So just where did this all come from?

[Jezebel]

Define "god."

If "god" is a reasonable hypothesis to explain the creation of the universe, what is "god" and where did "god" come from?

Answer: No one knows, and even the "experts" rarely agree on the details.

Why is this a comparable hypothesis to theories based on actual knowledge? While we cannot say we know how the universe started, there certainly is a consensus regarding the facts upon which the theories themselves are built. There is also internal consistency, whereas (as it has been pointed out innumerable times now) saying "the universe couldn't have come from nowhere and therefore it must have had a creator" is inconsistent because the same logic is not being equally applied-- if the universe "must" have had a "creator" because it exists, then god, if he is the creator, must also have had a creator, because he exists (according to that hypothesis). It is so clearly fundamentally flawed. No answer is superior in every way to an answer that is simply made up because people can't accept that we don't know. Why is a total fiction better than an absence of truth? Why is something we've made up completely, that has absolutely no evidence to support it, the "same" as saying, "we don't have enough information to answer that question accurately." I will never, ever understand this approach. Why do some cancers regress and not others? Because of cancer pixies. The explanation of "cancer pixies" who work in mysterious ways and leave no evidence is an equal truth statement to "we don't know why some cancers regress and not others" because apparently any answer is better than none. Who thinks this way?[1]

edited for grammar 

1.	That's a rhetorical question. We all know who thinks this way.

[Joetruth2]

I agree that there is no absolute explanation of the origins of our universe. The believers however are content with the creation theory because to them the fact that the universe is unexplainable proves that a vastly superior being or beings must have created it. It then presents itself as a real conflict when non believers try to convince them that the universe is simply beyond human understanding, at least for now.

Believing in a god creation is simply easier for them than believing in no explanation at all. Couple that with the human desire for immortality and you have the creation of religion. Replacing those beliefs with the we don't know and life is (in the believers eye) pointless because death is the end. Many only continue with wretched living conditions, painful disabilities and other reasons one might commit suicide because they believe they will be rewarded in some afterlife.

I had to become Joetruth2 because I simply could not get back on the site. Please excuse the transition.

[Graybeard]

The problem seems to be the inescapable “cause and effect” but when we say that, it is not exactly what we mean or should mean. We should say, “Perceived cause and perceived effect”.

A locally witnessed event may trigger distant or later changes; to the apparently unharmed locals, this is a perceived cause without a perceived effect.

A trick is ‘magic’ because we perceive the effect but do not perceive the cause. However, science has also been littered with the perceived effect without a properly perceived cause and there is little reason to believe that we know the cause of everything.

We have reached a point at which we may construct other theoretical dimensions that we cannot, and may be, never will, perceive directly but only in theory. There is some speculation, M-Theory, that the elementary particles do not suffer from the inability to pass into other dimensions. What then happens to them there is a mystery but they may well re-emerge into a dimension we can perceive. This is perceived by us 3D beings as the magician pulling a rabbit out of an empty top hat.

There is a video on the net called “Flatland”

giving the idea of how other dimensions might perceive us.

And to move into the 4th dimension



(strange robotic voice)

It may therefore be difficult to think of an initial cause for an event but our present level of knowledge, allows us to consider a probable one in another dimension that we cannot perceive and further allows us to say, “At this point we don’t know but this is no reason to believe that it is magic.”

[screwtape]

Now the biblical crud is easy to shed as it is so silly as to be insulting but the well ordered universe seems to be more of a thought out existence,

yeah, easy to shed.  Try telling that to the 95% of xians who wander through here.  If it were easy to do, I'd settle for that.  A nation of deists is much, much more rational than a nation of evangelicals.

[Joetruth2]

I guess I should have qualified my statement. The biblical scene is easy for me to shed. Divine creation however is not easy for me to shed. The scientific evidence for the possibility of life existing is truly astonishing in that the odds of our universe even existing are numerically nearly infinite odds against it. As for the odds of life as we know it existing even greater. If I understand it the Atheist take on this is that there are infinite universes and given that, ours must occur. The problem with this as I see it is that there is no proof whatsoever that an infinite number of universes exist.

[Bagheera]

I''ve never understood this argument.

It always seems to revolve around the concept that, because the universe consists of certain properties that allowed for us to evolve, it could not have occurred without being directed to do so.

It is like the lottery argument: if you win the powerball, the odds against it are so extreme that an agency must have rigged it.

I know the counter argument: yes, but we can verify the existence of other powerball winners, but not the existence of other universes.

But in the absence of evidence of other powerball winners (lets say, the lottery has only had one winner so far) does that invalidate the fact that your winning the powerball was a matter of sheer chance?

The other problem I have with that theory, is that it takes a condition that exits now (all the physical properties necessary for our existence) and goes directly to the strong anthropic principle to declare that this is why the universe exists. Yet, for billions of years the conditions necessary for our existence were not there because the universe was far too hot. Furthermore, it is predicted that either the universe will eventually suffer heat death as all the stars wink out, one by one until the universe becomes a cold lifeless place, or that the universe will contract and eventually the conditions necessary for our existence will again no longer be valid. Whether we get a big bounce, or something else, the point is that the conditions necessary for our existence , which some hold up as proof that the universe was designed for us, are in all transitory.

[mram]

I have this idea there is one, never ending universe.. THE universe.. Now..If there was EVER a time when there was absolutely nothing except black then someone has to explain what the big woo was doing out there completely alone in the "void" in the first place.. Evidently the woo had to come from somewhere..So then the woo decides.. You know what.. I'm bored so *POOF*.. I'll invent a bunch of stars and planets just so I can punish some and reward others????  Further..I'll put people on just ONE tiny little planet just so I can make them do EXACTLY as I say OR I'll make them burn in the core of their planet FOREVER!  Those that do EXACTLY as i say I'll reward them with a "special place" because.. Well, I'll just keep it a mystery just to fuck with them... I'll explain the whole shebang when I get damned good and ready.. and i MIGHT just take twenty trillion gazillion years to do it.. OR maybe just in a little over 2000 years.. I haven't decided yet. 

[screwtape]

I guess I should have qualified my statement. The biblical scene is easy for me to shed.

Ah.  Big difference.  It may be easy for [wiki]Charles Austin[/wiki] to do a 6 1/2 foot high jump.  Not so for me or anyone I personally know.

The scientific evidence for the possibility of life existing is truly astonishing in that the odds of our universe even existing are numerically nearly infinite odds against it.

Baloney. The odds of our universe existing are a certainty.  It does exist.  Every speculation[1] I have ever seen that makes the claim that the probability of the universe having come into existence are "a trillion trillion trillion to one" are based on guesses that assume any value is as likely as another, which is a huuuuge assumption.  It is not like rolling a die. 

When we roll a die we assume it is a perfectly balanced cube, and that it is held and thrown in a perfectly random way and that there are no other factors, like friction, that would make any outcome any more likely than another.  When you actually get down to rolling the dice, the numbers are not perfect, but they are close enough to call it "random" and more or less validate that those assumptions are good enough for rolling dice. 

But who said physical constants or universes are like dice?  How does a person calculate the probability of a physical constant being what it is?  How does someone know whether the speed of light could be anything different and if so, odds? 

And even if they are like dice, why does it seem more probable that a guy, with super duper powers created it all?  Where did this guy come from?  Where did he exist, since there was not time or space?  It is like people try to imagine nothing, but they imagine an empty box. And holding the empty box is a guy labeled "god" and he started the universe inside the box.  Except, the guy, the box, the emptiness, where the guy is standing is not nothing.  They are "something".

As for the odds of life as we know it existing even greater.

See above.  The probability of the right molecules forming is not  about random atoms bumping into the right ones.  Under certain conditions some molecules cannot bond and others are certain to.  It is not just a matter of putting all elements in a bottle, shaking them up and hoping for an amoeba to fall out.

If I understand it...

You don't.

1.	not calculations

[naemhni]

The scientific evidence for the possibility of life existing is truly astonishing in that the odds of our universe even existing are numerically nearly infinite odds against it.

Baloney. The odds of our universe existing are a certainty.  It does exist.

If I could expand on this: Joetruth2, you are making a very common mistake here: attempting to calculate the odds of an event after it has already happened.

Some years ago, I bought a lottery ticket.  I got four out of six numbers correct and won $100, at odds of approximately one in 19,000.  (By way of comparison, your odds of being struck by lightning at some point in your life are approximately one in 5,000.)  Those odds applied, however, only before the numbers were drawn.  After the numbers were drawn, odds don't count.  There's no "chance" that I won that $100, because I did win it.  You would not say that just because the odds were so slim, I must not have actually won, would you?  Well, it would be equally nonsensical to say that just because the odds were so slim, a deity must have been involved.

[Alzael]

I guess I should have qualified my statement. The biblical scene is easy for me to shed. Divine creation however is not easy for me to shed. The scientific evidence for the possibility of life existing is truly astonishing in that the odds of our universe even existing are numerically nearly infinite odds against it. As for the odds of life as we know it existing even greater.

This only applies if you look at the odds as a 'set' and then attempt to apply the mathematics of sets to the individual probabilities of each step-by-step event.

This is the wrong way to do it, by the way.

The cumulative process of the individual events that ended in the formation of life on earth was not a single holistic event. It was a process of events, directed mostly by natural selection.

Furthermore, you cannot assert probabilities "a-posteriori". You cannot, for example, pick a number out of 10000, get the number "36347" and jump around excitedly yelling "If my choice were random, the probability of getting that particular number would be only 1/10000 so clearly my pick was not random! Now I dance the Manu-Weasel Jig!"

If certain things had not happened the way they did, we would not be here to ask the question. You are perfectly welcome to use the fact that we are here to ask to questions to assert that things did happen that way but you cannot talk about a probability for what did happen.

If I understand it the Atheist take on this is that there are infinite universes and given that, ours must occur.

This is not the atheistic take. There is no such thing as an "atheist take on this" unless you're referring directly to the question of "Do you believe in God". Infinite universes is simply one of several scientific hypotheses that may end up explaining things if they can ever be proven.

The problem with this as I see it is that there is no proof whatsoever that an infinite number of universes exist.

That's why it is only a hypothesis. It remains FAR more likely and provable than the existence of a god, however. It is also rather meaningless in regards to what you're talking about since it has nothing to do with the creation of life in our universe.

[Graybeard]

I guess I should have qualified my statement. The biblical scene is easy for me to shed. Divine creation however is not easy for me to shed. The scientific evidence for the possibility of life existing is truly astonishing in that the odds of our universe even existing are numerically nearly infinite odds against it. As for the odds of life as we know it existing even greater. If I understand it the Atheist take on this is that there are infinite universes and given that, ours must occur. The problem with this as I see it is that there is no proof whatsoever that an infinite number of universes exist.

What Azael said and:
Think of the probability of my writing this - the history of the universe - the chances of me arising - the chances you would write that, here, and my replying exactly this!!!eleventy!!! Are you witnessing a highly improbable event?

The chances of this universe ever existing is... certainty! We know because it happened!
The chances of it ever happening again exactly like this one in every single respect is... infinite!

An example: what odds are you going to give me that in the Superbowl 2009 final, Pittsburgh Steelers have beaten the Arizona Cardinals 27 - 23?

But if I went to a bookie, I could get huge odds on the Pittsburgh Steelers beating the Arizona Cardinals 27 - 23 in the 2014 final.

Can we now expect you to cease believing in a creator god?

[Grogs]

You cannot, for example, pick a number out of 10000, get the number "36347" and jump around excitedly yelling "If my choice were random, the probability of getting that particular number would be only 1/10000 so clearly my pick was not random! Now I dance the Manu-Weasel Jig!"

Well, you have to admit that picking a number from 1 to 10,000 and getting 36,347 would be fairly odd. 

[mram]

You cannot, for example, pick a number out of 10000, get the number "36347" and jump around excitedly yelling "If my choice were random, the probability of getting that particular number would be only 1/10000 so clearly my pick was not random! Now I dance the Manu-Weasel Jig!"

Well, you have to admit that picking a number from 1 to 10,000 and getting 36,347 would be fairly odd. 

I'm playing that very number on the pick 3 tonight! 

[Alzael]

You cannot, for example, pick a number out of 10000, get the number "36347" and jump around excitedly yelling "If my choice were random, the probability of getting that particular number would be only 1/10000 so clearly my pick was not random! Now I dance the Manu-Weasel Jig!"

Well, you have to admit that picking a number from 1 to 10,000 and getting 36,347 would be fairly odd. 

I'm playing that very number on the pick 3 tonight! 

You owe me at least 1/4th if you win.

[Joetruth2]

OK so why is it that these "odds" come from astrophysicists? I could care less and it is certain the universe exists at least as certain as I can be that I exist. Arguing that the cosmological constant had to be perfect for our universe to form is not my argument it is the argument of scientists. If they are wrong don't blame me I am only extrapolating from the theories they propound. If the math is fuzzy all I can say is, it ain't my math.

Simply put the scientific argument implies what it implies so either it is so or the science is bad. How can an idiot like Joetruth2 know the truth. I am not totally convinced that the atheist is right and have been looking for affirmation.

If quantum theory is correct, and believe me, I do not completely understand it, given an infinity of time all possibilities that can occur must occur. So the question is: What is possible?   It stretches my mind even thinking about the answer.

[LadyLucy]

OK so why is it that these "odds" come from astrophysicists? I could care less and it is certain the universe exists at least as certain as I can be that I exist.

Then do the easy thing if you could care less and don't wish to educate yourself/think further than that: Stay whatever you are and believe all you want, because frankly, I am not wooed by your point of view like you are easily wooed by the cosmos being so big.

And regarding your math comment in correlation to astrophysics:

So you think that since the math is "fuzzy" [I.E. Incomplete/in the works], it is not math? Get real.

[naemhni]

OK so why is it that these "odds" come from astrophysicists?

They're probably making the same mistake you're making: attempting to calculate the odds of an event that has already happened.

Arguing that the cosmological constant had to be perfect for our universe to form is not my argument it is the argument of scientists.

I've never understood how people can marvel about "the exquisite fine tuning" of the universe that allows man to exist.  Even if we knew for a certainty that the odds of man's appearance were a trillion to one (which we don't) and even if you could calculate the odds of an event after it has already happened (which you can't), what difference would it make?  Of course the universe exists in such a way that man it allows man to exist... if it didn't, we wouldn't even be here to be able to talk about it.

If they are wrong don't blame me I am only extrapolating from the theories they propound.

Yes, well, armchair scientists are, unfortunately, nearly as common as armchair philosophers.  It's hard to know which is the more annoying.

If the math is fuzzy all I can say is, it ain't my math.

So what?  It still exists and is a valid academic field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_mathematics

Simply put the scientific argument implies what it implies so either it is so or the science is bad.

Science doesn't have to be bad to be in error.  It's perfectly possible for new information to cause a theory to be revised or discarded.  (E.g., the Steady State Theory, now discredited; Newtonian Mechanics, extended by relativity.)

I am not totally convinced that the atheist is right and have been looking for affirmation.

In order to be right or wrong, you have to make a claim about something.  Atheism doesn't.

[Alzael]

OK so why is it that these "odds" come from astrophysicists?

Well, just offhand it could be because those odds are coming mostly from creationists. You know, the people that keep trying to use science as a way of justifying the need for their invisible god-friend.

For example, take this bit written by Mark Walker http://ieet.org/archive/Walker_Cirkovic06.pdf it's an essay by him talking about how many astrophysicists agree with fine-tuning. It contains a lot of bs written by a man who has no qulaifications talking about such matters (he's a philosophy professor from Trinity College). He also says that there are lot of astrophysicists who do this.  However there are always very few examples provided of legitimate ones who actually do.

Where are these astrophysicists who actually make these odds. The legitimate ones that is.

If they are wrong don't blame me I am only extrapolating from the theories they propound.

You're fully in control of which theories you accept, which theories you use to make your points, and how thoroughly you expose them to critical thinking and inquiry. If you couldn't do what literally amounts to a two minute google search to find out whether or not the idea you proposed had any actual merit, why shouldn't I blame you? Intellectual laziness is not much of an excuse.

If the math is fuzzy all I can say is, it ain't my math.

The math isn't fuzzy. The information is just processed wrong. And again, this is a point that comes up incredibly often. It and the counterposition are everywhere on the net. If you couldn't be bothered to take a minute and check your facts then saying "it ain't my math", doesn't excuse you for the mistake.

I'm curious as to the point of having "truth" in your name if you have no vested interest in it?

Simply put the scientific argument implies what it implies so either it is so or the science is bad.

Being in error is part of how science operates. Also as has been mentioned the scientific argument does not imply that. Nor is that argument scientific.

I am not totally convinced that the atheist is right and have been looking for affirmation.

This was brought up before, there is no such thing as an atheist position. You're looking for affirmation of something that exists only in your head and not in the real world.

The problem that I notice in your posts is that you seem to have very little interest in actually obtaining knowledge. There's more to learning than just reading something on the net and then asking others what they think. You have to actually do some work yourself and think about the data and conclusions you are reaching. You make huge mistakes that are elementary, including your continued insistence on there being an atheist position. You should at the very least make the effort to learn what atheism entails. And the implications of what the "scientific" theories you are trying to talk about actually are.

[screwtape]

OK so why is it that these "odds" come from astrophysicists?

cite your sources, homie.  Then we'll talk.  We cannot know why they are wrong until we know specifically what you are talking about.

Arguing that the cosmological constant had to be perfect for our universe to form is not my argument it is the argument of scientists. If they are wrong don't blame me I am only extrapolating from the theories they propound.

Their points may be valid - that if things were different, they would be different.  But your extrapolations - that any physical constant could be anything other than what it is - are not.  Explain how, say, pi could be anything other than it is.   

If the math is fuzzy all I can say is, it ain't my math.

Cite your sources.  And I do not find it charming that you make claims and then quickly disown them as soon as there is any resistance.

How can an idiot like Joetruth2 know the truth.

Maybe he cannot?  Maybe Joetruth2 is doing the best he can with the brain he has.  But, like the overwhelming majority of human brains, it is not cut out for understanding the deeper secrets of the universe.  To quote P.Z Myers:

"We have clumsy, sputtering, inefficient brains that are better designed for spotting rutabagas and triggering rutting behavior at the sight of a curvy buttock than they are for doing math or interpreting the abstract nature of the universe."

Maybe Joetruth2 ought to stick to rutabagas. 

[mram]

You owe me at least 1/4th if you win.

I lost.. But you will be pleased to know there was some chewed gum under the edge of the counter top at the store if you're still interested.. Just send a self addressed stamped envelope plus $20US for shipping and handling.. Heck.. I'll even take Mexican Pesos.. 

modbreak: removed unnecessary quotes.  mram, please only quote the necessary parts.  Extensive nested quotes are tough to read and clutter up the place.  Thanks.
~ Screwtape

[Graybeard]

The explanation of "cancer pixies" who work in mysterious ways and leave no evidence is an equal truth statement to "we don't know why some cancers regress and not others" because apparently any answer is better than none. Who thinks this way?[1]

1.	That's a rhetorical question. We all know who thinks this way.

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
Thomas Jefferson

[Vivisectus]

The religious position on the origin of the universe is basically "Something like us, but different, created the universe by magic". This is then held up as more reasonable than "Something appeared out of nothing, and we intend to find out how that works." Examine the statements - do you really think the first conclusion is better? It is a dead end and requires belief in magic.

Modern physics is beginning to disagree, as we can detect (though not observe) the appearance of 2 opposing particles where there was nothing before. It is possible that what we think of as nothing does not exist.

[jetson]

Modern physics is beginning to disagree, as we can detect (though not observe) the appearance of 2 opposing particles where there was nothing before. It is possible that what we think of as nothing does not exist.

The problem though, is in how we use words to describe things.  And describing "nothing" in scientific terms, is very likely to throw the lower end of the intelligence pool into a frenzy that will never cease.  Add to that, the tendency to attach religion to everything, and we will not likely see much progress.

Humans are trapped in boxes of words (not an original thought of mine, but poignant).  The words are made up by humans, so it gets worse when they are abused, or misunderstood.  It's terrible for Bible believers - they seemingly will never escape the word boxes they must live within, in order to keep their faith.  Deist isn't good enough for many of them - because there's no Jesus or eternal life.

[jedweber]

OK so why is it that these "odds" come from astrophysicists?

cite your sources, homie.  Then we'll talk.  We cannot know why they are wrong until we know specifically what you are talking about.

Joetruth is right, though. It's not just creationists who claim that the universe appears to be "fine-tuned", it's an observation noted by many physicists. (This shouldn't be confused with creationists' claims about the improbable odds of life arising on Earth, the physicists are talking about cosmological constants that make the universe itself possible.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Stephen Hawking acknowledged it in his last book, The Grand Design, saying it would be "difficult to explain" without a God if this were the only universe in existence. (His favored solution now seems to be a multiverse theory based in part on Richard Feynman's experiments in quantum mechanics.)

There are other suggested scientific explanations, but naturally they are all highly speculative at this point, which allows religious people to claim they are at least as far-fetched as the God theory.

[Persephone]

And describing "nothing" in scientific terms, is very likely to throw the lower end of the intelligence pool into a frenzy that will never cease.

Heck, I barely understand "nothing" in scientific terms. The vast nothing-ness of space has mass? Potential states / fields / virtual particles have mass?[1] How does one wrap one's head around that, exactly? Major paradigm shift, anyone?

Eegads.

I suppose cosmology will eventually have to drop the word "nothing"--much like nonbelievers must drop the word "spiritual"--because now in physics it doesn't mean "complete void" like it does in our level of reality.

Creationists are the ones saying that the universe magically appeared from nothing. Science can now say with reasonable confidence that potential states became actual states, or something like that.[2] "Nothing" as we think of it in our daily lives (or "zero") is really just a fulcrum the universe uses as it balances itself.[3]

1.	As entertaining as Lawrence Krauss is, his material is still challenging to understand. "Nothing isn't nothing anymore.".
2.	Yes, I'm talking out of my [deleted]. I don't fully understand it, though I'm trying.
3.	Please pardon the anthropomorphism.

[mram]

I still maintain this universe as we know it has always been around.. There never was 'just a void of darkness" where some magic boogieman was "lonely" so invented billions and billions of stars and planets just for us and his own personal pleasure and wrath.. IF "he" had made BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of stars and planets then why just *poof* make ONLY two people? The math just doesn't add up.. It's like *poof* making an entire ship full of processed sugar and then ONLY letting two ants on the ship to see if they behave the way we like. If the ants don't worship us then we burn that ant for eternity and forever with our magic magnifying glass and the good ants get to go to a magic ship after they die where it's not ONLY sugar, but they also don't need their exoskeletons but the surviving ants get left on a ship with just a few tablespoons of sugar and have a few billion years to learn to worship us..
Well... since I am the god of anthills in my backyard and have the power to distribute teaspoons of sugar at will I guess I'm a god, but unfortunately I didn't *poof* just make the backyard.. and the universe didn't just *poof* happen out of nothing and my tiny 9 lb brain or whatever it weighs can't quite grasp the vastness or smallness of any of it.. Personally I haven't taken my brain out to weigh it so I'm just guessing its weight, but even it weights 20 pounds it's ability to grasp the vastness of it all is kind of limited.
There is something bigger than me.. I just spotted it.. A TREE! It outweighs me by a few tons..

[Vivisectus]

Modern physics is beginning to disagree, as we can detect (though not observe) the appearance of 2 opposing particles where there was nothing before. It is possible that what we think of as nothing does not exist.

The problem though, is in how we use words to describe things.  And describing "nothing" in scientific terms, is very likely to throw the lower end of the intelligence pool into a frenzy that will never cease.  Add to that, the tendency to attach religion to everything, and we will not likely see much progress.

Humans are trapped in boxes of words (not an original thought of mine, but poignant).  The words are made up by humans, so it gets worse when they are abused, or misunderstood.  It's terrible for Bible believers - they seemingly will never escape the word boxes they must live within, in order to keep their faith.  Deist isn't good enough for many of them - because there's no Jesus or eternal life.

I don't get this at all. I think it is awesome - it has all the weirdness and other-worldliness of mysticism, but unlike mysticism, this allows you to build spaceships, find new sources of energy and really add to the total sum of knowledge we possess. It is like religion, only with evidence, math, and a firey chariot you can see and actually take a ride in!

I may not understand it all, but it is understandable and if I have an objection to any of it, I am free to explain why and how. If this holds up, the doctrine changes!

And still people think "God does it by magic" is somehow a better option. They say things like "I just dont believe it just came out of nowhere" as if that is saying anything other than "I don't know shit about it, and I like to imagine that is not because I never bothered my arse to study it, but because there is nothing anyone is capable of understanding"

[mram]

Be careful kids.. This kind of heresy and blasphemy will soon be illegal.  Off to the hoosegow till you learn the "truth"... 

[screwtape]

Joetruth is right, though. It's not just creationists who claim that the universe appears to be "fine-tuned", it's an observation noted by many physicists. (This shouldn't be confused with creationists' claims about the improbable odds of life arising on Earth, the physicists are talking about cosmological constants that make the universe itself possible.)

No, he's not right.  He specifically talked about odds.  I addressed all that.  I acknowledged that scientists think that if the constants were different then the universe as we know it would be different or not exist at all.  But even though a different charge on an electron would yield a very different universe, who says it could have been different?  Rather, how do they know it could have been different?  Is there a control dial somewhere that lets you adjust it?