how can we best explain our existence ?

[Sternwallow]

Continued from post #210

We have already covered why there is something rather than nothing; there is something in places where something has come into existence. The different but related question how something came into existence depends on the something under discussion. If the something is virtual particles, we do not yet know the mechanism involved in their appearance, but we can show that it is not due to a purposeful intelligence or "creator". If the something is the singularity out of which the universe grew, then, applying the prior information we can confidently say that the singularity might have come into existence without a creator, that is, a mindless creator may possibly have done it, but not necessarily.

" If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence." It is trivial to say that life happened in a universe whose characteristics barely enabled and even now hardly tolerates one small locale for human life. For all 13.7 Billion years but the last 100,000, the universe was decidedly NOT built for human life. In this vast "human nurturing" universe, life exists in a tiny area on only one out of 5 x 100 x 400 x Billion x Billion bodies.

Remember that the beginning of the universe there was no plan or goal or intention to ever develop mankind. You will probably squawk again "how do you know that?" I know because there was an early stage of true randomness that no organization or plan or design could survive mathematically. If the singularity had been created containing a complete blueprint for the entire future, that blueprint would, necessarily, have been lost in the shuffle. Example: you want a contractor to build something for you and you have exquisitely detailed plans for it. You set fire to the plans then put the ashes in a blender with some Ping-Pong balls and glue, spread the resulting paste on a sheet of paper and hand it to the contractor and say, "here, build this".

The first and worst fault with ascribing agency to an event, even one which was, in fact, due to some agency, is to identify that agent. It might be natural or supernatural (presupposing that there are any supernatural agencies). It might have been accidental or intentional. If intentional, it might have been done using methods that deliberately hide or disguise the intention and the agent as well. Rube Goldberg was adept at designing causal chains to accomplish simple tasks and he was their intelligent intentional creator. That does not, however, even vaguely suggest, except to someone predisposed in a particular way, that any part of the universe had such an intelligent, intentional agent; it just looks and feels that way to those who wish it were so.

" Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” The question is wrong and so the expected answer is also wrong. The cosmos shows not one sign that it was made for us and, by implication, for all the little Devonian clams and Precambrian Stromatolites. The comfort of those animals, in their time, might seem to have been God's main concern. But, had there not been some spectacular accidents like an asteroid strike sixty-five million years before many people think the Earth existed, mankind would not have appeared on this planet that people like to think was created and cultivated just for him. "Some design, eh?" (CH)

So, no, although the hypothetical God could have "crafted" the cosmos this way, He didn't. There are no toolmarks on it.

Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

That is completely irrelevant to the hypothetical creator. Hawking knows the answer to his own question; the singularity blossomed into a geometric/mathematical entity. That is why there is a close association between mathematics and the physical world and it is why the flaming equations describe the universe.

Our picture of the universe will always be incomplete because we have natural limitations, but we do know from the history of science that God has failed to fill a great many of the knowledge cracks and crevices that people thought He did. Further, no gap has yet been found to have any God in it. We, therefore, have reason to suspect strongly that the God conjecture does not fill the ever-narrowing remaining gaps either.

Barry Parker (cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

Yes, the argument from personal incredulity can seem both profound and penetrating.

Girlfriend: Why is there air?
Cosby: "Why is there air?" There's air to blow up volley-balls, blow up basket-balls... Call me dumb, man, you don't even know why there's air!

What more response is needed to someone, scientist or otherwise, who says "I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”? Well, I feel a need for Drambuie in the universe and in my own life!

Wernher von Braun merely restated the argument from personal incredulity and inadequate imagination.
According to him, the universe seems to be rational (which I take to mean, it follows laws that lead naturally to a mix of regularity and randomness) but he cannot imagine any reason why this is the case other than a supernatural ("superior") intelligence.

Probably apocryphal: von Braun and a Nazi general were standing by a railing at Peenemunde surveying preparations for the first rocket flight into the stratosphere. The general says "Herr Doctor, some scientists speculate that, Hydrogen being lighter than plain air, has risen to stratospheric levels and formed a thick layer there. They are very concerned that sending a flaming rocket that high might set the very atmosphere on fire and incinerate us all." von Braun responded "Vee shall zoon know."

It takes a person with some Moxie to, in effect, contradict a clutch of eminent scientists. All that was quoted from them was opinion and conjecture and feelings, with a couple of wishful thinking items thrown in. They did not substantiate their surmises and supposes with anything like objective evidence.

"If you dislike reality so much, you are free to leave. ... I see that many of you have already done so."

[Smellyoldgit]

Sternwallow wrote

I feel a need for Drambuie in the universe and in my own life!

You were just testing me all along! - good job I read the lot eh?

I note the visiting dipshit was quick to copy & paste the standard few opinions that may be interpreted as supporting his 'ideas' - they're found doing the rounds on many of the standard creationist/IDiot webshites.
Perhaps he'll now research and present the tens of thousands of quotes that kick his preconceptions firmly in his shrivelled bollocks.

[Sternwallow]

Godlovesyou wrote

why do you think it was a accident, and why inevitable ?

An accident because it shows no intentionality. Inevitable because there was no-one around to avoid or prevent it. Or, for you sticklers, if there was someone around, they did not avoid or prevent it.

[Sternwallow]

Godlovesyou wrote

and i guess, that makes any further discussion between us senseless
Your bias has been exposed, no reasonable argument would make you change your mind.

Not so. But I have yet to see reasonable arguments from you. What you have presented as arguments are either trite and boring or revealed as invalid decades, if not centuries ago.

In this forum I have changed my opinion and viewpoint on several issues due to considering verifiable information that was new to me.

I used to think that there were no Wookies on Earth, but Goulslime's description of some of his dates has convinced me differently.

Try us with something new, original and carefully considered, like my hypothesis that all of the critical parameters are interdependent like Pi and e.

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

Precisely because a different value is defined by a different universe.

So is it the universe to define the cosmological constant, or is the cosmological constant in place to define the expansion rate, and therefore creating the universe ?

Yes, that is what it means to be non-variable. The cosmological constant is not a freely turnable knob on a console somewhere, it is completely constrained by the existing structure of the universe.

So what physical need is there , the cosmological constant to be the rate it is ?

Put it another way, we do not begin our investigation with a highly precise cosmological constant in-hand, we observe and measure what we can and we find the value. The value is not refined by better mathematics, but by more and more precise measurements.

Again : why could it not be a different value ?

It is acceptable to conveniently refer to the precision of these critical markers as being "fine-tuned" as long as that term is not taken to imply that they are set by some celestial hand.

and what does it not make acceptable to think the fine-tuning could be the result of a fine-tuner ?

This inversion of logic, that the constants determine the structure and not the other way around, is similar to that of demanding to know exactly who it is that enforces the laws of nature.

I don't see any reason why the constants could not be different. Actually, the solar earth system is also finely tuned to life. Despite this, the universe is full of other solar earth systems, all with different values, which are not life permitting. That proves, there is no physical need, these constants to be what they are. Other constants, like the expansion rate of the universe, could be different, but they are not. They are in the exact needed range, to permit the existence of our universe. So your argument is pointless.

I do not oppose anything that science has found out, only your interpretation of the way that some scientists chose to express it.

The list above is not MY interpretation, but already the interpretation of noted scientists. So their opinion is the same as mine.

Again, groups of the parameters can be radically changed and still produce life-tolerant universes.

that is a baseless assertion, and not suportet by science. Prove me wrong.

[Sternwallow]

Smellyoldgit wrote

You were just testing me all along! - good job I read the lot eh?

I note the visiting dipshit was quick to copy & paste the standard few opinions that may be interpreted as supporting his 'ideas' - they're found doing the rounds on many of the standard creationist/IDiot webshites.
Perhaps he'll now research and present the tens of thousands of quotes that kick his preconceptions firmly in his shrivelled bollocks.

Holy crap!!
You actually read that whole pile collection? Only a dram of Drambuie could sustain a brain for that ordeal. So sayeth its author.

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

Continued from post #210

We have already covered why there is something rather than nothing; there is something in places where something has come into existence. The different but related question how something came into existence depends on the something under discussion. If the something is virtual particles, we do not yet know the mechanism involved in their appearance, but we can show that it is not due to a purposeful intelligence or "creator". If the something is the singularity out of which the universe grew, then, applying the prior information we can confidently say that the singularity might have come into existence without a creator, that is, a mindless creator may possibly have done it, but not necessarily.

I don't know how you think, to make a comparison between virtual particles, and the universe, is reasonable.

" If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence." It is trivial to say that life happened in a universe whose characteristics barely enabled and even now hardly tolerates one small locale for human life. For all 13.7 Billion years but the last 100,000, the universe was decidedly NOT built for human life. In this vast "human nurturing" universe, life exists in a tiny area on only one out of 5 x 100 x 400 x Billion x Billion bodies.

Once again science supports my view. And the explanation comes not from a creationist site, but from a atheist, namely astronomer Sir Martin Rees.

Why the Universe is so large

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...large-t249.htm

The tremendous timespans involved in biological evolution offer a new perspective on the question 'why is our Universe so big?' The emergence of human life here on Earth has taken 4.5 billion years. Even before our Sun and its planets could form, earlier stars must have transmuted pristine hydrogen into carbon, oxygen and the other atoms of the periodic table. This has taken about ten billion years. The size of the observable Universe is, roughly, the distance travelled by light since the Big Bang, and so the present visible Universe must be around ten billion light-years across.
The galaxy pair NGC 6872 and IC 4970 indicate the vastness of the Universe. Light from the bright foreground star has taken a few centuries to reach us; the light from the galaxies has been travelling for 300 million years. The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.
This is a startling conclusion. The very hugeness of our Universe, which seems at first to signify how unimportant we are in the cosmic scheme, is actually entailed by our existence! This is not to say that there couldn't have been a smaller universe, only that we could not have existed in it. The expanse of cosmic space is not an extravagant superiority; it's a consequence of the prolonged chain of events, extending back before our Solar System formed, that preceded our arrival on the scene.
This may seem a regression to an ancient 'anthropocentric' perspective - something that was shattered by Copernicus's revelation that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa. But we shouldn't take Copernican modesty (some-times called the 'principle of mediocrity') too far. Creatures like us require special conditions to have evolved, so our perspective is bound to be in some sense atypical. The vastness of our universe shouldn't surprise us, even though we may still seek a deeper explanation for its distinctive features.

Remember that the beginning of the universe there was no plan or goal or intention to ever develop mankind.

Ops! So you were there and made that observation personally ??!

You will probably squawk again "how do you know that?" I know because there was an early stage of true randomness that no organization or plan or design could survive mathematically.

BS. The very own cosmological constants proves you wrong. Even the formation of atoms was made through mindblowing precision.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...y-one-t191.htm

the strength of the strong nuclear force. If it were about two percent weaker, life-essential heavy elements would be unstable. If it were about two percent stronger, then quarks would not form into protons, so there'd be no ordinary matter at all. Two percent either way, and there would be no life.

Considering the fine-tuning of the weak nuclear force for both the rate of radioactive decay as well as the precise value required to allow supernova explosions, it seems conservative to say that it was one chance out of 100 that the weak nuclear force was at the right strength to permit these processes so that life would be possible.

The first and worst fault with ascribing agency to an event, even one which was, in fact, due to some agency, is to identify that agent. It might be natural or supernatural (presupposing that there are any supernatural agencies). It might have been accidental or intentional. If intentional, it might have been done using methods that deliberately hide or disguise the intention and the agent as well. Rube Goldberg was adept at designing causal chains to accomplish simple tasks and he was their intelligent intentional creator. That does not, however, even vaguely suggest, except to someone predisposed in a particular way, that any part of the universe had such an intelligent, intentional agent; it just looks and feels that way to those who wish it were so.

So why are you so sure, if the universe looks designed, and nobody reasoanble can negate this, it is in fact not designed ?

" Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” The question is wrong and so the expected answer is also wrong. The cosmos shows not one sign that it was made for us and, by implication, for all the little Devonian clams and Precambrian Stromatolites.

Science tells a other story, as already shown.

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

The comfort of those animals, in their time, might seem to have been God's main concern. But, had there not been some spectacular accidents like an asteroid strike sixty-five million years before many people think the Earth existed, mankind would not have appeared on this planet that people like to think was created and cultivated just for him. "Some design, eh?" (CH)

It needs a little more than just a asteroid, to create a life permitting planet.

So, no, although the hypothetical God could have "crafted" the cosmos this way, He didn't. There are no toolmarks on it.

So, toolmarks is what you are looking for ? So do you need also toolmarks, to know a piano was manmade ?

That is completely irrelevant to the hypothetical creator. Hawking knows the answer to his own question; the singularity blossomed into a geometric/mathematical entity. That is why there is a close association between mathematics and the physical world and it is why the flaming equations describe the universe.

So why are these elegant equations not evidence of a creator ?

[Davin]

Godlovesyou wrote

So why are these elegant equations not evidence of a creator ?

Because man created the elegant equations, dumb ass.

[Sternwallow]

u-GLY wrote

So is it the universe to define[sic] the cosmological constant, or is the cosmological constant in place to define the expansion rate, and therefore creating the universe ?

With an accelerating expansion, the rate is obviously not constant so let's refer to the cosmological value instead. Now, when your car is moving at 60kph, what parts and relationships among parts of the engine and drive train do you think are specified, designed or constrained by that 60kph figure? Measuring the behavior of the car and its parts yields the value 60, not the other way around. So it is with the expansion rate of the universe.

So what physical need is there , the cosmological constant to be the rate it is[sic] ?

There is no physical need, measurements are descriptions of physical and behavioral characteristics. I have a cube on my desk, each of whose edges is 10cm (I measured it) and which therefore has a liter volume. What is the physical need for that cube to have edges of that size? None at all. Can I change the size of an edge of that cube? No, because measuring such an object would show that it was not a cube and did not have the same liter volume. Of course I can construct a new object totally unrelated to the original cube, one of whose edges is different, but the length of the edges of the original cube is not variable.

Again : why could it not be a different value ?

Again because a different value belongs to a different universe, not ours. In fact, I'll propose that you can determine that you are currently not in our universe if accurate measurement of the various critical parameters turns up a value different from the one we have so far found here.

and[sic] what does it not make acceptable to think the fine-tuning could be the result of a fine-tuner ?

As stated above and before and previously, we do not know that it cannot have a fine tuner, only that, the values being defined by the universe and not the other way around, a tuner, specifically and intelligent and intentional tuner, is not necessarily involved. Therefore, in a discussion, using the term "fine-tuned" is misleading if it is taken to imply an intelligent and intentional tuner; that would make it unacceptable.

I don't see any reason why the constants could not be different. Actually, the solar earth[sic] system is also finely tuned to life.

I dispute that the Solar system is at all tuned to life. Virtually every one of its characteristics is severely hostile to life. Only one planet has life and, if you ignore the Bible, which I recommend, possibly a distant moon. On that one planet, well over 99% is absolutely hostile to any life bigger than a dust mite. Of the surface of that planet, at most 10% will tolerate a few living things. That is 1% of 1% of roughly 0.000000000001% of the Solar system. That is not fine-tuning for life in any book I know of.

Despite this, the universe is full of other solar earth[sic] systems, all with different values, which are not life permitting. That proves, there is no physical need, these constants to be what they are.

Correct, but those different values describe different stellar systems. They are not different values for any one stellar system.

Other constants, like the expansion rate of the universe, could be different, but they are not. They are in the exact needed range, to permit the existence of our universe. So your argument is pointless.

You are wrong again. The constants you refer to are not variable, they cannot be different from what we measure as their value in this universe. Different universes can (some say must) have different values and these different universes do not communicate with each other at all.

The list above is not MY interpretation, but already the interpretation of noted scientists. So their opinion is the same as mine.

I refer specifically to your interpretation of their use of the term and concept of fine tuning as implying an intelligent, intentional guiding hand, which I have shown is not a valid implication (even if it were true).

that[sic] is a baseless assertion, and not suportet[sic] by science. Prove me wrong.

The experiments on differing values of the critical parameters have been performed on subsets rather than on single parameters. The work was done by a physicist, Victor Stenger who I earlier misidentified as Lawrence Krauss.

The latest concoction of the argument from design utilizes the so-called anthropic coincidences to assert that the universe is fine tuned for life. The contention is that a random set of physical constants would have had negligible chance for producing us. Undoubtedly, if the universe were to start again from scratch with random parameters it would not look at all the way it does today. However, it can be shown that the conditions necessary for the evolution of some form of life would have arisen from a wide variation in physical constants.

Of those different universes that would support life, few would be like the human life that we know. That is no drawback since, until just a couple million years ago, our universe didn't support human life either.

[Sternwallow]

GLY, now I am sure you are not a native English speaker. This sentence does not read at all the way you apparently think it does.
"I don't know how you think, to make a comparison between virtual particles, and the universe, is reasonable. "
I think with knowledge and reason. I agree that making a comparison between virtual particles, and the universe, is reasonable.

Seriously, my comparison is not between a single subatomic particle and the whole full-blown universe, it is with the singularity, a tiny speck smaller than any subatomic particle and containing exactly zero energy hence, as Uncle Al tells us, no mass.

What, exactly do you think is more difficult or requires more power in bringing a singularity into existence than a relatively huge and energy-filled subatomic particle?

[Sternwallow]

Remember that the beginning of the universe there was no plan or goal or intention to ever develop mankind.

u-GLY wrote

Ops[sic]! So you were there and made that observation personally ??!

No, I wasn't and neither were you present when your fanciful God spoke the universe into existence. You made an invalid and merely provocative statement.

I have explained in ordinary English, without equations or jargon, exactly why there could have been no plan or design embedded in the structure of the singularity (either inherent or placed their by a creator) that could have any force or effect on the later universe structure or content. This is proven by the uniformity of the CBR.

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

With an accelerating expansion, the rate is obviously not constant so let's refer to the cosmological value instead. Now, when your car is moving at 60kph, what parts and relationships among parts of the engine and drive train do you think are specified, designed or constrained by that 60kph figure? Measuring the behavior of the car and its parts yields the value 60, not the other way around. So it is with the expansion rate of the universe.

In case of the car, its not the car itself to define the velocity, but a outside agent, namely the driver. In case of the universe, how could the universe by itself define the expansionrate ? its not by physical necessity, so ........

There is no physical need, measurements are descriptions of physical and behavioral characteristics.

Therefore you agree, that there is no determining factor of the existing values and constants in the universe. They could be different. AKA non life permitting. But the values are in the life permitting range. Why do you think it is so ? simply because of a lucky accident ? What a admirable faith you need to belief so, and think that is a reasonable and probable scenario. Specially, taking the odds in consideration....

As stated above and before and previously, we do not know that it cannot have a fine tuner, only that, the values being defined by the universe and not the other way around, a tuner, specifically and intelligent and intentional tuner, is not necessarily involved.

so that means, matter/energy can "choose" and the define the right constants needed to create life ? if its not by choice, its by what ? luck ? chance ? what else ?

Therefore, in a discussion, using the term "fine-tuned" is misleading if it is taken to imply an intelligent and intentional tuner; that would make it unacceptable.

Your reasoning is the inverse of logic. Its unlogic and unreasonable.

I dispute that the Solar system is at all tuned to life. Virtually every one of its characteristics is severely hostile to life. Only one planet has life and, if you ignore the Bible, which I recommend, possibly a distant moon. On that one planet, well over 99% is absolutely hostile to any life bigger than a dust mite. Of the surface of that planet, at most 10% will tolerate a few living things. That is 1% of 1% of roughly 0.000000000001% of the Solar system. That is not fine-tuning for life in any book I know of.

Wrong reasoning again. Lets see what it needs to have life on earth.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...ystem-t180.htm

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence. Of the 8 planets + Pluto in our solar system there are 3 that fall within that range, Venus, Earth, and Mars. There is the possibility of some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter being within the range but nothing conclusive. An estimated guess of probability - .4 or 4 out of 10

WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. For reasons that go back to the early beginning of the solar system, the earth is the only planet known with ANY significant amount of water. Of the planets of our solar system only earth meets that requirement. Estimated probability - .1

ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere. Estimated probability - .01

OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life. Mars falls far short in that respect, and so does Venus. The amount of ‘pure’ oxygen in the atmosphere is dependent on many things, like volcanism, thermal activity in the core of the planet, and the amount of metal in the crust. Too much metal would absorb the oxygen in the air in the form of rust and oxidation. Estimated probability - .01

RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue. Estimated probability - .1

THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all. Estimated probability - .3

DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles. Estimated probability - .2

RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity. Estimated probability .5

DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior. Estimated probability - .5

THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer. Earth is the only planet in the solar system with an ozone layer. Estimated probability - .1

VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place. Mars once had such activity, but appears to be inactive now. Estimated probability - .3

EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field. Mars does not have a field and thus, most of its atmosphere and water were ‘blown away’ early in its life by the solar wind. Estimated probability - .2

SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate. Mars has seasons but little atmosphere. Other planets have extreme tilts. Estimated probability - .2

THE MOON: Most people don’t think of the moon as necessary for life. We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history. Estimated probability - .0001

all that makes it extremely unlikely to have life by pure chance.

Correct, but those different values describe different stellar systems. They are not different values for any one stellar system.
You are wrong again. The constants you refer to are not variable, they cannot be different from what we measure as their value in this universe.

you contradict yourself. Above you admit the constants can be different than they are.

Different universes can (some say must) have different values and these different universes do not communicate with each other at all.

Other values, for example of the cosmological constant = no universe.

I refer specifically to your interpretation of their use of the term and concept of fine tuning as implying an intelligent, intentional guiding hand, which I have shown is not a valid implication (even if it were true).

You have only shown wrong reasoning.

The experiments on differing values of the critical parameters have been performed on subsets rather than on single parameters. The work was done by a physicist, Victor Stenger who I earlier misidentified as Lawrence Krauss.
Of those different universes that would support life, few would be like the human life that we know. That is no drawback since, until just a couple million years ago, our universe didn't support human life either.

Based on what scientific evidence do you believe multiverses exist ?

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

GLY, now I am sure you are not a native English speaker. This sentence does not read at all the way you apparently think it does.
"I don't know how you think, to make a comparison between virtual particles, and the universe, is reasonable. "
I think with knowledge and reason. I agree that making a comparison between virtual particles, and the universe, is reasonable.

Sorry for my bad english, i just made a 3 month english course 20 years ago.
So please explain, why you think comparing bananas with pine apple makes sense to you.

What, exactly do you think is more difficult or requires more power in bringing a singularity into existence than a relatively huge and energy-filled subatomic particle?

I cannot answer you, unless you explain to me, what exactly a " a relatively huge and energy-filled subatomic particle " is. How huge is it, btw ?

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

Remember that the beginning of the universe there was no plan or goal or intention to ever develop mankind.

Wow !! And how do you know that ?

I have explained in ordinary English, without equations or jargon, exactly why there could have been no plan or design embedded in the structure of the singularity (either inherent or placed their by a creator) that could have any force or effect on the later universe structure or content. This is proven by the uniformity of the CBR.

how exactly is it proven ?

[Sternwallow]

Gly, this statement is wrong:
"BS. The very own[sic] cosmological constants proves you wrong. Even the formation of atoms was made through mindblowing precision. "
The limitations of the human mind are not at issue here.
Even the arrangement of electrons around a nucleus is not precise, it is a cloud of probabilities within which an electron can be in all possible locations simultaneously. Atoms are not built on an assembly line by skilled craftsmen working from a big blueprint taped to the wall with all the required dimensions and tolerances written out. They are constructed and deconstructed billions of times in an incredibly hot hailstorm of component particles, under unimaginable pressures and temperatures.

So, no, atoms are not "made through mindblowing precision". They are made the way they are and we discover precision after the fact when we measure them. When we accumulate enough similar measurements (and none contrary), we generalize that parameter to apply universally and we marvel at the apparent but not actual design we imagine.