Why not though?

If I can prove that a certain flow of ions in a certain region of brain results in a certain belief why isn't that valuable?

>No. That is not the justification. That introduces the concept of "better" before it has been agreed upon.

How would you agree on this outside of science?

Morality is a negotiation between people and therefore society at large.

Science will eventually be able to tell us justification for the value clause. It will eventually tell us what parts of the brain function in what way to shape our values. It can already tell us what imbalances result in people holding extremely aberrant values and we can care for those people using drugs or psychotherapy. Furthermore there have been numerous studies done on people of different political values (conservative vs liberal) and we are already building a body of knowledge on how their brains function differently.

TLDR. I believe one day maybe not too far away we will be able to tell exactly why you have some value or another and even change it using drugs or surgery or whatnot.

>Would you really sacrifice one of your own kind for some random bears?

it's not some random bears. It's all the pandas now and forever.

>What if the button said: you or the pandas? Would you kill yourself to save the pandas?

I am not the OP but I would.

I think I would.

>Also what makes life so important? Maybe with a different fine-tuning, there would be different beings with even better characteristics than "alive" and "conscious", characteristics that we can not even conceive.

Exactly. God could have created humans so we can live in empty space, he could have created other creatures that do.

>Ok, we have a universe where there is a tiny bit of life and consciousness, but was it really the aim, or is it possible that had the values been different, some other being would be saying "wow, it seems that the universe is fine-tuned for "shlubagazorp", something that we cannot understand?

Universe seems to be fine tuned for empty space and black holes to me. It seems to favor nothingness.

>Also, isn't it possible that there is more than one universe and that we just happen to be in one where life is possible, since we could only happen in one of those? Wouldn't seem very fine-tuned in that case, would it?

This is the cosmological multiverse theory.

>The idea is that the values of the universal constants have to fall within a very narrow range in order for life to exist. If they were different by even a tiny amount, then life could not have emerged.

Given different values of those constants even more life could exist though. It's not like these are the only values suitable for life.

Also if god wanted to create a universe for life and set the values why did he make it so that the universe is basically empty?

I don't understand the claim that the universe is fine tuned for life.

99.999999999999999999999999999% of the universe (probably more) is just empty space full of deadly radiation which is hostile to life.

75% of the rest of the universe is dark matter and dark energy.

Of the rest 99.9999999999999999999999% of it are stars and black holes.

Of the rest the vast majority are gas giant planets.

Even on a planet with life such as the earth life is just on the very thin crust of the planet.

If the universe was fine tuned for life it would be teeming with life. All that empty space would be full or thriving organisms.

>It's the only one you gave more than a one word answer to, and you answered with an insult.

I think I actually over estimated your analytical skills.

>I don't think that at all.

Do you eat pork? What does the Quran have to say about that?

>But not you?

no not me.

> I can assure you I do not meet the clinical definition or anything close to it.

How can I trust your assurances? You have demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge about anything scientific and what's worse a highly illogical mind.

>I have a plethora of Psychologists who have said so.

Do you now.

>I got sued and paid for a couple of lawyers' and multiple psychologists vacations and kids' college funds.

Uh huh. Sure you did.

>I wasn't always such a nice person.

you are not a nice person now.

>Why is this the question that makes you defensive?

What makes you think I am defensive?

>Do you not think you have exhibited a very clear pattern of narcissistic traits in this conversation?

Not at all.

>That people are narcissistic.

You certainly seem to be. Maybe it's a trait common in religious people. After all if you think there is some omniscient omnipresent being that created the universe and you think this being actually cares about you, what you eat, who you have sex with and why, where you touch yourself on your own body etc that's pretty narcissistic.

Freedom of speech.

The constitution of the united states.

>One trait of a narcissist is that they always approach the world in very black or white thinking. Only absolutes. What do you think about that?

I think you know less about psychology than you know about physics.

>Would that be the role of god if they did exist?

No. Also god doesn't exist

>Are you the god of yourself?

no.

>I think that your position is a further leap from where humanity stands with its current knowledge of the universe than mine is.

Nonsense.

>I have my own hypothesis as to why it is the preferred stance.

What is that?

>These are very sweeping judgements.

They are highly specific judgements.\

>You yourself exhibit the exact opposite of everything you just described me as, no?

No.

>Why do you think it is your job and or right to pass such sweeping judgements on people?

I don't think it's my job. I do however have the right to judge anybody I want. Do you think I shouldn't have this right?

>How much respect do you think you inherently deserve?

More than zero. You have given me no respect at all.

>Have I thrown an insult or two in? Yes.

Yes you have.

>But you exist.

This is true.

>You judge people like you are god.

There is no god. I judge people like I am a human being who judges people based on the things they say and do.

>Why are you not the god of your own universe?

I don't have a universe.

>No.

Then why do you believe such silly things?

>But I try to be.

I see no evidence of this.

>I've treated you with a lot of respect,

You haven't treated me with any respect at all.

>What gives you the inherent right to judge anyone? God.

There is no god.

>My only argument here is that I personally find it odd that science always comes tantalizingly close to these answers. Like 98%. But never 100%.

That's not an argument.

Can you prove gravity and dark matter exist outside of the universe?

>Part of what I just said was a lie.

Doesn't surprise me at all.

>I continue to respond because the overwhelming majority opinion among Psychologists is that you can never change a narcissist.

Huh?

>I continue to respond because the overwhelming majority opinion among Psychologists is that you can never change a narcissist.

Another anti science stance I see.

>Personally, I am an empath.

I believe you believe that.

> Doesn't mean I can't have narcissistic tendencies.

Certainly not.

>I am not always a good person either as you have pointed out, but I try to be.

You are not trying hard enough.

>Do you always pass such sweeping judgements so quickly, my lord?

Do you object to being judged by your words and actions? How else should I judge you?

>You know absolutely nothing about me beyond this very brief exchange in which I have been purposefully dismissive and avoidant of several of your questions.

I have based my opinion on this exchange. Everything is based on things you said.

>You started out the conversation with an immediately insulting tone, and yet I have still treated you with far more respect than you deserve.

You haven't treated me with any respect at all.

>I am Buddha for being able to deal with people like you. You must have a TON of friends lmfao.

I do have a ton of friends. None of them believe gravity and dark matter exist outside of the universe though and oddly enough none of them have demanded I tell them how gravity works.

>You have yet to provide a singular source that proves that they do.

Pick up any science book. Have you provided some evidence that they exist outside of this universe?

>What I love most is that they can never not respond.

Is that why you continue to respond?

>I was not a very nice person.

you are not a very nice person now.

>Once you blow through all the pleasures of being "successful" and finally bottom out from it all, you start spending a lot of time focusing on personal development.

If you are an example of a muslim who has achieved the top of personal development then no thanks. I don't want anything to do with islam and I hope to god all muslims don't act and think like you do.

>I found the path that works for me after all of that.

A path that believes dark matter and gravity don't exist in this universe.

Disgusting.

>You should honestly be very thankful I did.

Why?

>I've read enough science books to know that you cannot scientifically tell me how gravity actually fundamentally works at all.

I am pretty sure there are science books that tell you how gravity works.

>Your personal god (science/yourself) can't explain it though.

And yours does?

>What use is this science you hold above everything else when it can't even answer what should be a very trivial question?

I don't hold science above everything else and I don't claim it can answer every question.

As for what good science is well I am typing this on a computer on the internet while on medication so there you go it does plenty of good.

> Why do you want to be right so much in this area?

Because I am?

>Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"

Not at all.

> I can clearly see which way you have chosen in response to that question lol.

See above.

>Statements like these are how I know you are 12.

Statements like are how I know you lack thinking skills and base your beliefs on whatever it is you are feeling at the moment.

> People like me are at the top of it.

I don't see too many muslims on the top of anything.

>What is your definition of in this universe? Mine is, in our same universe and dimension.

Yup same as me.

>What is the gravity particle?

The graviton is the proposed name.

> How does gravity actually work according to science?

read a science book.

>Because I am specifically trained in rhetoric.

A person specifically trained in rhetoric won't be as dishonest and sleazy as you.

>I'm better at it than you.

You are dishonest and I am not. That makes me better.

>I also have quite a few years of life experience on you, young narcissist.

more experience in denying gravity exists I guess.

>Can you go get some for me to prove it does?

As I said please read some papers or watch some youtube videos on it.

>Can you even prove gravity exists in this universe?

I am not a physicist but yes it has been proven that gravity exists in this universe. I can't believe I am talking to a person who denies gravity exists. That's a new one.

>What happened one second before the Big Bang?

Nobody knows. Do you?

>Science has all the answers though you say.

I never said that. Why are you putting words in my mouth. Why are you so dishonest?

>No, I do not think Mohammed split the moon in two (PBUH).

Then you don't believe the quron is the truth.

>If I am deluded about the age then you are definitely a narcissist.

Or maybe you are a person who believes things based on no evidence.

>That's fine too. I still lean towards a little Column A, little Column B rather than just one of those though.

it's actually column C. You lack thinking and analytical skills. You are prone to believing things that are not true.

>It doesn't exist "in this universe" though, or maybe it does.

But it does. Why don't you try learning some things about it?

>It interacts with matter in this universe.

Because it's in this universe.

>That does not necessitate that it exists in this universe.

Yea it does.

>I think that Islam is the truthful account.

Ok then you believe that Mohammed split the moon in two.

>I really don't think I'm deluded about the age at all.

But you are deluded though.

>Narrow-mindedness to such a degree is only a youthful quality, literally because the brain has not fully developed yet.

And yet I don't believe a human is able to split the moon in two.

>Evidence for the specific claims you made about dark matter.

I am still confused about what you want here. I made the claim that dark matter exists in this universe. Every paper on dark matter is about that.

>I never said I believe that God sent his only begotten son to die for our sins.

Sorry I presumed you were a christian given this is an english language forum.

What relligion do you believe in? Are you a muslim? A Buddhist? A viccan perhaps?

>I can tell you're under 25. Be well!

Yet another thing you are deluded about. You seem to be susceptible to believing things on no merit and without any credible evidence.

>Can you cite a scientific source for these claims?

For dark matter? There is a buttload of papers.

>Science is a process of discovery. Why is it such a foreign thought to believe that someone could deduce their way towards religion?

Because there is no evidence for the supernatural nor could there be any evidence for the supernatural. By definition the supernatural is not in this universe and is not detectable.

> I started out as a nihilist. The more I studied quantum physics, the more I found scientists that go deep down that path turn to religion. I know this is shattering to your thesis but I didn't make your thesis.

It's not shattering at all. All kinds of people discover religion for all kinds of reasons. Some people accept god because they hear voices in their head. Some people look at the trees and are instantly convinced god exists. Some people survive a traumatic event and are convinced god did it.

Why would it be shattering to me that some nihilist tried to study quantum physics and somehow got convinced god exists and created the universe and send his only begotten son to be sacrificed for my sins?