[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]These arguments are full of sh!t, look at how many baseless assumptions they have. Here are the ones I can detect with one skimGuybrush_3

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

Every single philosophy professor I've had would have failed you for your complete and total lack of understanding of basic logic. You're literally too stupid to argue with.

Belgium scores three second-half goals to down U.S.

CLEVELAND -- After the stomping, U.S. coach Jurgen Klinsmann got stumped.

Not long after his team was overrun 4-2 on Wednesday night in an international game by a talented Belgium team that dominated the Americans for 90 minutes, Klinsmann was asked if there were three positives to be taken from the loss.

"Um," Klinsmann said, pausing. "Three? You challenge me with three?"

Klinsmann smiled and then danced around coming up with an adequate answer.

There really wasn't much he could say.

Christian Benteke scored two goals in the second half and Marouane Fellaini had another as Belgium took advantage of U.S. defensive breakdowns and scored three times after halftime in a one-sided thrashing of the Americans, who hoped the match - and an upcoming one Sunday in Washington D.C. against Germany - would help get them ready for upcoming World Cup qualifiers.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20130529/usa-belgium-soccer-friendly.ap/#ixzz2UnC9ctIcloco145

These arguments are full of sh!t, look at how many baseless assumptions they have. Here are the ones I can detect with one skimBarbariser

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"][QUOTE="ad1x2"]

Here comes 500 serious replies to this obviously flamebait troll topic...

trasherhead

[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"]

You read that wrong. When I said "The universe isn't improbable because we happen to live here", I was suggesting the opposite of what you thinkGuybrush_3

Yes, we do disagree... In any case, you were talking about the anthropic principle. That biological life would only be able to observe a life-permitting universe, because they wouldn't exist to observe if their universe weren't life-permitting. My point was that if our life-permitting universe is one out of a trillion, the fact that we wouldn't be here if it didn't exist does nothing to undermine its insane improbability.

And almost every configuration of a universe is capable of supporting life of some form.

Here we go with circular reasoning and baseless claims again. Paul Davies, Luke Barnes, Alexander Vilenkin, and most physicists disagree with your belief that life-permitting univeses are not improbable. And when scientists talk about life permitting universes, they don't just think about human beings and the like. They're talking about any kind of bilogical life. Physicists think that any sort of life-permitting universe is improbable. Finally, some people here have been creating a false dichotomy between God and evolution or the big bang. There's no reason not to think that God created evolution or the big bang. Especially the big bang. The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Prior to big bang singularity, there was? Perhaps there was more of the natural world. However, eventually you get to the point where you can't go back any further. You get to the point where you either believe there was an immaterial or supernatural that caused the natural world--or that the natural world was uncaused and came into being from nonbeing. The latter is worse than magic. At least with God you have the magician.

1. It's impossible to know how probable a life-permiting universe is, so your point is moot.

2. You're assuming that time was a thing before the big bang. That's a REALLY big assumption.

You read that wrong. When I said "The universe isn't improbable because we happen to live here", I was suggesting the opposite of what you think

And almost every configuration of a universe is capable of supporting life of some form.

You're scared shitless of Stenger because he pokes holes in your shit.br0kenrabbit

The universe isn't improbable because we happen to live here.

You know what happens when you change the parameters of the universe? You get another universe, with different laws, different physics...and most of them develop (mathematically) into functional universes of their own

No shit we couldn't live there, but that's not to say life can't exist there.

What I am arguing, is that the universe is NOT improbablebr0kenrabbit

What Davies isn't telling you..

Davies can say whatever the fvck he wants to, it doesn't make it so.