Just ignore the fine tuning and shoot straight for your “what might be” and “possibly will be” because it doesn’t fit your worldview. I thought atheists were about objective evidence and facts not “if it doesn’t fit my dogma ignore it”.
Sounds like that is what you are doing Sheldon. You are appealing to a non-carbon based life form because if you accept this reality it starts to shatter your worldview. You preach objective evidence so much but run at the sight of it and insert what possibly could be except when it comes to God.
fuck! Sheldon made no such appeal, and you just don’t know how to read. I’m surprised you did not put bleach on your cornflakes this morning.
This has nothing to do with the bullshit you are asserting. Have you thought of returning to school for a remedial English class?
1 Like
You have to demonstrate that “fine tuning” first. Most of the universe is inimical to Carbon life forms, in fact most of our own solar system is inimical to carbon life forms. Most of the Earth is inimical to carbon based, oxygen breathing life forms. So there is your first gaping flaw.
Secondly with the size of the universe it s more than possible that silicon or other life forms exist and even some form of life that we can not recognise. Try putting down your book of Hebrew myths and picking up some good young adult science fiction. I don’t think you have the intellect for the real stuff yet.
That a small, unimportant Canaanite war god should be endowed by its primitive followers with the powers to create such a wonderful universe and reduce it to a dullards imagination restricted to a single life form. Well…you, WhoAreYou are the end product of that evolution. Imperfectly formed from a lottery of sperm and ova, dependent on a daily intake of complex chemicals and fuel. Most of which are absolutely deadly on their own. A protein and metal ingesting/excreting machine. Dull, imperfect and prone to mechanical failure. Not much of a design,have you looked in a mirror? Even the air you breathe is ultimately poisonous to you.
Your thoughts and your excrement are the product of your poisonous environment. No different to that other wonder of design, the pig. Oh sorry, man designed, well bred, porkers are well designed in contrast to you. Tasty, replace themselves more than 10 times every year and produce bacon.
You, my dear, faulty, WAY, on the other hand, only seem to produce cranial flatulence in abundance.
4 Likes
1 Like
2 Likes
Ok, I have to ask now, is English your first language?
I made no claims about non-carbon based life forms, and the only assertions I made were that a) you made an unevidenced assumption that non-carbon based life forms are not possible, and b) that carbon based life forms are the only ones we are aware of. Assuming you were not simply being disingenuous here again, I can only suggest you go back and read it more carefully.
Oh dear, firstly you have no conception what my worldview is, beyond the single fact I don’t believe in any unevidenced deity or deities, and secondly the hypothetical existence of non-carbon life forms is not remotely incompatible with atheism why would it be? It would however, along with species evolution, drive a rather large bus through the creation myths of the Abrahamic religions.
You’ve offered no objective evidence to run form, so that’s simply a very shabby lie, and I get to set whatever standard for personal belief I choose, just as you do, but that means that in this debate forum, you don’t get to peddle unevidenced superstition unchallenged, as if it were a church revival tent or a pulpit.
I’ve inserted nothing, you either have a woeful grasp of English, or are being very disingenuous about my post.
I also very specifically cautioned you against using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, and you have dishonestly ignored your use of this fallacy yet again, which is a very dishonest way to debate, and as I said at the end of the post you’ve partially quoted, ignoring this fact won’t make it go away. I can only suggest you read my post again more carefully, and respond with a little more integrity.
Since you’ve offered no objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, or even that they are possible, I remain disbelieving.
You also dishonestly failed to answer how your assertion here:
Remotely evidences any deity? I think we can all see why as well, as the inference of you evading that question and your use of a known common logical fallacy, while misrepresenting me is pretty clear.
Really, this lie again? religious faith is defined as strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof, so clearly this is not just not required for science, it is anathema to anyone who accepts scientific facts over unevidenced superstition. Again your dishonesty in repeating this lie is manifest.
I’m guessing the irony is lost on you there? However lets play devil’s advocate for a second, suppose atheists believed all manner of wackadoo nonsense just like the unevidenced and irrational superstition you are peddling here, how exactly does this help your cause? Is the penny dropping yet that your belief carries a burden of proof, regardless of what anyone else chooses to believe?
The universe is not fine tuned, that is a metaphor some Physicists use to describe the characteristics of the universe, you would need to demonstrate some objective evidence that a sentient being fine tuned the universe, and you have nada. Even then you are no closer to Jesus Allah or Yahweh than you are to Zeus or Apollo.
Hallelujah, you actually got something right, it seems though you don’t grasp why this is a more rational position despite me explaining it several times. You see your addition of a deity using inexplicable magic violates Occam’s razor, whereas the other hypothesis involve natural phenomena, and we already know these are possible, see the difference yet?
Yes we see that, your posts have demonstrated this quite clearly.
1 Like
When the whole theory of a blind indifferent meaningless purposeless universe is built upon a point 10-34 of a second old and all science breaks down before this moment then you can understand the word salad gymnastics that are employed trying to explain what we call “ laws of physics” .
In essence the fundamental materialistic atheistic scientific worldview is built from a non scientific base .
Still, let’s not let the issues get mixed up with the facts .
What “meaning” are you claiming the universe has, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support this? Or is this latest argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy all you have?
Nope, this rather hilarious oxymoron is still a lie, atheism is only the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, the rest is a porky pie straw man old @Sid has been trying to peddle as an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, to prop up his sky fairy. He has nothing else, that much is obvious.
Not much chance of that, judging from your trollin…er, posts thus far. 
We’ve plowed this field before .
You are part of the universe .You have meaning in your life. Every second of every day you live your life with meaning . If you have meaning then there is meaning in the universe.
That doesn’t mean the universe has any meaning or purpose as you implied. If you stuck your head in a toilet there would be brains (allegedly) in the toilet, this does not imply the toilet “has brains”, it seems you were simply indulging sophistry and semantics.
4 Likes
Are you @Sid denying the material universe exists? If not then you will need to demonstrate something beyond bare subjective assertions that something more exists. You started with an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and it seems this and sophistry is still all you have.
1 Like
The semantics and sophistry are all yours Sheldon . You can remove your head from the toilet bowl but you cannot remove yourself from the universe.
You live your life with meaning every second of your existence and you are also a part of the universe for every second of your existence therefore there is meaning in the universe .
HEY!!! 
… (hands on hips)…
2 Likes
I have hair, based on the rationale of your ludicrous semantics the universe could be said to “have” hair. The claim is meaning-less, ironically, and the dishonesty of you implying the universe “has” meaning or purpose, based on humans subjectively attaching meaning to their lives speaks for itself. Nor does an imperfect analogy donate sophistry, so I don’t think sophistry means what you think it does either.
You have no objective evidence for any deity, and that is clear, just as it is equally clear you haven’t the integrity to say so.
4 Likes
That doesn’t mean the universe has meaning. Anymore than humans having hair, suggests the universe “has” hair.
Can we take it you’re done then, and that this desperate sophistry means you know there is no objective evidence that the universe itself has any meaning or purpose?
1 Like
Hahahah I guess he told you Shells…
Fuckin priceless. This “universe has meaning”horseshit is the epitome of sophistry.
Now, keep in mind, there is syphilis in the universe, so therefore…
.
.
Edit to check for crabs
1 Like
Hmmm….I’m pretty sure once I die, what was me will have been ‘removed’ from the universe.
2 Likes
Except that once again, you completely failed to address the statement that I posted, namely that requiring strict tolerances makes your system more expensive and labour intensive to maintain. I did’t mention quality, but as usual, a mythology fanboy demonstrates complete failure of reading comprehension.
For example, a standard car engine, such as the units found in, say, Toyota cars, will function reliably without being built to the same tolerances as a formula 1 racing engine. Those Toyota engines will also be cheaper and less labour intensive to maintain, and cheaper to build.
On the other hand, Formula 1 racing engines cost millions of pounds per unit, and because they’re built to extremely fine engineering tolerances, require vastly more expensive and labour intensive maintenance. Indeed, some of those engines need a complete rebuild after each race.
As a corollary, from the standpoint of everyday cars, Formula 1 racing engines are a ludicrous choice. The far less powerful, far less delicately engineered mass produced Toyota engines are a far superior solution. Formula 1 racing engines only make sense in a highly specialised motoring niche, one that is lavishly funded by immensely rich corporate sponsors, and occupied by highly specialised technicians and scientists pushing the envelope of what’s possible with internal combustion engines.
Once again, do you bother READING what I actually post, as opposed to answering your fabricated caricatures thereof?
Stop lying.
Cosmological physics isn’t a fucking “religion”. What part of “testing postulates to see if they are in accord with reality” do you not understand? Something that never happens with blind assertions from goat herder mythologies?
No you don’t, you presumed, on the basis of uncritical acceptance of unsupported mythological assertions.
As opposed to treating uncritially as fact, ludicrous assertions from a goat herder mythology? Such as the “global flood” fairy tale so many of your ilk masturbate over?
It’s perfectly reasonable for human beings to aspire to seeing the future be an improvement upon the past and the present, both in practical terms and in terms of our knowledge base. The difference being, of course, that some of us engage in the diligent labour required to make that aspiration a reality.
On the other hand, quite a few of your fellow mythology fanboys, are conniving and scheming to drag our species back to the Dark Ages.
We leave those to you and your ilk.
Oh look, more lies. Let’s take a look at this shall we?
Correction, he’s citing this as a possibility that would, if found to be real, transform our knowledge base significantly. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?
Bullshit. The discovery of life forms not reliant upon our brand of organic chemistry, would not “shatter our worldview”, it would expand our knowledge base. It would provide us with new data with which to improve our current models.
You really do plumb the depths of duplicity with this shit you’re posting, don’t you?
Pot calling kettle black, much?
Which we have, courtesy of those several million peer reviewed scientific papers you sneer at regularly.
Bare faced lie. The only one running from evidence here is you, with your failed and pathetic attempts to try and weave apologetic spells to hand-wave away the DATA that destroys your mythology.
Again, bare faced lie.
Oh wait, I’ve posted here ideas on this subject that mythology fanboys are incapable of even fantasising about.
But do keep doubling down on those lies you keep posting.
“Fine tuning” is a myth. We are here because the laws of physics permitted our emergence, and the relevant, physically permitted interactions giving rise to us took place. That is IT.
Oh, and as an example of the manner in which “fine tuning” is a myth, I’m aware of two scientific papers covering this topic. The first 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. The second demonstrates that the same would be true, even if we deleted the weak nuclear force wholesale from the universe.
The only "word salad gymnastics we see on display here come from mythology fanboys like you.
Oh, and it’s precisely because cosmological physicists understand the issues raised by the singularity problem, that they are working on solutions to this problem. Including one I’ve covered in detail here in the past, which includes a testable prediction. Unlike “Magic Man did it”.
Mythology fanboys don’t deal in facts, they deal inmade up shit apologetics.
And we see the usual failure of rigour so often displayed by mythology fanboys.
Just because we decide for ourselves that there is meaning to our lives, doesn’t mean for one moment that a “meaning” is an intrinsic part of the fabric of the universe. A notion which is absurd, when one considers salient facts. Such as:
Fact No 1: “Meaning” only applies when one has entities possessing the ability to formulate and analyse abstract concepts. The evidence to date is that the universe lacked such entities for something like 13.4 billion years. Indeed, for the first 370,000 years of the existence of the current observable universe, it was impossible for neutral atoms to exist, let alone structures involving more parts.
Fact No. 2: The idea that a single “meaning” dictated from on high is part of the fabric of the universe, is rendered null and void by the fact that different humans across the planet ascribe different meanings to their lives.
Unlike you, it seems …
So what? This doesn’t imply that the universe contains as an integral part of its fabric, some nebulous and ineffable “meaning” that makes no sense in the light of the facts I presented above.
Again, so what? Once again, this doesn’t imply that the universe contains as an integral part of its fabric, some nebulous and ineffable “meaning” that makes no sense in the light of the facts I presented above.
NOT as an integral part of the fabric thereof outside the human beings in question.
Looks like the sophistry here is yours, not Sheldon’s.
Is there any more mythology fanboy ideological wank sputter to mop up before I take a break?
2 Likes
I’m just as sure that in about 3.5 billion years our sun is going to go bye bye, and assuming there is anyone left anywhere near the end to give subjective meaning to their lives, they’ll go bye bye as well.
I’m sensing @Sid’s deity is going to need a new gap then, and there is no evidence that the universe will care one iota about the mediocre event that is the death of one star, and us and all the deities we’ve imagined with it.
2 Likes