Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is the likelihood of the universe that we exist in allowing for our existence? Roughly infinitely more likely than existing in a universe that DOES NOT allow for our sort existence.
We exist in a universe that allows for our sort of existence. How absolutely predictable.
The possibility that we exist in a multiverse of universes is currently becoming more and more widely accepted among physicists and cosmologists. If there exist untold numbers of other universes, each with its own laws and physical parameters, then the probability of a universe "fine tuned" to support our sort of life approaches 100%.
I will refrain from bloviating for paragraph after paragraph and attempt to comment on the "fine tuning" issue.
It is highly possible that the fine tuning of universal laws occurred during the epochs following the Big Bang. If a "day is like a thousand years" to God then perhaps a Planck time unit is like a gazillion years to particles of matter. It is quite possible that in these epochs following the Big Bang competing pathways (as far as material interaction) occurred until the most efficient ones became immutable. This of course, allowed matter to do things like create life.
This is not to say that God didn't do it. But it can explain how randomness in search of efficiency could also do it.
There. I'm finished. Bring on the ad hominems, the non sequiters and the witless one liners. Because I like 'em.
Here the problem lies in the idea that what is called fine tuning is a misapplication of describing the situation. A long sequence of events happened that produced Life as we know it. That is not to say an entirely different (or branched) sequence of events might not or did not produce alternate versions of life as we are unaware. Causality. Change the causal's trajectory and the results would change as well. There are undoubtedly countless other unknown developments throughout the universe that could equally be called fine-tuned, to their unique situation, that doesn't make them fine tuned, just a particularly long and individual sequence of events, and the universe if brimming with long individual sequences of events. Ours is nothing special.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
What is the likelihood of the universe that we exist in allowing for our existence? Roughly infinitely more likely than existing in a universe that DOES NOT allow for our sort existence.
We exist in a universe that allows for our sort of existence. How absolutely predictable.
The possibility that we exist in a multiverse of universes is currently becoming more and more widely accepted among physicists and cosmologists. If there exist untold numbers of other universes, each with its own laws and physical parameters, then the probability of a universe "fine tuned" to support our sort of life approaches 100%.
Astute readers can surely see what is going on here. It's exactly what I described at the end of my Santa Claus post. We've gone directly from the larger point being made in my original post here - and my Santa Claus post - to a debate about the quality of the evidence and inferences. Both of the above posts completely miss the point.
The fact is, scientists across multiple disciplines acknowledge that the scientific evidence we call fine-tuning is puzzling and demands an explanation. There is no consensus as to what this explanation may be, from pure dumb luck to multiverses to intelligent design to something else entirely. The evidence certainly can be interpreted consistent with, and strongly supportive of, deism and theism.
The fact is, there is no - and could never be - scientific proof of a deity. There is no - and could never be - scientific proof of no deity. We all reach convictions on the basis of the evidence and inferences, scientific or otherwise, that we regard as relevant and persuasive.
No, an atheist certainly has no obligation to prove the nonexistence of a deity - not that he could. I have no obligation to prove the existence of a deity - not that I could. The most an atheist can say is that he has no conviction a deity exists. The most I can say is that I have a conviction a deity does exist. If an atheist has any conviction about the nature and origin of ultimate ontological reality, he can explain why he holds this conviction. If he chooses to simply be an atheist in a vacuum - OK, who cares?
This is why the entire premise of the thread - testable/verifiable evidence "of" a deity - is simply misguided and reflects fundamental confusion. There can be testable/verifiable evidence "pointing toward" the existence of a deity or "consistent with" the existence of a deity, but not "of" a deity. The question is a category mistake.
So are you admitting you have no verifiable evidence of the supernatural?
The topic is the nonexistence or nonexistence of a deity, not "the supernatural." Although it is difficult to say where "the natural" ends and "the supernatural" begins, I believe there is a vast body of evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, for the existence of what might reasonably be characterized as "the supernatural," a "higher reality" and/or "an aspect of reality inconsistent with the naturalistic paradigm."
Quote:
Fine tuning also applies to a complex god, and the problem is either 1) avoided, or 2) answered with ad hoc excuses without evidence, such as an immaterial being that just happened to know how to create things like universes.
I have no clear idea of what you are suggesting. You seem consistently troubled by the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent God. You seem consistently to pose questions to the effect of "Where did God get all this knowledge? How did he know how to create a universe?"
The notion of an omniscient, omnipotent God is a philosophical/theological construct. It's definitional. A God for whom your questions were pertinent would not be God as Christians understand him. God as Christians understand him is the source of all knowledge. God as Christians understand him may be an awe-inspiring mystery, but he is not a fine-tuning puzzle.
Quote:
Highly speculative is even more true for gods.
It is equally true of a deity. Nothing in my post suggests otherwise. I merely pointed out that the multiverse theory (there are actually several) is cheerfully entertained by those who accept the naturalistic paradigm but is as speculative and unfalsifiable as a deity.
Quote:
That is not begging the question, it is based on a simple observation, that things occur in multiples. The theists have to answer why there must only be one universe, as that would be the exception, not the rule.
Oh, because there are nine planets and trillions of stars, we can reasonably extrapolate to multiple universes? I hope you aren't serious, because this is one of the goofier suggestions I've heard in ages. (FWIW, multiverse theory doesn't threaten my Christianity in the slightest.)
Multiverse theory, even it could be demonstrated to some level of scientific certainty, would not address the ultimate metaphysical issues. A trillion universes would be just as mysterious and inexplicable as one universe. Turtles all the way down, perhaps?
Quote:
Asserting complex gods just knowing things is not rational, and immaterial gods is even more of a problem, as they raise more questions without answering any.
So theistic Nobel laureates aren't rational? Theistic scientists, academics and professionals aren't rational? Well, that's a troubling thought.
Again you miss the point that by definition the God of Christianity doesn't "just know" things, as though there were "things" somewhere "out there" for him to "know." He is the source - of all knowledge and things.
Quote:
There is the poison well fallacy. Naturalism is a conclusion, not a religion. It is not our fault the evidence for gods is weak.
I have carefully distinguished between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. You have not. Philosophical naturalism is indeed a quasi-religion that serves largely the same function as a fundamentalist religion.
Last edited by Irkle Berserkle; 10-05-2021 at 07:13 PM..
Astute readers can surely see what is going on here. It's exactly what I described at the end of my Santa Claus post. We've gone directly from the larger point being made in my original post here - and my Santa Claus post - to a debate about the quality of the evidence and inferences. Both of the above posts completely miss the point.
The fact is, scientists across multiple disciplines acknowledge that the scientific evidence we call fine-tuning is puzzling and demands an explanation. There is no consensus as to what this explanation may be, from pure dumb luck to multiverses to intelligent design to something else entirely. The evidence certainly can be interpreted consistent with, and strongly supportive of, deism and theism.
The fact is, there is no - and could never be - scientific proof of a deity. There is no - and could never be - scientific proof of no deity. We all reach convictions on the basis of the evidence and inferences, scientific or otherwise, that we regard as relevant and persuasive.
No, an atheist certainly has no obligation to prove the nonexistence of a deity - not that he could. I have no obligation to prove the existence of a deity - not that I could. The most an atheist can say is that he has no conviction a deity exists. The most I can say is that I have a conviction a deity does exist. If an atheist has any conviction about the nature and origin of ultimate ontological reality, he can explain why he holds this conviction. If he chooses to simply be an atheist in a vacuum - OK, who cares?
This is why the entire premise of the thread - testable/verifiable evidence "of" a deity - is simply misguided and reflects fundamental confusion. There can be testable/verifiable evidence "pointing toward" the existence of a deity or "consistent with" the existence of a deity, but not "of" a deity. The question is a category mistake.
Kickin' butt and takin' names! I am trying to distance myself, but I do have moments of inspiration (Holy Spirit?) that I feel an obligation to share with the heathens.
Astute readers can surely see what is going on here. It's exactly what I described at the end of my Santa Claus post. We've gone directly from the larger point being made in my original post here - and my Santa Claus post - to a debate about the quality of the evidence and inferences. Both of the above posts completely miss the point.
The fact is, scientists across multiple disciplines acknowledge that the scientific evidence we call fine-tuning is puzzling and demands an explanation. There is no consensus as to what this explanation may be, from pure dumb luck to multiverses to intelligent design to something else entirely. The evidence certainly can be interpreted consistent with, and strongly supportive of, deism and theism.
The fact is, there is no - and could never be - scientific proof of a deity. There is no - and could never be - scientific proof of no deity. We all reach convictions on the basis of the evidence and inferences, scientific or otherwise, that we regard as relevant and persuasive.
No, an atheist certainly has no obligation to prove the nonexistence of a deity - not that he could. I have no obligation to prove the existence of a deity - not that I could. The most an atheist can say is that he has no conviction a deity exists. The most I can say is that I have a conviction a deity does exist. If an atheist has any conviction about the nature and origin of ultimate ontological reality, he can explain why he holds this conviction. If he chooses to simply be an atheist in a vacuum - OK, who cares?
This is why the entire premise of the thread - testable/verifiable evidence "of" a deity - is simply misguided and reflects fundamental confusion. There can be testable/verifiable evidence "pointing toward" the existence of a deity or "consistent with" the existence of a deity, but not "of" a deity. The question is a category mistake.
Yes astute readers can see what is happening here, I started the thread requesting testable, verifiable evidence, of which none has been offered, period. Astute readers can indeed observe that instead you attempt to derail by 'teaching' heathens, constructing an alternate debate, and congratulating yourself for doing so. It is you that miss the point, the OP. Calling the universe finely tuned to our existence is no evidence at all, it's an opinion only. And a rather self-centered one at that. Here is another more demonstrable postulation; perhaps it is life that is finely tuned by evolution to fit within the constructs presented by the universe, at least on this planet in this solar system among trillions of galaxies, among trillions of stars each. I have not stated that you have an obligation to prove a deity, I simply opened the floor to those believing in deities to present testable/verifiable evidence supporting said belief.
I can respect that you've kicked butt in stating, "The fact is, there is no - and could never be - scientific proof of a deity." Thank you for that intellectual honesty. In that you are rare.
I'll note that, I agree with you, as do many/most atheists here that, "There is no - and could never be - scientific proof of no deity." That's exactly the point most of us repeat ad nauseam to those that demand to label most non-believers as having a negative claim that no god does or could exist, after all the universe is a big place. Therefore it seems we both agree deists/theists request it be provided routinely from people that never suggest it could be known for certain that no god(s) exist. I have not in the OP, nor likely will ever make such a claim.
I too am glad you hung around to provide those 2 honest statements, I can't say if the Holy Ghost was the reason, I'll leave that up to you and Mystic. But if it was a claim, that the Holy Ghost exists and there is testable/verifiable proof, I'd be happy for you to present that too.
What a hypocritical crock!! As usual, you assume some undeserved and completely unwarranted authoritative mantle and fire your one-liner assertions without substance or explanation as if we are supposed to rely on your authority! What a douche! Your "little knowledge" and hubris are just annoying. Why don't you go get an actual rigorous education and then come back and make substantive criticisms?
Sorry Mystic, you do not get to once again just fire off your usual ad hominem, you need to point out where I am actually wrong. You are not meant to rely on my authority, you need to show where my logic is wrong. Such as why a multiverse theory is not equally as speculative as only one universe? That is a legitimate, substantive criticism, as is the observation that multiples are the norm. Multiple trees, multiple stars, multiple people. Actual data, not assertions.
Deal with the actual arguments (as I did with Irkle) instead of your usual arrogant pretense at being an intellectual.
Considering I not only had to correct your inventions using my rigorous education BUT also your reading comprehension problems (where you 'corrected' arguments I had not made), it is your ad hominem post that is the hypocritical crock. You have the "little knowledge" to make substantive posts (using jargon fools no one), you show no indication of having a relevant rigorous education, and as usual you replace substantive criticism with ad hominem.
He has no substantive views, just unsubstantiated critical assertions.
Ironically an unsubstantiated critical assertion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
