Originally posted by dryhump
This begs the question, what is spirituality? Or, if you prefer, what do you consider true spirituality?

That is a question that has bugged me for decades. I know it's not in how many beads you run through your finger. I know it's not loving an insane christian god. I know a lot about what it isn't.

We may even yet figure out how to get to the core of our being through science. I think learning about the core of our being, like proving without a doubt we have or don't have souls would be one big advance in the spiritual area.

Maybe we will bootstrap ourselves up spiritually speaking someday. It for sure will not come about by worshiping some man made insane god.

Originally posted by humy
I am afraid you have fallen victim to the all-to-extremely-common fallacy of probability by the layperson who hasn't studied ( and correctly understood ) the science of probability theory like I have:

Since we do not know that it is possible (let alone probable) to have a universe with cosmological constants being different from what they are house should have put this thread in the science forum.
perhaps he put it here by mistake?

Before I say anything, I want to say I agree with you on this point, and am glad you are making it, so that you don't read this reply looking for anything other than that.

As for what Epi proposed, I would not consider that to be an opinion of Epi's, so much as it is an "entry" in the little contest I proposed for theistic responses to Sonny's OP. Whether Epi believes it is beside the point.

Here is where I agree with you and want to extend the point a little. There is a rich and sometimes convoluted literature on the subject of conceivability versus possibility. To put it roughly, it is a mistake to think that because something is conceivable, it is possible. We can DEFINE conceivability this way, such that, only possible things can be said to be conceivable, but then we have to have another word, for flights of fancy that we later find to have been not only not actual, but not possible, all along. One can conceive of many worlds where life can, and cannot, abide, but this act does not make any of them possible.

This discussion might belong in Science, but there may also be implications for spirituality, if only to emphasize the limits of thought. It is a limit of thought, that conceivability does not entail possibility.

Originally posted by JS357
Before I say anything, I want to say I agree with you on this point, and am glad you are making it, so that you don't read this reply looking for anything other than that.

As for what Epi proposed, I would not consider that to be an opinion of Epi's, so much as it is an "entry" in the little contest I proposed for theistic responses to Sonny's OP. Whether E ...[text shortened]... mits of thought. It is a limit of thought, that conceivability does not entail possibility.

I like that concept. Conceivability vs possibility. This is turning more into science, I was thinking of the spiritual aspect of finding life elsewhere, what it would mean for philosophy and such.

I know there are discussions about the many universe idea, where the cosmological constants are different, maybe only a little bit different, but different, where a black hole in our universe could be the begetting of another entire universe and ours coming from a black hole in yet another parent universe and so forth.

They imagine whole universes with no possibility for matter much less life, just how the constants would play out.

I think as far as we can tell, the constants of our universe are pretty much the same everywhere in our estimated 50 billion light year bubble (some of the universe is beyond our ability to see because the universe expanded faster than the speed of light so we can never see all of it)

But even if these constants are different in different parts of the universe, there still is a vast volume of space, billions of light years across, with exactly the same stuff as we here on earth, the fine constant at 1/127, gravitational constant just the same as here, etc.

That leaves open possibilities for life elsewhere just by the fact that we have life here and with carbon being carbon being carbon and so forth, statistically it is not zero probability we can find life elsewhere.

Of course at this time it is more speculation than reality in spite of the fact we may have the odd meteorite with fascinating amino acids in them.

If we find a fossil bone in a meteorite, that would be a game changer for sure, of course the religious set would say it would be fake but that's another story.

I keep waiting for one of the mars probes to see a thigh bone sticking out of a rock....

I am not holding my breath however🙂

Originally posted by humy
I am afraid you have fallen victim to the all-to-extremely-common fallacy of probability by the layperson who hasn't studied ( and correctly understood ) the science of probability theory like I have:

Since we do not know that it is possible (let alone probable) to have a universe with cosmological constants being different from what they are ...[text shortened]... house should have put this thread in the science forum.
perhaps he put it here by mistake?

Since we do not know that it is possible (let alone probable) to have a universe with cosmological constants being different from what they are in our universe, we cannot deduce anything whatsoever about the probability of the cosmological constants being different (let alone significantly different) from what they are.

Why is it necessary to know that other universes with different constants exist before we calculate the probability of a universe arising that is fine-tuned for life? It is completely reasonable, despite having no knowledge of the possibility of the universe being different than it is, to assign values to the various constants and determine the precision necessary for a universe, like ours, being thermodynamically suited for life. Scientists from Penrose to Hawking have engaged in such calculations without ever observing alien universes...

There is no evidence that the cosmological constants could have been different from what they are so, therefore, for all we know, it could be inevitable that cosmological constants are what they are and are what they are due to merely the limits of what is possible.

Certainly it is possible that the cosmological constants are as they are due to necessity. So? Following your expert opinion (above), shouldn't we conclude that since there is no evidence of any other universes besides our own displaying the exact same constants as our own, then there is no evidence nor reason to believe in the existence of "necessity" either?

Hence there is absolutely no evidence nor reason to believe in the existence of 'fine-tuning'.

Nor the other alternatives, it seems.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Since we do not know that it is possible (let alone probable) to have a universe with cosmological constants being different from what they are in our universe, we cannot deduce anything whatsoever about the probability of the cosmological constants being different (let alone significantly different) from what they are.

Why is it necessa ...[text shortened]... to believe in the existence of 'fine-tuning'.[/b]

Nor the other alternatives, it seems.[/b]

“...Why is it necessary to know that other universes with different constants exist before we calculate the probability of a universe arising that is fine-tuned for life? ...”

I didn't say that! I think you can be forgiven for misreading what I said for, if you read my statement fast, you may read it as if I said “other universes” rather than “a universe”! Let me say that statement again but with emphasis and extra bracketed comment:

“....Since we do not know that it is possible (let alone probable) to have A UNIVERSE (not “OTHER universes”; not referring to the possibility of other universes here) with cosmological constants being different from what they are ...( ...the rest like before... ) ” (my comment)

“...having no knowledge of the possibility of the universe being different than it is, to assign values to the various constants and determine the precision necessary for a universe , like ours, being thermodynamically suited for life. ...”

of course it is reasonable. I never said nor implied it was unreasonable to determine such a thing. But that tells us nothing about the possibility let alone probability of it being outside those range of values that permit life.

“...Certainly it is possible that the cosmological constants are as they are due to necessity. So? Following your expert opinion (above), shouldn't we conclude that since there is no evidence of any other universes besides our own displaying the exact same constants as our own, then there is no evidence nor reason to believe in the existence of "necessity" either? ...”

don't follow your reasoning here: where you say “...the existence of "necessity" either? “ at the end of that above statement, which type of “necessity” are you referring to?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/necessity
“...
necessity [nɪˈsɛsɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. (sometimes plural) something needed for a desired result; prerequisite necessities of life
2. a condition or set of circumstances, such as physical laws or social rules, that inevitably requires a certain result it is a matter of necessity to wear formal clothes when meeting the Queen
3. the state or quality of being obligatory or unavoidable
4. urgent requirement, as in an emergency or misfortune in time of necessity we must all work together
5. poverty or want
6. Rare compulsion through laws of nature; fate
7. (Philosophy) Philosophy
a.  a condition, principle, or conclusion that cannot be otherwise
b.  the constraining force of physical determinants on all aspects of life Compare freedom [8]
8. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic
a.  the property of being necessary
b.  a statement asserting that some property is essential or statement is necessarily true
c.  the operator that indicates that the expression it modifies is true in all possible worlds. Usual symbol ☐, ∟
of necessity inevitably; necessarily “

and why would it matter to my argument if that type of "necessity" (whichever type you are referencing here) does not exist ?

Originally posted by FMF
"God enjoys making fools" of certain people? Do you know of any other Christians who seek to project this particular trait onto the 'personality' of their "God" figure?

God makes me laugh when I see it happen; and since I enjoy it, I figure He
must enjoy it , too.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It would be incredibly uplifting to find life elsewhere in the universe or our solar system, intelligent life would bring a spiritual awakening of a non-religious nature, that is to say non organized religion which I feel is ALL bogus. True spirituality has nothing in common with organized religion which is just a power center.

If Christ returns with His angels before you die, then perhaps you will be
uplifted. Who knows? HalleluYah!!!

Originally posted by JS357
"You on the other hand have a religon that must wait and wait forever until one thing
after another accidently pops into existence and eventually accidentiy turns
into something complicated enough to reproduce itself."

I don't, but I can see how you would think I do.

I am glad you can see something. 😏

Originally posted by humy
I am afraid you have fallen victim to the all-to-extremely-common fallacy of probability by the layperson who hasn't studied ( and correctly understood ) the science of probability theory like I have:

Since we do not know that it is possible (let alone probable) to have a universe with cosmological constants being different from what they are ...[text shortened]... house should have put this thread in the science forum.
perhaps he put it here by mistake?

He put it here on purpose to challenge all of us Christians who believe the
Son of God created our universe and all living creatures on the Earth. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
God makes me laugh when I see it happen; and since I enjoy it, I figure He
must enjoy it , too.

Do you know of any other Christians who seek to project this particular 'personality' trait onto their "God" figure?

Originally posted by humy
“...Why is it necessary to know that other universes with different constants exist before we calculate the probability of a universe arising that is fine-tuned for life? ...”

I didn't say that! I think you can be forgiven for misreading what I said for, if you read my statement fast, you may read it as if I said “other universes” rather than ...[text shortened]... if that type of "necessity" (whichever type you are referencing here) does not exist ?

don't follow your reasoning here: where you say “...the existence of "necessity" either? “ at the end of that above statement, which type of “necessity” are you referring to?

I'm referring to the necessity you've been arguing for, i.e., your contention that the universe is the way it is because it couldn't have been otherwise.

Remember, the standard you have set for deeming fine-tuning reasonable ("...there is no... reason to believe in 'fine-tuning'." ) is nothing less than the observation of another universe with different constants ("short of actually finding another universe with different constants..." ). It follows, then, that neither is there reason to believe in necessity (i.e., "cosmological constants are what they are... due to merely the limits of what is possible." ) since we have never observed another universe with the exact same cosmological constants as our own.

and why would it matter to my argument if that type of "necessity" (whichever type you are referencing here) does not exist ?

It renders your argument moot. If we must, according to you, disregard 'fine-tuning' because we don't know if the universe could be different than it is, then we must also disregard necessity for the same reason. After all, how do we know the universe is the way it is "due to merely the limits of what is possible"? Where is your corroborating universe?
__________

BTW, fine-tuning doesn't imply 'design'. Fine-tuning is what physicists observe about the universe we know; a neutral distinction based on the precision of the cosmological constants and physical laws necessary for our universe to be as it is. Fine-tuning is a fact. Ideas like design and necessity, as well as the various multiverse theories, are meant to explain the fine-tuning that we do observe.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you know of any other Christians who seek to project this particular 'personality' trait onto their "God" figure?

I think I remember another Christian say, "God is probably laughing."

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think I remember another Christian say, "God is probably laughing."

Is it a tenet or principle of Christianity to portray your God figure with this trait? As a matter of interest, does it have a scriptural basis?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]don't follow your reasoning here: where you say “...the existence of "necessity" either? “ at the end of that above statement, which type of “necessity” are you referring to?

I'm referring to the necessity you've been arguing for, i.e., your contention that the universe is the way it is because it couldn't have been otherwise.

Remembe ...[text shortened]... verse theories, are meant to explain the fine-tuning that we do observe.[/b]

Are you saying the fine tuning could have happened by accident just like the
production of matter into an orderly fashion from a "big Bang" explosion or
whatever the current athesitic view on how the universe began?

Originally posted by FMF
Is it a tenet or principle of Christianity to portray your God figure with this trait? As a matter of interest, does it have a scriptural basis?

I think some of the Psalms sing of God laughing. I will see if I can find one.