Before you commit yourself to the notion that universal physics are "fine-tuned ", instead of obeying unalterable and constant laws of physics that are mathematically determined by relational interactions.
The laws of nature are not created and fine-tuned, they are inherent.
But here is the Hazen lecture you may enjoy.
Start at 12:00 to avoid a lengthy introduction
Thank you.
I’ll check this out today.
Well, not really, really. Still, metaphorically it sounds good and I get your point.
Folds within folds . . . . . . . 
That’s starting with the answer and focusing on what will support that.
A scientific approach is to collect as much evidence, and different lines of evidence, learn about that evidence and then allow the weight of the evidence to drive one’s conclusions.
You position can only work if you think you can be smarter than everyone else.
You are on a personal journey to reinforce your preconception,
keep searching, good faith curiosity, your cognitive dissonance will reach an escape velocity and the answers you seek ye shall find, …
Gotta peal off at #133.
Write4u, we have our disagreements, but thanks for making this a thread worth reading - I think some of it will really stick and percolate within his mindscape.
I am posting these links for the benefit of any interested non-participating viewers.
Well of course but I’m not a scientist. I’m a believer first and foremost. As a believer I take a different path when faced with an unknown.
And this isn’t about ego but it’s about approach.
Your approach may be summarized as : no reaction
My approach is summarized as : this is beautiful !
And here is where you are completely misinterpreting the atheist’s appreciation of the universe.
Who has the greater appreciation when looking at the same thing?
The person, like Einstein, who has “knowledge” of the “mechanics” that create the wondrous patterns, or the person who “believes” there is an “unknowable” motivated agency, like the Chimpanzee that shakes a stick at the invisible being what makes loud thunder and throws water and fire at him and his family?
If you think you can diagnose the atheist mind and appreciation of nature, you are a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, my friend. It is the danger of subjective thinking.
Ah but see this is where my convos end up usually. Definition of position and consistency.
Because Einstein said “God does not play dice” and he did believe in a God in seems.
And this is where things get even more confusing and “church-like”.
First of all I said that science is not the enemy but it’s us asking How, and that science to me shows the work of a creator.
To me Einstein seemed to be on the same page here.
The problems arise when other atheists try to “interpret” Einstein’s statement as “He didn’t mean Jesus Christ, but he meant God as an impersonal being”. This is kinda like interpreting scriptures.
Also as I mentioned before, people in the west seem fixated with christianity for some reason.
This also comes down to people losing their reputations and careers maybe? Because they don’t want to be seen as agnostic or maybe they don’t want to be ridiculed by their peers?
So they default in the position of “I don’t know” or “no reaction” while also trying to describe something as “beautiful”.
You see because Einstein had BIG cojones, he didn’t care about losing his “job” because he was a free thinker.
So the problem seems to be with people who question your reasoning but don’t like it when the definition of that reasoning applies to them.
Also Francis Collins seems to be another great guy today who is in high-level positions while having no conflicts between science and faith.
I don’t want to rehash old arguments, or for that matter, pretend like I can present them better than people who really understand them, so, I’ll just link this.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/
But when you start saying an atheist can’t appreciate beauty, that’s personal. It was a fear that I had when I first started my deconversion. No one wants to live in a meaningless, joyless world. But as I lived with the acceptance of no connection to any consciousness out there in the cosmos, I noticed that I never lost my appreciation for the world and for the actual conscious beings that I could sense and touch.
I love the Fall colors. I was looking at them one year and simply appreciated them. Then started to think about how they came to be, all the reactions over billions of years that created them. And, at the same time, the evolution that led to my eyes, to see them, and my consciousness to reflect on all of that. If you want to reduce that to me appreciating nature because nature sustains me, loving clean water because I need it to survive, okay, go ahead. There is obviously much more to it, in my way of approaching it. I can’t explain it all, and that’s fine with me. I can keep learning.
WOW, hold your horses. There is no equation here. The default position is that there is no God. The concept of God is not from observation, it is from imagination.
It’s true that science asks “How” , but when we do find out the how we know it did not require a metaphysical agency, because once we know how we can do it ourselves , space and energy permitting.
And with the exclamation “God does not play dice” Einstein meant that the relational mathematics of physics are deterministic and not random as throwing the dice. It was not a declaration of religious faith. Einstein was an atheist, but as with Darwin he was very careful not to offend the “ruling” theocracy.
As for myself, I have no problem with theism per se. Just don’t declare that “God did it” which is in conflict with science. I’ll always say “I think you are wrong and science is proving it.”
Let’s make one thing clear.
Atheist do not oppose theism. Atheists do not acknowledge theism at all.
OTOH, Theists actively oppose Atheism as evil that needs to be destroyed.
(I showed you the Inquisition creed)
And when I exclaim “Jesus, look at that” it is not an expression of faith. It’s just an expression of wonder. Oh, and theists get very upset with me “taking the Lord’s name in vain”, as if the Lord gives a hoot.
Also Francis Collins seems to be another great guy today who is in high-level positions while having no conflicts between science and faith.
Yes he is a nice guy just like most all Atheists.
Frankly I am scared of the conservative bible thumpers who want to replace secular government with Theocratic government, in the image of the Islamic Califate.
Would you be happy living under Islamic rule? After all they are theists, are you going to embrace their perspective?
Yes I don’t want Bible thumping idiots in charge too but free thinkers.
I’ll get back to you all with a proper response later on as I have a few things to do now.
Write4u I am in agreement with your reasoning and this convo came as a result of citizenchallange where he was trying to reduce everything to a materialistic point of view where then my questions rose naturally in response to that position. Because he was explaining to me a scientific based approach based on what we see only.
So my statements regarding “no position” are directed at a specific group of people (who are atheists most of the time) who reduce things to materialism.
Based on your response I don’t see that you want to define yourself strictly in that position.
I am 20 minutes in and this guy is talking about the Origins of life.
For a 2015 talk this doesn’t seem to reveal anything new so far.
Dude explains life arising all on its own as a result of chemicals processes in a primordial soup.
I learned this in 1980s in my biology class.
Consider it confirmation by one of the world’s greatest experts. Always a good thing.
Keep watching, it gets more up to date. He goes through the evolutionary abiogenetic process without fancy details, and with clarity without mystery.
Ok so I did make it though this video but I’d like to ask : Why did you send me this? Lol
This isn’t what we are talking about.
In fairness you sent it before I mentioned earlier that this isn’t what we were talking about or the posts that you made earlier that explained several processes and tardigrades.
In his talk he is saying that the timescales of earth explain complexity which can’t be reproduced in a lab.
Yes this is why I said elsewhere that we can’t answer beyond any shadow of a doubt existential questions. This is a scientific fact which I can also explain with another short video.
He also finished with “life exist elsewhere”.
Yes 100% agree. In fact I’m a step ahead and say that “ufos are alien AI”. 
The Q and A also briefly touches on Panspermia - another theory I’m aware of.
It’s an interesting one .
I mean these ARE interesting things to talk about but it’s not what I was asking.
But it’s all good because it gives us something to talk about.
For example the reason it’d be great to meet aliens would be to ask the the same existential questions we face here.
I mean this is after we ask them about all their fascinating technology, culture and other details and this is also assuming they’re not going to kill us all, then we start asking Origins questions and see what they have to say.
For example (I have thought of this too)
If aliens can prove that we are a creation of theirs and they’re able to prove this with like a video or something from 100,000 years ago then that’s the end of religion.
This would still leave another question unanswered : who created them?
They may or may not have the answer to that question.
All fascinating things to think about.
Yes but that is not what the video posits. It clearly explains the most rational manner by which life and humans evolved from simple chemical reactions into greater complexity and the mechanism of abiogenesis, how dynamic organisms evolved from biochemical molecules into bacteria and over billions of years into the dinosaurs and finally into humans.
It shows that the concept of God is superfluous in the world of science.
A personal God may have its uses in the world of subjective psychology but to teach Creationism and Intelligent Design in schools is tantamount to keeping people ignorant of the true nature of Nature.
This is not said in anger, but with a concern of our future that does not lie in the hands of a benign supernatural being, but in the hands of man and his wisdom in choosing a lifestyle compatible with the earth’s macrobiome.
Yes I got all of that from the video but my question was prior to all of that asking for the fundamental forces of the universe being what they are, and Why are they like that. Also how did the Big Bang happen to set all of this in motion which appears purposeful and design-driven to me?
As far as teaching creationism in schools that’s a big no. However in the spirt of balance they also need to be taught some philosophy and reason to go along with evolution theory. Because when I talk to young adults, I feel like I’m talking to robots.
That’s ironic, seems to me a “believer” requires an awful lot of self-certitude, which requires a lot of ego.
Of course being a top rung scientist also require a lot of ego, but that ego is demonstrating ones’ ability to gather and compile evidence that tells a self-consistent story.
Lol this doesn’t make sense because earlier you said that Ego (or I) is basically equal for all living humans.
If you think one group or another has higher ego then tell me why.
I explained why in another post and I gave Monks as an example.
You said “no” everyone has ego. I agree with that if it applies equally.
[quote=“eli1, post:156, topic:7913”]
Yes I got all of that from the video but my question was prior to all of that asking for the fundamental forces of the universe being what they are, and Why are they like that. >
Logic, pure and simple.
The consistent and orderly deterministic mechanism of “Cause and Effect”, as evidenced in our ability to solve natural relational equations by our symbolized mathematics that describe the natural Logic inherent in the fabric of spacetime .
Also how did the Big Bang happen to set all of this in motion which appears purposeful and design-driven to me?
Almost certainly from a very simple “differential equation” in a perfectly permittive condition. (Nothingness)
Max Tegmark thinks that the missing equation will be a simple logical causality.
But God is not a simple Logical (mathematical equation) causality…sorry.
But those are not proven answers, those are beliefs based on some educated guesses.
I mean the biggest one is a universe spawning on its own without a prior cause.
That takes a lot of faith right there. The most honest position is “I don’t know”.
I arrive at my other conclusion which is a belief-based approach by examining the life of supernatural events throughout history as well as the life of prophets.