FMF's BETTER explanation IS . . .

@moonbus said
The universe is not fine tuned for life. Most of the universe is cold, dark, and inimical to life. All of it, in fact, except for one minuscule fleck, so far as we know at this time.

I don't believe anyone is saying most of the universe is fine-tuned for life everywhere, only for here.

@moonbus said
The universe is not fine tuned for life. Most of the universe is cold, dark, and inimical to life. All of it, in fact, except for one minuscule fleck, so far as we know at this time.

We are like atoms on a dot {Earth], on a football [the Milky Way], which is in the USA [the universe]. Those atoms cannot possibly know what is going on on dots and footballs all over the USA. God and his heavenly host are all out there creating worlds by the billions, and the universe is teeming with intelligent life forms many billions of years old.

@kellyjay said
I don't believe anyone is saying most of the universe is fine-tuned for life everywhere, only for here.

Well, then it makes even less sense. J. Warner Wallace was claiming in the video you linked that if various parameters and constants did not hold for billions and billions and billions of galaxies in the whole universe, then we would not be here. The universe was not designed for us. That is so far beyond megalomania that words fail. No one but ourselves wanted us to be here.

@moonbus said
Well, then it makes even less sense. J. Warner Wallace was claiming in the video you linked that if various parameters and constants did not hold for billions and billions and billions of galaxies in the whole universe, then we would not be here. The universe was not designed for us. That is so far beyond megalomania that words fail. No one but ourselves wanted us to be here.

Really, why is that? For the universe to exist, all things mentioned had to be true and consistent. Why would 'megalomania' come into play? It isn't like the One who could speak the universe into being would be hindered or overwhelmed by making it bigger or smaller in any fashion; its size and complexity would mean nothing to Him; we are the ones that deal with perspectives.

@kellyjay said
Really, why is that? For the universe to exist, all things mentioned had to be true and consistent. Why would 'megalomania' come into play? It isn't like the One who could speak the universe into being would be hindered or overwhelmed by making it bigger or smaller in any fashion; its size and complexity would mean nothing to Him; we are the ones that deal with perspectives.

It's not about whether God would have been hindered; ex hypothesi, an omnipotent Being is not hindered.

For the universe to exist, all things mentioned had to be true and consistent.

Negative. Allegedly, God created a garden with trees in it, from one day to the next. If Adam had cut down one of those trees, he would have seen growth rings in the stump -- one ring for each year, but there weren't any years, because the tree had been created in a day. Get it? -- an omnipotent Being can do absolutely anything, including making a world out of lies and inconsistencies, with tree rings from a past that never happened. That's what you commit to when you accept the existence of an omnipotent Being. It renders any attempt at rational explanation futile.

It's megalomania to suppose that an entire universe with billions and billions and billions of galaxies was created for a person who did not know they existed. Whoever thought up that story had a mighty inflated opinion of himself. Like Zaphod Beeblebrox, only more so.

@josephw said
I know this is your home away from home, and I wouldn't want to disparage it for you, but if I didn't spend more time here I wouldn't miss it for a moment.

Forum dynamics? Like where you're in charge of the definition of terms and worthiness of posters?

Whoosh.

@moonbus said
It's not about whether God would have been hindered; ex hypothesi, an omnipotent Being is not hindered.

For the universe to exist, all things mentioned had to be true and consistent.

Negative. Allegedly, God created a garden with trees in it, from one day to the next. If Adam had cut down one of those trees, he would have seen growth rings in the stump -- one rin ...[text shortened]... hought up that story had a mighty inflated opinion of himself. Like Zaphod Beeblebrox, only more so.

I don't think I can agree with everything you are saying. Lies would mean someone told you one thing, and you found it untrue, and they knew it. Our looking at the universe and coming up with various dates due to what we think tells us something that may not be true isn't a lie; it is a mistake on our part. I cannot say that even scripture says how old everything is, so and out an out false statement isn't there. Our methods of dating things concerning the distant past, right or wrong, have nothing to do with being 'told the truth,' our conclusions are what we think, which could be spot on or not. That again is not buying into a lie unless you know something true and say something else anyway; that is a lie.

@kellyjay said
I don't think I can agree with everything you are saying. Lies would mean someone told you one thing, and you found it untrue, and they knew it. Our looking at the universe and coming up with various dates due to what we think tells us something that may not be true isn't a lie; it is a mistake on our part. I cannot say that even scripture says how old everything is, so and ...[text shortened]... s not buying into a lie unless you know something true and say something else anyway; that is a lie.

So, how many rings to you think there were in the tree trunks in the Garden of Eden on day seven? 25? 50? 100? all pointing to a past which never happened. If you don't want to call that a lie, then call it something else. An impossibility. A contradiction of natural laws. A refutation of a literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Call it what you will. It does show that trying to reach any sort of rational explanation in a universe allegedly created by an omnipotent Being is futile, since that Being could have done something totally inconsistent, contrary to natural laws, and impossible to explain.

Oh, I get it -- you just write it off as a "miracle" and that's fine for you, isn't it? But that's not an explanation as per OP -- miracles don't explain anything. They cut off all attempt at explanation; they tell you, just accept this, don't ask any further questions. It's like when a child keeps nerving its parent with endless 'daddy, why is the sky blue?' questions, and eventually daddy runs out of explanations and says 'because I say so. Now go outside and play!' That's what miracles do: they say, 'Because God said so! Now don't any further questions.'

@moonbus said
So, how many rings to you think there were in the tree trunks in the Garden of Eden on day seven? 25? 50? 100? all pointing to a past which never happened. If you don't want to call that a lie, then call it something else. An impossibility. A contradiction of natural laws. A refutation of a literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Call it what you will. It does show ...[text shortened]... nd play!' That's what miracles do: they say, 'Because God said so! Now don't any further questions.'

You are asking a hypothetical question, wasn't there don't know.
Say there were on day two of all creation 20 rings; does that make God a liar?
I'd suggest it makes attempting to tell time by tree rings a lousy idea.
The natural laws are just those things we find consistent; I can throw a ball into the air and drop due to consistent gravity. If I grab it before it hits the ground, that is me breaking the law upending gravity, or simply acting in the universe? God doing anything as He sees fit is not different; you assume He cannot because it would ruin our views of laws? He owns the whole; He keeps it together by the power of His Word, Him being consistent in how it all works shows His nature, and His acting ever so often shows Him as well, because we know, that isn't natural, it is supernatural, still part of nature but out of the ordinary.