I suppose you would defend the anthropic principle. You typed alot but basically your full of tautological non-speak. As you know, a tautology has the appearance of being explanatory, but is not. It is a statement which, due to its circular form, is true by definition. So your all about words, not about the empirical world. You have managed to explain nothing about our observations. You masquerade as though your conveying knowledge and information when in fact you convey nothing. It reminds me of the doctor saying "Your father's deafness is caused by hearing impairment."
What can one expect from a person of your perspective...How about this "The universe has survivable properties because we survive. Now, that would be profound compared to to the nothingness of your post.
Based on what evidence? And how would that be relevant, even if true?
You typed alot but basically your full of tautological non-speak. As you know, a tautology has the appearance of being explanatory, but is not.
Rude, pointless and obviously incorrect.
It is a statement which, due to its circular form, is true by definition. So your all about words, not about the empirical world. You have managed to explain nothing about our observations. You masquerade as though your conveying knowledge and information when in fact you convey nothing. It reminds me of the doctor saying "Your father's deafness is caused by hearing impairment."
Your incapacity or unwillingness to follow is not a demonstration that I have no point to make.
What can one expect from a person of your perspective...
And what perspective would that be, pray tell?
How about this "The universe has survivable properties because we survive. Now, that would be profound compared to to the nothingness of your post.
Well, if you're through clearing your pipes, perhaps you might be calm enough to follow the argument--I'll try to make it even simpler: The Einsteinian universe and the Newtonian universe make, perhaps, the paradigmatic example of science's generously expansive nature regarding theories. The grand design of the universe that these two theories propose could hardly be more dramatically mutually exclusive. And yet, both theories are happily and fruitfully employed in science and technology to this very day.
Hence my point, which is hardly tautological, but might be taken for so, if you suffer from an extreme case of philosophical dyslexia--or are being sort of intellectually lazy: science is not capable of categorically proving or disproving things such as, just to pick an example at random, your contention that the discovery of natural abiogensis eliminates God as the ultimate cause of life.
It is noteworthily vacuous to call pointing out that two supposed opposites are in fact not, a tautology.