@johnprytz I would agree that it is "apparent" fine-tuning, but this is another example of the manipulation of statistical "odds" to make a point that one has already decided on. The theists dishonestly don't mention that there are hundreds of particles that never get captured by protons precisely because their charges are too different for this to occur. The odds that there would be at least one particle to get captured by a proton is actually much higher than they would have you believe. Beyond that the odds that in at least one universe there would be at least one particle that would be captured by a proton is extremely high and would probably approach certainty. And this doesn't even consider the fact that protons are not even fundamental particles themselves but consist of quarks and that there may be a similarity between the nature of quarks and electrons, but with varying spin, that we haven't discovered yet, that would easily explain this phenomena without resorting to "odds". But this, of course, would require scientific discovery and analysis and undermine their argument of "playing the odds."

I call this game the God of the Odds. If the odds are high enough, then God exists. But, then of course, the opposite is implied. If the odds are below a certain arbitrary threshold chosen by theists, then that would imply that God does not exist. This is actually a backdoor atheistic argument. It is similar to saying that God must exist because nature is "too complex" for God not to exist? Really? So how much less complex does the universe have to appear to us before we all decide that God does not exit?

@johnprytz Yes, I get your point, but I consider it a false analogy to the Universe. If you want a more realistic analogy to the Universe you would have to include all kinds of lego blocks that DON'T fit together as there are all kinds of particles in the Universe that CANNOT fit together and actually annihilate each other. The Universe if full of (apparent) randomness, chaos, and annihilation. Additionally, you are still ignoring the multi-universe hypothesis that make the "interlocking of 12 lego blocks" a virtual certainty.
But, what are you trying to say, anyway? If you make the statistical argument for the God of the Odds and simultaneously say that God didn't do it, then what did? If you are still trying to say that we all live in a computerized video simulation, I have already granted that that is a possibility and there is even some (weak) evidence for it on the quantum level.

@johnprytz
Wow!
!) I never said that other particles don't interact with each other, did I? I was responding to your argument about electrons and protons melding together to form atoms. The interactions you speak of do not form atoms and the resultant matter that results in you and I, and the Universe as we know it. You have gone off on another tangent concerning mere particle interactions about what would be an entirely different Universe without atoms and changed the argument completely. Sneaky.
2) Yes, I myself referred to it as "apparent" randomness previously. Remember? If you agree with someone, why do you continue to argue the point?
3) Of course this is all speculation. Your entire argument has been based on statistical manipulation and speculation. The entire God (or whatever name you call it) of the Odds argument is based upon statistical manipulation, interpretive speculation.and not on direct scientific data. Statistical odds manipulation that ignores everything else (including other statistics it doesn't like, I might add) is not only junk science, it is junk statistics. It is you who needs to be more of a skeptic. Don't swallow these junk statistics hook, line, and sinker.
4) Ahhh! Just as I suspected. You don't have a point. You don't know what you are trying to say. You are just speculating for speculation's sake. And if you can answer your own question with scientific evidence rather than speculative statistical odds manipulation you deserve more than just $64,000.

@johnprytz
That's right. But, your point about quarks, which is what protons and neutrons are made of,is just a detailed extension of your previous point about electrons and protons and (neutrons) "melding" into atoms and doesn't change the argument at all. Of course, forces between quarks are mediated by gluons. And whoever said that particles, let alone subparticles, exist in isolation?

"On the grounds that we can't actually distinguish between the four differing versions of reality on offer, then everything by everybody boils down to speculation."

I don't know what you mean by "the four differing versions of reality". But, if you really think that EVERYTHING is just speculation, then what the heck was your point about crying out for scientific evidence for this stuff you are just speculating about? If your point is that everything is just speculation, what does it matter?

No, I have not been paying any particular attention to your previous posts on your speculation. (You flatter yourself!) But, if you have a point, why don't you make it instead of just referring to it as the $64,000 question? Was that just a tease to try and force me and others to search back through your previous posts to try and figure out what you are really trying to say?

@johnprytz
Not fitting together or melding into an atom does not mean particles do not interact. Of course, they interact. "Fitting" and interaction are not at all the same thing. In fact "fit" is your word for the analogy, not mine, which I was repeating back to you. I would prefer not to use such an unscientific term. Atoms are not really particles "fitting" together. The lego block analogy breaks down upon if taken seriously and scientifically.

Theists also speculate. What do you suppose faith is? I don't see your point here.

If your final point is really nothing more than your original speculation that we may be in a simulated universe with some sort of (alien) intelligence behind it, then why do you mysteriously refer to it as the $64,000 question? And, as you know, I have already conceded that possibility twice before.

It's a basic principle of logic that the person making the affirmative assertion has the burden of proof. Of course that presupposes they choose to mount a credible argument. In my experience most people making baseless assertions aren't looking to do that; they're looking for unearned deference and respect in the marketplace of ideas. However, it is the basis for my rejecting their argument out of hand ("that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence" ).

It isn't that anyone's attempting to force someone to argue their point in a philosophically defensible manner; it is that the person rejecting the premise is drawing a perfectly valid personal boundary and setting perfectly valid personal standards for the conditions and requirements they set for giving any consideration to those arguments.

If someone wants to accept a concept as true based simply on their own internal, personal, subjective experiences, that is their right. If I don't wish to, that is mine. My rejection of their epistemology doesn't constitute some sort of effort at mind control. It is simply excluding any effort at compulsion on their part. In my experience, theistic assertions are basically the presentation of a demand that I accept their assertions and either defer to it or outright embrace it. And then through projection, they take my rejection of their asserted truth is somehow by attempt to control THEM.

"And what is to happen to the person who refuses to bear this burden that you propose? There’s not much you can do to them, is there? In fact, there is no burden at all. Each person must look at the available evidence, and through contemplation and analysis it is possible that intuitions and insights might arise spontaneously within their person."

Which is a lot of words to say some people are stupid enough to have Faith

"It’s really no one else’s business." it is when they start to use their delusion to write laws, elect politician and imposes their idiocy on other people under penalty of anything up to and including death.

@mordant I do not think that such is a basic premise of logic. It’s more to do with psychology than with logic. AND it is incorrect anyway. An assertion can be couched in either positive or negative terms—the two can be interchanged at will. There is no more burden of proof on a person making an affirmative assertion than there is on a person making a negative assertion. That idea is nothing more than a modern day myth, but it seems ingrained in the minds of almost everyone.

Yes, If I wanted to persuade you of something I would have to present an argument in order to achieve that goal. But I am perfectly free to make any assertion I choose and there is no burden at all, just as the other person is free to ignore what I say.

@LenHazell53

“Which is a lot of words to say some people are stupid enough to have Faith”

Sounds like you are saying that anyone in disagreement with you is stupid. How can you be so sure? Almost everyone has faith of some sort. For many people of today it is a blind and unquestioning faith in the dogmas of scientism and materialism. Some of the most brilliant intellectuals down through history have expressed religious sentiments.

So far as politics, we live in a democracy. Every individual can not have his say—each person gets one vote.

@WilliamFleming
Faith is an insult to logic, reason and rationality, choosing to be wilfully ignorant and "deciding" to believe something in the absence of evidence or even in the face of counter evidence IS stupid, their is no other word for it.
Many "brilliant intellectuals down through history have expressed religious sentiments." because if they didn't or went against them they got burned to death as heretics or were given over to the tender ministrations of the inquisition, so they had the intelligence to lie and pay lip service. Only religion has and needs martyrs.

@LenHazell53 I agree that faith in religious dogma is a farce. Faith and belief are about the same and neither is needed. It’s easy to see and criticize faith in religion, but swept under the carpet and not examined is a blind and stupid belief in the tenets of materialistic scientism. Those so infected seem totally unaware no matter what evidence is presented, and there is no way to reach them.

I disagree with your second paragraph. Pew polls show that about half of all scientists say that they believe in some sort of God concept. Besides that, nearly all of the founders of modern physics, while generally not being religious in the traditional church way, were nevertheless expressive of a higher realm of universal consciousness.

As I said, some extremely intelligent people have been religious. The verdict is not in.

@WilliamFleming
There is no such thing in mainstream science as "a blind and stupid belief in the tenets of materialistic scientism.", in fact I would go so far as to say there is no such thing full stop. The sentence makes no sense at all. I will assume you are talking about the tenets of scientific materialism in which case had ANY evidence at all ever been presented to back up the absurd claims of religion and a so called spirituality (or even a definition offered of the latter) it would have been tested observed and raised to the level of an accepted theory at least 100 years ago.
It has not, because it has never been able to offer any evidence let alone present it any scientific model, any mathematical model or even a reasonable hypothesis.
You cannot sweep under the carpet that which does not exist, that is a purview of the loonatic fringe of conspiracy theorist alone.

On the second point in modern times, many scientist have acknowledged the possibility of some kind of higher power, some have even strayed in to Deism acknowledging the Universe it self as a possible contender for that title, none that I am aware of have acnowledged a foundation or even an acceptance of the concept of faith.

@LenHazell53 Spirituality is not so hard to define. Spirituality does not involve faith or belief, and spirituality has nothing to do with magic or the supernatural.

It is almost universally acknowledged among scientists and amongst all intelligent, thinking people that the everyday world of our senses is an illusion, a symbolic map created by ourselves to represent ultimate reality that lies beyond. This has been in the mainstream of physics since the days of Faraday and Maxwell, and is simply taken for granted by physicists of today. Read any book on modern physics and you’ll see.

Spiritually aware people are deeply conscious of the miracle and mystery of existence. Reality is staggering in its overwhelming implications, and the phenomenon of conscious awareness is the prime key that makes such awareness and appreciation possible. Ultimate Reality beyond our senses is truly mysterious.

A person who possesses the true spirit of science is in deep wonder and awe of reality—he or she pounces on new information with greed, On the other hand, those caught up in the faith of scientism go around debunking anything that does not fit their pseudoscientific world views.To them nature is nothing but this or nothing but that—nothing to wonder about—nothing in which to take joy.

Sir Arthur Eddington:

“The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind... To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff.

“We are no longer tempted to condemn the spiritual aspects of our nature as illusory because of their lack of concreteness.

“The scientific answer is relevant so far as concerns the sense-impressions... For the rest the human spirit must turn to the unseen world to which it itself belongs.”

@WilliamFleming
"Spirituality does not involve faith or belief, and spirituality has nothing to do with magic or the supernatural."
Okay, when start this sort of intellectually dishonest linguistic game of reinterpreting words to mean whatever you want them too in order to back up your own spurious contentions, I am through talking to you.
I'll just say in closing Clothes pegs in aspic, egg whisk and wibble.
That may sound like nonsense to you but I know what I define those words to mean in my own personal lexicon and it makes perfect sense to my interpretation.