If you argue against theism, the belief we owe our existence to a transcendent personal being who intentionally designed the universe for life, regardless of how you articulate it whether you say the universe existed somehow for eternity past, came into existence uncaused out of nothing, was the result of some subset of the laws of physics we are familiar with, or some super set we are unfamiliar with, those alternatives would still amount to an unguided naturalistic explanation of our existence.
is why I say that you really don't have the background to argue about the beginning of the universe. You have repeated a litany of distortions that I have never
put forward. About the only thing you got right is the "unguided naturalistic explanation of our existence." And I ask, what's wrong with that? It's not as if, if naturalism was guided, that it was guided for YOU. It's simply arrogance on your part to assume that this grand ol' universe was created for the benefit of YOU or even humanity. As I observed before, and you blithely ignored, that if it was created for anything,
it was created to contain dark matter and energy.
What do you mean by whatever the universe is embedded in? The last I heard most scientists still believe the universe (at least in its present form) began to exist 14 billion years ago. There are alternative theories with little consensus.
If there's a comprehensible "outside" for your god to exist in and create the universe, then the universe is embedded in something. It's embedded in some structure that has some form of time to it (because if it doesn't, then creation events are impossible). What form that may be, or even if there is something at all, is up for debate, but if it exists, then there are minimum requirements that it must satisfy.
That in part is why a so called supernatural or transcendent explanation is called for. In a virtual universe we can slow down or speed up time at will because the creators of virtual universes are transcendent to it.
No, you just want a god that can break the rules of logic. In the trancendent space god exists in, there must be some form of time or god would not be able to do anything.
Your appeal to virtual universes does not wash. Even when the simulation of a virtual universe is slowed down, the time of the simulators is still chugging along.
As I said before, it is that
time, the time that the creator exists and does things in, is the time you have to demonstrate. You have continuously failed to do so.
I've said often there is a basis for belief in naturalism in fact I made a case for it as I did for theism. That's the point if you're going to say elements of the universe that comport with naturalism are evidence in favor of naturalism then you have to acknowledge the points of evidence that don't fit that narrative favor the theist narrative. But no one here is willing and I suspect you won't be either.
You have yet to present ANY evidence that fits your theist narrative. When you presented your narrative, I pointed out the problems I found in it, but you continue to insist
on that evidence fitting your narrative without addressing the points I have made. You have remained curiously silent
about my observations that, in mathematics, we find deep connections between fields that we do not
design into our axioms. You have no comment about why anyone should believe that the universe was designed for us when we make such a vanishingly small fraction of its products. You have failed to draw any sort of connection between any design and the stars, planets, life and sentience. It is the hallmark of a hollow notion.
I wouldn't call happenstance by itself a deal breaker, if we find this is one of a multitude of universes that would explain a great deal. If we find life that can adapt to other circumstances that would change the landscape significantly.
And what about the observation that life doesn't even rise to the level of by-product in the universe, a universe filled with structure and patterns that, if our experience with things we do
design is indicative of how prevelant they are, do not need specific design to exist? You've never answered that point.
There are a lot of problems that can be solved by simply imagining and accepting a condition that solves it and just so happens to comport with your philosophical beliefs. How sweet.
What, like your "transcendent" and "supernatural" god? Hell, the universe doesn't even need extra properties in order for my condition to be true: it simply needs to not
exist in time.
You continue to state things as fact yet I don't see how you could possibly know. How do you know what applies or doesn't to the universe as a whole? Do any set of laws apply to the universe as a whole? When did this knowledge come about?
Through the simple fact that our physical laws are forumulated in ways such that they wouldn't make sense unless
they were only meant to apply within the universe. It doesn't make sense to talk about the position of the universe or its momentum as an entire object unless you have a coordinate system in some sort of time and some sort of space to construct that scenario. Are you claiming this time and space exist that the universe is embedded in? How did you come by this knowledge? Wait, you didn't. You simply insist that physical laws "could" apply to the universe without even showing that they would even have any meaning
in the venue you would talk about.
Until you show that the physical laws do apply to the universe as an entire object, you haven't got a leg to stand on.
You must have the uncanny ability to ignore any and all evidence against your position. Big bang is still the dominant cosmological theory of how the universe came into existence roughly 14 billion years ago and there's a good reason for it. Several key predictions of the theory have been confirmed. It might not be the whole story but hardly speculative.
Again, you betray your ignorance of what you talk about. The Big Bang doesn't mean
that the universe had a beginning in the way you think of it. It is in fact quite possible that there is no
first event in time, although there is a limit event that bounds how far universal time can be extended into the past. This notion is consistent with the Big Bang theory, as the theory only takes us to the first Plank time of the universe. Even if that limit point does exist, it doesn't mean that the universe popped into existence any more than the Earth pops into existence at the North pole. (Indeed, the North pole is a quite apt analogy to what is happening at the Big Bang — there is a coordinate singularity at the North pole, just as there's a physical singularity at event 0.) Furthermore, the Big Bang theory is consistent with the notion that the universe shrinks to nearly a point and then rebounds in an infinite series of Big Bangs through eternity, again, because the theory only takes us back to the Plank time of the current expansion and no further. The final contender is the infinite inflation hypothesis, which states that the current Big Bang is only one in many that has frozen out of a more primeval state that has persisted for all of eternity, and effectively makes it a multiuniverse hypothesis.
To top this all off, the ontological nature of time that is best supported by physical theory is eternalism because it's the only ontology that is consistent with special and general relativity — presentism requires absolute simultaneity (the universal now), and special and general relativity states that simultaneity is relative. Thus, the passage of time is an illusion that only applies within the universe. Outside the universe, nothing happens. What you would see is a mess of interwoven events.
Therefore, if any notion has more foundation than the other, it's mine.
It is science for the masses it was the first hit on a search, there were many others.
But it wasn't the others you went with, is it? You went with the poorest source. Why is that?
As you are insisting some form of naturalistic causes. Of course they are connected. The only life we know of depends on planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, gravity (in an extremely narrow range) and a host of other conditions mentioned by Martin Rees.
You have failed to connect them with a purposeful design,
sugarpuff. LOTS of phenomena in the universe depend on those same constants and conditions. Why is any one of them
indicative of design?
You made an unequivocal statement that life would occur where ever there are favorable conditions as if you knew what those conditions were. I think you have a difficult time distinguishing between opinion, fact, theory, hypothesis or hyperbole.
It's not me
that has said that, it's the scientists
you disparage even though they have made the study of the chemistry of early life their life's work. The simple fact is that the raw materials of life are readily
formed according to the chemistry, even in venues as hostile as outer space. The simple fact is that life did
form on Earth almost as soon as the crust formed and the oceans precipitated out. The simple fact is that a lot of chemical pathways to produce the basic units of life have been mapped out and have been known for decades.
The simple fact is that there are several major contenders for the theory of abiogenesis and your "designed by God" hypothesis is NOT among them.
Thus, your accusation that I cannot distinguish between "opinion, fact, theory, hypothesis or hyperbole" rings exceedingly