Search results

A 'Designer' is not in accordance with the fundamental laws of nature , can have any parameters anyone wants it to have and doesn't explain a thing. That really isn't something stronger. Theory of everything or not, it only requires that the basic laws of nature could be no different. That...

Multiverse or not, it only requires that the fundamental laws of nature could be no different, can have no other parameters, and any question of fine tuning evaporates.

Conforming with the laws of physics and natural forces is.... :D

The conclusion it was a creator, requires no proof is possible.

Nothing mere about chemical evolution and/or modern science. When considering the source of emotion, they are present at every turn. What would be simplistic in my opinion, would be to suggest things are there that aren't, for merely emotional reasons.

Correct, you are posting waffle You are supposed to be defining the word morality not the words true or right. Here I'll do it for you from your source.. Morality 1 Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour...

We'll adapt:)

Just said again in my previous post for about the third time now. No cause. Nothing(literally) causes them. For example Quantum Mechanics explains how everyday atomic event stuff commonly occurs naturally, spontaneously, without cause. So it takes nothing to cause them - could that be any more...

I've already given explanation. naturally - of course. they are natural. At this point you really gotta ask yourself why are you struggling with this so much.:D Also pointed out was the science in quantum mechanics which explains how everyday atomic event stuff commonly occurs naturally...

Science is altogether fundamentally different from religion. Science is proof without conclusion. Religion is conclusion without proof.

What do you need explaining? I am not implying natural forces must be created by either random chance or design. You are. What's happening is, you are arguing that I am arguing random chance, when it's obvious I'm doing no such thing. Natural forces are forces that are natural. A natural...

Lol ...and true is defined as right, and right is defined as true, and circular reasoning is true because circular reasoning is right. o_O ..and on being unable to support that failed argument, the best you can do is insult. Well done.... a Relativistic one then, not an Absolute troll like...

Your issue is ill-informed. Atheism is about the absence of faith and religion, not want of it. You might as well say lifeguards want you to drown due to the absence of drowning. Yeah I know, the pretense that no faith is faith, is that ridiculous.:rolleyes: Science, not atheism, describes...

Stop whining. You were quoted in context. Your sentence was all about saying the fine tuning of the universe. That is an unfounded presumption. All it takes to dispense with any questions of fine tuning is to discover numbers are what they are due naturally to the inevitable outcome of natural...

Naturally of course that's why they are natural forces:rolleyes:

Unfounded presumption. Earth appears flat. As with everything else, the inevitable consequence of natural forces make it not so. Unfounded presumption of a 'Creator'.

5. (or 1. if being scientific) The Inevitable outcome of natural forces.

Okay, so you're confirming morality is defined as right behavior. No absolutes. Otherwise it would be defined as absolute. erm, you brought truth into all this, not me.. You said.."Right behavior (morality) is defined as actions based in truth"... But that's not how the oxford dictionary...

So you admit, he isn't talking about Jesus or God. ..so what are you talking about when talking about "the fine tuning of our universe." eh? A tuner/designer/creator/doing some tuning... wot...like Jesus and God? :rolleyes: Talking about "the fine tuning of our universe" is not talking...

The Inevitable outcome of natural forces. An alternative. Obvious, commonsense, scientific alternative. That'll be why you ignore it.