A Bio Genesis

@humy said
You missed the point; We have no rational reason to suppose your above assertion is true.
Show us evidence and/or a logical reason to think that the laws of physics were intelligently designed by your particular brand of imagined god...

If there were no rhyme or reason for the universe, no logic in it, no purpose, no laws you'd never be able to pull anything out that had a rhyme or reason, logic, or purpose.

@kellyjay said
If there were no rhyme or reason for the universe, no logic in it, no purpose, no laws you'd never be able to pull anything out that had a rhyme or reason, logic, or purpose.

I have read your above assertion slowly several times over and it doesn't seem to make absolutely no grammatical sense or any other kind of sense and I honestly have absolutely no idea what you are saying here. What has a "rhyme" got to do with it?
What does "no laws you'd never be able to pull anything out" mean? To you, "pull anything out" in this context means...what, exactly?
And I am not saying there are "no laws".
Can you rephrase it to make it much more clear?

@kellyjay said
You missed the point, the reason you can learn such things is due to how is was made, it was created with design, planning, reasoning behind it. Laws are fixed, they don't fluctuate without cause. So we can see the logic behind them due to how it was made, but these laws don't explain the universe, Newton said as much.

“The planets and comets will constantly pursue their ...[text shortened]... proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.(Principia, “General Scholium,” 1713)”

Newton also stuck needles in his eyes to see what happened and believed in astrology and alchemy.

@humy said
I have read your above assertion slowly several times over and it doesn't seem to make absolutely no grammatical sense or any other kind of sense and I honestly have absolutely no idea what you are saying here. What has a "rhyme" got to do with it?
What does "no laws you'd never be able to pull anything out" mean? To you, "pull anything out" in this context means...what, exactly?
And I am not saying there are "no laws".
Can you rephrase it to make it much more clear?

A designed universe has a purpose and reason for everything, including how the laws are dialed in. Nothing would be meaningless without cause and support.

With no meaning, no purpose, nothing keeping it all functional. There would be nothing meaningful to learn, no constants. Your designs are always with goals in mind, always function with error checking to remain viable?

@kellyjay said
With no meaning, no purpose, nothing keeping it all functional.

What do you mean by that sentence? It's not grammatically correct as an assertion because, as it stands with its current exact order of words, its not actually asserting anything in particular and, because I am not a mind reader, I don't know what you are trying to assert here. Should "nothing" be "there is nothing"? And what does "it" refer to here? The whole universe? And "meaning" in what sense if some other sense other than "purpose"?

There would be nothing meaningful to learn, no constants.

In what sense would something having no 'purpose' mean you cannot learn something "meaningful" about it? Its not "meaningful" in what sense? Is E=MC^2 not "meaningful" without the universe having a 'purpose' and what is stopping us from learning it (E=MC^2) if the universe has no 'purpose'?
And what do you mean by "constants" in the above? What kind of "constants"? Maths? Physical? Or what? If physical constants, how or why would there be no physical constants if there is no 'purpose' to the universe?

Your designs are always with goals in mind, always function with error checking to remain viable?

Don't understand your above question; "Your designs" of what? "checking" what kind of "error" and of what exactly? What is "viable" and in what sense? What are your referring to and, if not referring to the whole universe, what has it got to do with the whole universe?

You repeatedly seem unable to grammatically correctly and clearly assert whatever it is you are trying to say. Are you even aware of that?

@humy said
What do you mean by that sentence? It's not grammatically correct as an assertion because, as it stands with its current exact order of words, its not actually asserting anything in particular and, because I am not a mind reader, I don't know what you are trying to assert here. Should "nothing" be "there is nothing"? And what does "it" refer to here? The whole universe? And "mea ...[text shortened]... cally correctly and clearly assert whatever it is you are trying to say. Are you even aware of that?

You write code don't you?

@kellyjay said
You write code don't you?

Yes. I am a computer programmer. So what?

@humy said
Yes. I am a computer programmer. So what?

The language you use and the operating system your working with have to be compatible, science can only be done in a universe that is setup for it.

If the universe didn't have fixed laws so that things never behaved the same way for the same reasons it would be impossible.

@kellyjay said
The language you use and the operating system your working with have to be compatible, science can only be done in a universe that is setup for it.

If the universe didn't have fixed laws so that things never behaved the same way for the same reasons it would be impossible.

So the universe has fixed laws. What has that got to do with it? There is no evidence or rational reason to think the universe is likely a computer language or a computer operating system (if that is what you are saying?). Why must those fixed laws have been intelligently designed with 'purpose'? Where is the contradiction in them NOT being intelligently designed? How would you expect to observe things to be any different if the universe was NOT intelligently designed?

@humy said
So the universe has fixed laws. What has that got to do with it? There is no evidence or rational reason to think the universe is likely a computer language or a computer operating system (if that is what you are saying?). Why must those fixed laws have been intelligently designed with 'purpose'? Where is the contradiction in them NOT being intelligently designed? How would you expect to observe things to be any different if the universe was NOT intelligently designed?

You just assume universe should have fixed laws, why? From the way the universe is setup at the macro levels and micro levels, then we get to life, and you see how it is setup, how it all works together this is just accepted without a thought of the grandeur of it all.

If it were not setup by design then why would it all work in a consistent manner, let along having it all the powers and pieces work in concert with each other.

@kellyjay said
You just assume universe should have fixed laws, why?

because all observations thus so far of the universe indicate it has fixed laws and I have no reason to think it shouldn't (I assume what you mean by "fixed" here is constant i.e. not changing with time?). As for 'why' the laws are fixed rather than not fixed, we may be just a brute fact that they are fixed. If it isn't a brute fact, then I don't know why. I also don't know many other things but that doesn't mean Goddidit. by far the most rational and intelligent response to not knowing (something) is just humbly admit ignorance. Better and much more intelligent to humbly admit ignorance and have no opinion on something than to arrogantly base one's opinion on something on ignorance.
No opinion due to insufficient data is a perfectly valid position and often the only right one.

From the way the universe is setup at the macro levels and micro levels, then we get to life, and you see how it is setup, how it all works together this is just accepted without a thought of the grandeur of it all.

Wrong. I and others do give a thought of the 'grandeur' of it all. Don't know what 'grandeur' has to do with it though.

If it were not setup by design then why would it all work in a consistent manner,

It obeys the laws of physics and it cannot be that the law of physics contradict each other because there cannot be logical contradictions in physical reality else such a contradiction would imply that physical reality cannot exist and yet we observe it does exist. Given that is the case, it would be a big mystery if it didn't all appear to work in a "consistent manner"!

My above missedit;
"..., we may be just a brute fact that they are fixed."
was supposed it be
"..., it may be just a brute fact that they are fixed."

@humy said
because all observations thus so far of the universe indicate it has fixed laws and I have no reason to think it shouldn't (I assume what you mean by "fixed" here is constant i.e. not changing with time?). As for 'why' the laws are fixed rather than not fixed, we may be just a brute fact that they are fixed. If it isn't a brute fact, then I don't know why. I also don't know many ...[text shortened]... hat is the case, it would be a big mystery if it didn't all appear to work in a "consistent manner"!

My point is that the universe works as if it were a watch, you screw with some of things in it no life, even small tweaks ends all possibility of life. Life itself is something that if you thought about just that, all of the necessary ingredients for it all had to be in the same place, at the same time, all of them had to be in the proper quantities, they all had to be mixed together just right stopping where it needed to stop then starting where it needed to start for only as long as is required, all of this had to be done within a proper environment, and all the while the host of things that could have gone wrong didn't. You think this is all what luck, good fortune, a godless happy string of life making events, life continuing events, so that life could evolve into something more advance by a process that doesn't care how it turns out? None of this just seems like a bit much to you?

@kellyjay said
My point is that the universe works as if it were a watch, you screw with some of things in it no life, even small tweaks ends all possibility of life. Life itself is something that if you thought about just that, all of the necessary ingredients for it all had to be in the same place, at the same time, all of them had to be in the proper quantities, they all had to be mixed ...[text shortened]... nce by a process that doesn't care how it turns out? None of this just seems like a bit much to you?

What doesn't compute, from a scientific standpoint, is magic. Trees appearing fully formed without growth rings. People without parents or belly buttons. If it were all meant to be - designed, pre-programmed, clock work universe stuff, an intelligent being who defined physical constants and time - that still doesn't invalidate abiogenesis.

Maybe it did happen as you imagine it. It can't be proven so the possibility doesn't belong within the realm of scientific inquiry.

@wildgrass said
What doesn't compute, from a scientific standpoint, is magic. Trees appearing fully formed without growth rings. People without parents or belly buttons. If it were all meant to be - designed, pre-programmed, clock work universe stuff, an intelligent being who defined physical constants and time - that still doesn't invalidate abiogenesis.

Maybe it did happen as you imagine it. It can't be proven so the possibility doesn't belong within the realm of scientific inquiry.

The realm of scientific inquiry is a search for truth is not, which would look into whatever is true. If you are not interested in truth, but instead use it to protect an ideology, you use it with blinders on.