

the context of that quote:

@Cognostic

While most of his ideas are now regarded as false

Regardless if you spend time looking into carbon 12 and its resonance you will see how it was predicted by Hoyle using Beryllium8 and Helium4 and it was not only never observed before his time at Caltech lab but it can only be within a certain tolerance for the triple alpha process to work. this also gives strict tolerances to forces. Engineers know that is a good design. He looked at other pathways to carbon12 but found it impossible with the 5 nucleon crevasse thus his conclusion and strict tolerances. carbon is essential for all forms of life.

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@WhoAreYou

his conclusion and strict tolerances. carbon is essential for all forms of life.

“as we know it” there, fixed it for you.

[WhoAreYou]

@Calilasseia

Indeed, this brings me neatly to the next reason your above assertion is horseshit, namely that the chemical basis for the origin of life isn’t, as you mendaciously assert, an “atheist claim”. Instead, the chemical basis for the origin of life IS A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS BACKED BY AN EVER GROWING BODY OF HARD EXPERIMENTAL DATA. Data which you’ve already admitted that you dismiss summarily because it doesn’t genuflect before the fatuous assertions of your favourite goat herder mythology. You’ve openly admitted that you treat the hard experimental data in those scientific papers as “lies”, because you prefer the diseased ravings of Bronze Age nomads who were too stupid to count correctly the legs that an insect possesses. ALL the dishonesty in this thread lies with YOU as a result of this admission.

That you have to resort to blatant bare faced lies in order to prop up your attachment to a ridiculous goat herder mythology, and the imaginary cartoon magic man asserted to exist within its risible pages, merely demonstrates how utterly worthless your mythology and its cartooon magic man are - indeed, because you have to LIE on behalf thereof, they’re worse than worthless, they’re a pernicious ideological disease, they’re a cognitive cancer destroying discoursive honesty and integrity wherever they exert their malign and venomous influence. Your sordid career of discoursive mendacity here merely adds to the voluminous body of evidence leading to that conclusion.

I beg to differ. There are great implied ties to Darwinian evolution which in turn has great implications to atheism:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2016.0337

Abiogenesis

Last universal common ancestor

[WhoAreYou]

@Calilasseia

This is bullshit plain and simple. I’m aware of two scientific papers destroying the “fine tuning” myth, otherwise known as Douglas Adams’ Puddle.

We are here because the laws of physics permitted our emergence, and the relevant, physically permitted interactions took place. You have it backwards.

To ram home this point, one scientific paper I’m aware of, demonstrates that stellar nucleosynthesis and organic chemistry would remain essentially unchanged, even if key physical constants varied by as much as five orders of magnitude. Another paper demonstrates that the same would be true, even if we deleted the weak nuclear force from the universe.

Once again, your infantile presumption that a “who” was responsible for the universe and its contents is precisely that - infantile presumption, with zero factual basis. You have to peddle ex recto apologetic fabrications in order to prop up this childish view, and indeed, demonstrate once again that creationists aren’t interested in genuine science, but instead that their primary focus is treating science dishonestly as a branch of apologetics. It isn’t. Fucking learn this lesson once and for all.

Where did the laws of physics come from?

[Sheldon]

@WhoAreYou

There are great implied ties to Darwinian evolution which in turn has great implications to atheism

Another false assertion, while species evolution utterly refutes the creation myths of the Abrahamic religions, it is not my reason for disbelieving in any deity. That is and will remain that there is no objective evidence or any rational argument, that any deity exists outside of the imagination of those who believe in them, or that any deity or anything supernatural is even possible.

I have also stated this plainly, and others have explained that atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, so you’re being pretty disingenuous here again.

You have offered neither objective evidence nor rational argument, thus I remain disbelieving of your claims for a deity.

Abiogenesis is about the origin of life, the theory of evolution makes no claims about the origins of life. However it is an objective fact that life and natural phenomena exist, and you are the one adding inexplicable magic, from an unevidenced deity, so the burden of proof is yours, and until you have anything beyond unevidenced subjective belief, Occam’s razor applies.

@WhoAreYou

Where did the laws of physics come from?

You’ve already been told, they are human creations, they are descriptive not proscriptive. You then falsely tried to equate the descriptive scientific laws, with the natural phenomena they describe and explain. You are again adding unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic, and again Occam’s razor applies. This is another of your god of the gaps polemics, using an an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

You’ll no doubt now roll on to the usual creationist rhetoric, like laws requiring law givers, even though it has been explained that humans and science gave us these laws. If you want to claim a deity or anything else created the natural phenomena those laws explain and describe, then you will need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence, not subjective beliefs and vapid rhetoric.

At least on here anyway, as the atheists here don’t accept unevidenced claims, or irrational argument uncritically.

[Sheldon]

@WhoAreYou

Where did the laws of physics come from?

They were created by scientists, and there is no objective evidence that the phenomena they describe were created using inexplicable magic, or unevidenced deities.

[CyberLN]

@WhoAreYou

He looked at other pathways to carbon12 but found it impossible with the 5 nucleon crevasse thus his conclusion and strict tolerances. carbon is essential for all forms of life.

So what? How in the wide, wide world of sports does this demonstrably indicate your god/s exist?

I think you’re quite bright. And I think you believe you have always thought your god/s are real. But I’ve read your posts and would bet that you are struggling with that belief, that doubt is creeping in, and it scares you. So please don’t go away. The crowd here will do a lot to challenge you. Take it in. Mull it over. Use it.

[Sheldon]

@WhoAreYou

carbon is essential for all forms of life.

All forms of life that we are aware of, we don’t know that non-carbon based life forms are impossible for example, so you’re using another appeal to mystery here, and this would still get a great big so fucking what? Since this does not remotely represent objective evidence for any deity or deities, or anything supernatural.

No belief can rationally be asserted as true because there is no evidence against it, this, as has been explained multiple times, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Ignoring this won’t make it go away.

[Cognostic]

@WhoAreYou

Regardless if you spend time looking into carbon 12

You just don’'t fucking get it do you? Put your fingers in your ears and shout, ‘La la la…’ Poor poor ignorant soul.

[Calilasseia]

@Nyarlathotep

Another supposed mind reader who has come to this forum to tell us we are all lying about not believing in their imaginary friend. Fuck me.

Indeed, how often do we see this from the mythology fanboys?

Meanwhile, I see the in tray of duplicity is full again:

@WhoAreYou

I beg to differ. There are great implied ties to Darwinian evolution which in turn has great implications to atheism:

Oh look, more bare faced lies.

First of all, Darwinian evolution only occurs when a population of imperfect replicators exists. Much of prebiotic chemistry deals with the events before said replicators exist. Do you once bother to engage in honest thinking about the concepts at work here? Or is all your thinking driven by “what shit can I make up to peddle my beloved cartoon magic man?”

@WhoAreYou

Where did the laws of physics come from?

I already provided you with a sample of relevant thinking on this matter from cosmological physicsists, in the form of that article by Thomas Hertog I posted earlier. To which you responded with your usual mendacity, by falsely assertion the relevant exposition to be an “appeal to authority”. For someone who is so keen to peddle the fatuous notion that a goat herder mythology and its assertions dictate how reality behaves, it’s hilarious to note how frequently you ignore the Ninth Commandment therein.

@WhoAreYou

Regardless if you spend time looking into carbon 12 and its resonance you will see how it was predicted by Hoyle using Beryllium8 and Helium4 and it was not only never observed before his time at Caltech lab but it can only be within a certain tolerance for the triple alpha process to work. this also gives strict tolerances to forces

Hoyle alighting upon this doens’t validate a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology, written by piss-stained nomads who were too stupid to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses.

@WhoAreYou

Engineers know that is a good design.

Poppycock. Anyone who has worked in genuine engineering circles, will tell you that a need to conform to strict tolerances increases maintenance labour and costs. By contrast, systems that can function within a wider range of tolerances are less likely to fail, are likely to be less expensive to maintain,and require less skilled labour.

You really don’t have a fucking clue how reality works, do you?

[mr.macabre13]

I’ll say it again, it’s awesome having you on our side. Unfortunately, you can’t fix stupid.

[MrDawn]

A lot of theists suffer from severe confirmation bias with their irrational beliefs and it’s real real hard for most of them to come back after they have taken the blue pill so many times.

[Cognostic]

@WhoAreYou

Regardless if you spend time looking into carbon 12

You really don’t get it do you? Are you that ignorant of the world around you? How in the hell do you dress yourself in the morning?

[WhoAreYou]

@Calilasseia

Poppycock. Anyone who has worked in genuine engineering circles, will tell you that a need to conform to strict tolerances increases maintenance labour and costs. By contrast, systems that can function within a wider range of tolerances are less likely to fail, are likely to be less expensive to maintain,and require less skilled labour.

You really don’t have a fucking clue how reality works, do you?

I worked on a reliability project where the tolerance was causing issues not one one component but multiple so yes i think i know what i am talking about. If you have a part that has a strict tolerance you will improve quality.

[WhoAreYou]

@Calilasseia

In short, we are here because the laws of physics permitted our existence, and the relevant physically permitted interactions took place. And Hertog tells us that according to the work he and Hawking undertook, the laws of physics are the result of shaping by past interactions. I’m really going to enjoy the way this work will lead to nuclear-strength butthurt among creationist morons, because it postulates that the laws of physics themselves were the product of an evolutionary process. That sound you can hear is me laughing at the ramifications of this so loudly that I’m audible on Mars.

I’m also enjoying the final summing up, viz:

For almost a century, we have studied the origin of the universe against the stable background of immutable laws of nature. But our theory reads the universe’s history from within and as one that includes, in its earliest stages, the genealogy of the physical laws. It isn’t the laws as such but their capacity to transmute that has the final word.

Future cosmological observations may find evidence of this. For instance, precision observations of gravitational waves—ripples in the fabric of spacetime—may reveal signatures of some of the early branches of the universe. If spotted, Hawking’s cosmological finale may well prove to be his greatest scientific legacy.

Sounds like you have strong faith in your religion and it’s leaders. I thought atheists were about facts and reality not hope and assumptions.