Why are things the way they are....

Wow, that's some three OP's in a week, and not a single one has disappeared !! [yet] So Mgmt, I suppose you must have a whole new crew to replace those 6 old ladies sittin' 'round that table....

Just kiddin, again, Mgmt, I realize what a tough job

This may provide more questions than answers. Like "Why are roses beautiful to human beings' eyes?" "Why is it that the smell of a certain food or the sound of a certain song can make us have a feeling in the area of our heart?"
This is the way I see things - With my eyes. That in itself is quite remarkable.
All the scientists in all the world, with all their latest knowledge and gizmo-gadgets cannot make a butterfly that can find it's way to a particular flower. Much less build a nano-particle seed that will grow a flower.
With their finest instruments scientists look inward and outward discovering what God has made. There. I wrote it. Whether some believe it or not , or like it or not ( which they are free to do ) this place where you and I live is "one nation, under God".
For anyone who doesn't understand the "big bang" theory, that means that scientists, after studying the motion of stars, have concluded that they are all moving away from each other ( "expanding universe " ) , thus proving that all matter originated from one point. To me, that doesn't contradict or disprove
the idea that God spoke the universe into existence by saying "Let there be LIGHT !"

Protagoras c450 BC

The first level of measurement is 'nominal' i.e 'naming something' or jointly attributing thinghood to what we see as significant aspects of our human experience. And as our experiences develop with our cognitive evolution, 'significance' changes.
If 'man' was different, 'things' would be different.
It's as simple as that !

S'okay Pond

Good q Pond oft asked myself. Technically I suppose it's evolution. The girls liked to be f'd more by the boys who were more cheerful and drawn to nature

........
Interesting you should so observe. Science has long pondered the q, why the brain, the eyes, etc, are so much more elaborate than need be for mere survival

Indeed well put. They can't even solve the smallest simplest probs, such as the jumpin' up nd down of this window, or correst the obvious missp of 'and'


Pond like I said you put things well. But can you help me convince the Software Morons to somehow put a stop to all that jumpin'

But: Why doesn't She do something about all those software glitches


No it doesn't but it doesn't prove either

To be sure

Not so sure

Maybe God puts the glitches in there to keep us from thinkin' we're so smart.

Wasn't it The Devil

Sometimes he puts, and sometimes he allows glitches.

I like your thinking on the possibility that all the fine tuned parameters of physics had to be the values we see in order to achieve equalibrium. Lots of physicists more qualified than me have said that they see no reason that had to be the case, but they could be wrong.

On that possibility I could discount the possibility of design in the fine tuning argument.

But! The domain of biology/genetics calls for a completely different sort of 'tuning' in that it requires a precise organization of parameters that cannot be explained by the 'laws' of physics. I do not mean the individual chemical processes of biology, I mean the orchestration of them which requires multiple levels of encoding. And we KNOW this encoding is not arbitrary, it has a syntax that cannot be explained by the laws of physics.

One level of 'natural' fine tuning I could discount as happenstance but these multiple levels of 'fine tuning' stretch my credibility to the breaking point. Somebody who knew what they were doing left their fingerprints all over this place.

. Those same physicists that see no reason the parameters had to be what they are, also cannot give us a reason why we even experience gravity the strong nuclear force the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. It's kind of like asking a blind person why Can I see and they say I see no reason for seeing. So now that blind person has no reason for asking for a reason. If you don't ask the question you won't get an answer.

I'm not sure if you are implying those physicists are blind or I am. But I think the physicists had good reason to question the inevitability of those atomic force values, not to mention the speed of light.

The possibility of variation of those values is what gave rise to the idea of 'multiverses'. They need to exist (at least in their mind) in order to dispose of the appearance of design.

I am not saying you're blind. You once were blind, and now you see. I am giving an analogy to you and others, so maybe each everyone can come to understand your frustration with the scientific community doing that is doing the advanced research in particle physics, relativity, and evolutionary biology. They are highly intelligent gifted researchers, that have worked hard inside the system that has developed over years of consensus interpretation of data. They now have complete authority over the system and how the data is interpreted because of consensus wit their peers.

You and i are supporting that consensus with our tax dollars, and by submitting to how the educational system in our country is run. We agree with almost every interpretation of the scientific data that is provided by them, basically because most interpretations are straight forward and true. But their consensus interpretation that there is no designer is not true. You are right to point out that the complexity being revealed by evolutionary biology has (to a reasonable person) proven that interpretation wrong, and is vividly portraying the bigotry of the scientific community. I have a very good understanding of QM, relativity, and entropic gravity. I have completed the model of entropic gravity in my mind, and can picture it. It is going to reveal layers of complexity in space and matter that will rival that being revealed by evolutionary biology. The only thing slowing the development of entropic gravity and evolutionary biology is bigotry.

A blind person can be content not knowing how important sight was to developing the elevator they are riding in as they head to the top floor of skyscraper. But, not knowing and not needing to know and even taking it faith is ok. Denying that the person next to them in the elevator can see, and that ability to see is important to the elevator operating in the skyscraper is not good. Telling every other blind person they don't have know and should not be educated about sight in school is more wrong. Telling scientists we shouldn't even be looking for cures to blindness is down right evil.

Maybe a few people who can see should get to join the group of peers, instead of the blind leading the people who can see. And maybe the people who can see should take the time to educate themselves so they deserve a seat at the table and then, fight for it.

Believers are such self deprecating weenies sometimes.

Golly Foot, Lead, but you've made my day if not the entire week

Yea, Lead, and still awful bothersome since the very existence of such a complex humanoid does in fact strongly suggest some sort of 'intelligent' design

Sure as hell hafta agree. The big q is, if things the way they are, is the result of a cosmic evolution, how could the humanoid have been so important to the whole process as to be one of its ends

I've thought about this a lot and I'm mystified. I can only conclude as an apodictical existential pantheist that She is a perfectly natural phenom, and then so are we

Foot, again, I hear ya; as this very thought had occurred to me too. Shows how smart we both are. However, I doubt it [not that we're smart but that infinite no.] since there's a general rule that says the more complicated theory is probly wrong

But Brian the pantheist responds that there is or is not a design, there is or is not a God, is mostly a grammatical matter, that She [He/It] is All; that all the controversy about Her existence/Design is nonsense

I'd agree the 'scientific community' suffers the same prob as the rest of us: that they can't escape a certain humanoid 'logic' that would place God as one entity and the Universe as another. Dualism is just a way we have of thinkin', and it's wrong...another way of sayinin', yes, Kub, Science is in that way fullavit

But you must followup using language more in line with the understanding of the Average Clod [me]

...so, I'd write a book, except 1. at 86 with Alzie's, (a) I don't have time, (b) why bother if tomorrow morn I might wake up dead; and 2. I'm not sdmart enough

...although you are, I'm sure; no not bein' facetious, really mean it. When someone agrees with me he must be smart, maybe much more than me

I refuse to believe that there aren't believing scientists working in the mainstream community that are just too afraid to stick their neck do some research that is honest enough to ask the right questions so we can get the right answers.

Brilliant obs, Brian. First they hafta 'stand how they haft learn a new way tyo think, not dualistic with Her on the one hand and the Universe oyn t'other

https://able2know.org/topic/416721-1

Who is she?
Do you know?

She's It, All, Everything, the Universe