Science and Religion

[haereticum135]

The Universe is fine-tuned for matter. I think most physicists would agree on this. If someone says that it isn't, it's probably because they have difficulty with the theological implications of such a statement. Others invoke the Multiverse. This theory provides an alternative to multiple universes or an intelligent designer.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

"Life conceived the parameters for its existence"
So it gave birth to matter, time, and space? This is pseudo-scientific rhetoric. This guy still does not answer my three questions:

1. How would it be tested?
2. How would it be observed?
3. How would it be falsified?

 

[3.14159265358979323]

Fine-tuned? You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

And, please. Cite any credible physicist that agrees with you. Just one

 

[3.14159265358979323]

In fact, ordinary matter makes up less than 1 part in 20 of the universe.

 

[haereticum135]

Like I said, this is merely a theory. More evidence will arise with time.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

The point is, the theory contradicts known science. It's based on mere solipsism. It's just another clever rehash of Intelligent Design.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

And the evidence we have so far overwhelmingly points to only one conclusion: Life arose as a by-product of the conditions of a pre-existing universe.

 

[haereticum135]

I only posted this in the religion section because philosophy was more applicable to the nature of this thread than anything else.

 

[haereticum135]

And the evidence we have so far overwhelmingly points to only one conclusion: Life arose as a by-product of the conditions of a pre-existing universe.

I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong. This theory is explaining exactly that. Circular logic, much?

 

[3.14159265358979323]

And, by "theory", you mean "baseless speculation that should not even be called a hypothesis"

 

[3.14159265358979323]

There was nothing circular about that statement. I merely stated what the evidence points to.

 

[haereticum135]

And, by "theory", you mean "baseless speculation that should not even be called a hypothesis"

Baseless? The base is in that there are inconsistencies in the physical world that need explaining. Hence, the hypothesis.

 

[Neverfly]

If a monkey sits in a tree and scratches his nuts, does it happen if a National Geographic Cameraman is not there to photograph the event?

Experiment:
Determine if monkeys nuts were scratched prior to observation.

Materials:
One Monkey that appears to be testicularly disgruntled.

Control:
Five unscratched monkeys wearing boxing gloves.

Results:
Monkey nuts had several nail shaped lines marked on the surface. Skin was broken. Nails had small quantities of nut skin underneath them.

Control group had perfectly intact balls.

Conclusions: Monkeys scratch nuts even when not observed.

 

[haereticum135]

For now, I will refer you to the following. It may answer some key questions...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZWVai-4DUU&feature=related

 

[3.14159265358979323]

@Neverfly: Good use of the scientific method, albeit the experiment was a bit disturbing.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

"Baseless? The base is in that there are inconsistencies in the physical world that need explaining. Hence, the hypothesis."

Again, just because physicists do not understand some portion of the physical world, does not make it a pretext to place an untestable hypothesis in its place.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

Maybe if you had considered how science works, you wouldn't have even taken the time to defend this ridiculous special pleading. What sort of crackpot dreamed up of this?

 

[spidergoat]

The universe is not fine-tuned for life.

 

[3.14159265358979323]

This was never mentioned. The topic is, some crackpot is defending an untestable hypothesis that states that the universe arose from pre-existing life. Basically, life tuned the universe.