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.
A comparison I've made in the past is - it seems as if Yahweh was taking his final exam at god school and in order to graduate, he had to figure out how to create a universe within a certain set of parameters that would allow the existence of a bipedal, humanoid, sentient, free-willed, language-capable creature.
There was a fantastic Danish comic that explored this theme. One of the characters (Divus) held a literal degree in Divinity - as in, he was a god who'd passed his exams - but his grades were kinda so-so, so he got assigned to somewhere a bit out of the way, and ended up being Earth's deity. On arrival, he started introducing himself as God and was of course put into a mental asylum. I have to dig that out, now... IIRC, the other gods did present him with an award for designing the female posterior - a properly divine creation. (Hard to argue with.)
Indeed, and such phraseology is considered “de minimis” as a matter of law. Perhaps someday our currency will state differently, but in the meantime it is at the very bottom of my lists of concerns with respect to the Establishment Clause.
IIRC, the Supreme Court called it "ceremonial deism" - it's not actually religious, it's just a phrase. Which seems a whole lot like taking the Lords name in vain to me, but there we have it.
I am not convinced it is an attempt to connect evidence to any gods, that to me would be a conscious rationalization. I think many religious people simply believe for various reasons, and make a subconscious connection, just as many atheists simply do not believe in gods based on their subconscious knowledge.
Subconscious connection - that's a good way to put it. Would you say that conscious rationalization can be a deliberate attempt to redirect subconscious connections? My thinking based on your post is that if a person subconsciously believes in a god, they can rationalize why another person wouldn't. The same would be true of an atheist. The atheist can rationalize why the other person does believe.
The "fine tuning" argument actually works against there being a god.
Because - think about it ---
Look at all the different variables that had to be met in order for our specific form of life to exist in the universe. There are dozens of them. Perhaps hundreds.
As a result, why would an all-powerful god who supposedly created the physical laws of the universe to begin with need to jump through so many hoops in order to place his wonderful creation on planet earth in this particular universe?
It sounds suspiciously like god is playing by someone else's rules. It's as if Yahweh - or whatever creator god one happens to believe in - is trying desperately to circumvent someone else's physical rules in order for humans to exist. Because why would he have to bend over backwards to overcome his own rules? That makes about as much sense as an adult in a Peanuts cartoon - if you know what I mean.
A comparison I've made in the past is - it seems as if Yahweh was taking his final exam at god school and in order to graduate, he had to figure out how to create a universe within a certain set of parameters that would allow the existence of a bipedal, humanoid, sentient, free-willed, language-capable creature.
Soooo let's see ... the planet must be this size with a certain type of atmosphere and with liquid water - oops, no, the atmospheric pressure was too much in that one - let's start over ... wait, no, too many predators in that scenario. Let's try one where humans figure out fire early on - yeah - so far it's working! Oh, crap. Damn comets. Forgot about them. Okay, how about if I put a gas giant 5 planets out from the sun to catch most of the comets - aha - it works ... now they should have a chance. No! No! They all died out due to wild and rapid climate changes! Crap ... ummm ... I know! I'll put a big moon in orbit to stabilize earth's rotation! Why didn't I think of that before? (and on and on it goes).
See what I mean?
Yes, an argument I had not thought about, thank you. If a god wanted people, why not create people in a clearly designed universe instead of having them evolve in a large, old universe that is not particularly friendly to life?
There was a fantastic Danish comic that explored this theme. One of the characters (Divus) held a literal degree in Divinity - as in, he was a god who'd passed his exams - but his grades were kinda so-so, so he got assigned to somewhere a bit out of the way, and ended up being Earth's deity. On arrival, he started introducing himself as God and was of course put into a mental asylum. I have to dig that out, now... IIRC, the other gods did present him with an award for designing the female posterior - a properly divine creation. (Hard to argue with.)
There's a good deal more about the female design that deserves awards in my opinion...
If there IS evidence a God had something to do with life on earth or how to define divine, it's the female form.
Subconscious connection - that's a good way to put it. Would you say that conscious rationalization can be a deliberate attempt to redirect subconscious connections? My thinking based on your post is that if a person subconsciously believes in a god, they can rationalize why another person wouldn't. The same would be true of an atheist. The atheist can rationalize why the other person does believe.
I would say that would depend on the people. I am still surprised at the number of theists who have a problem thinking about other theological positions than their own.
As most of the universe can not support life, it is hardly fine tuned for life. For a long, sustainable existence, yes, which may be all that is required for life to develop. If the parameters were different, life may still be possible, it would just be different to life as we know it.
1) We do not need to prove a multiverse, there are several godless theories based on actual evidence that lead to a multiverse scenario.
2) Why rely on science, observation tells us things come in multiples?
3) Why should there only be one universe?
4) The fine tuning argument is an argument against a complex god, which must also be fine tuned. You can not argue a single fine tuned universe is improbable but then pretend this problem does not apply to a god. If the parameters are unlikely by chance, then a god just knowing these parameters is also unlikely.
5) All arguments to get around the problems in point 4 are assertions that we have no evidence for, such as god being intelligent but not complex.
But science points to an alternative that explains things without invoking an intelligence. There could be an intelligence behind it, but one is not required. We do not need to invoke a god to explain why if one jumps from a cliff, they will end up a * at the bottom of it.
An intelligence behind it all is an extra requirement, and to argue a god did it, one must provide evidence for that claim, and it must explain things better than that of opposing theories.
So to expand, it isn't just the fine tuning for biological life. There are multiple physical constants that are fine tuned to produce anything at all from the Planck era to now. So it is possible that if these constants were different there would be something beyond a singularity, but i'm not sure that is very likely. We'd need to determine that the constants we have would be a natural necessity. Too many dependencies are required to produce what we have now so I think we'd need to be able to understand these necessary constants - all of them in the right order. Something neither side can reproduce. At least not now. I mean if we understood them and then reproduced them perhaps a universe could be created - oh an Intelligence Designer. I think in terms of a multiverse - you are a lot further along in acceptance of that than Scientists. Even Roger Penrose and his conformal cyclic cosmological model is simply conceptual. I mean - Scientists are looking more into the CMB for 'evidence' of a past dead universe but I mean it is really just an idea of his by now. That said, good of him that is how we progress with weird funky ideas - even in science
You say the universe isn't fine tuned for life because most of it is hostile to life. Sure but we are ourselves in a hostile space only protected by the earth - so again I think it's a question of odds. I think the odds would be stacked against naturalism if the universe as we know it witht the big bang happening, and all these constants we know of simply occured as they needed to to produce this existence.
I don't agree with you that the fine tuning argument goes against a complex god. Why? Fine tuning itself is complex. Why this process and not another. There could be good reasons for it.
Where I agree with you is where then would god come from to create a fine tuned universe or any universe at all really. That is as much a question mark as to the nature of existence itself. It is an added 'layer' for sure but Science needs many added unknown layers to explain existence. Again, we simply do not have enough evidence to go by to prove naturalism alone is responsible for the universe. So many questions and not nearly enough answers on both sides. You rely on scenarios and unknown naturalism factors to account for existence yourself so my point is, I don't think Athiests should be using the lack of evidence for god to prove there is no ID when there is a lot of evidence we don't have to prove that the universe can exist without ID, without information that lacks a designer.
Also science isn't out to prove the non-existance of god. It is to help us explain the physical world. Can this point to 'proving' non-existence of god or ID -well it is a matter of perspective. It is way to early in our understandings of existence to say we've crossed the finish line in explaining existence. You've picked a side Harry and that's great. I haven't and it is ok - neither side - theistic or atheistic is in a position to display hubris on the matter imo.
Yes, an argument I had not thought about, thank you. If a god wanted people, why not create people in a clearly designed universe instead of having them evolve in a large, old universe that is not particularly friendly to life?
Shirina is presenting a very human centric view of ID if it happened. Why would a god have only created a universe for humans. Why would we be the only game in town. It is likely the universe is fine tuned enough to produce an extraordinary amount of life. We've only scratched the surface for life within a small part of our own galaxy, let alone the hundreds of billions to trillions of galaxies each with on average 100 Billion stars -in just the observable universe. Beyond the observable universe obviously there would be a whole lot more stars, planets and galaxies so how many intelligent beings in the universe are required for it to be fine tuned to your liking? Would you require life to be present waving to us in the Bootes void because that is not what I mean by a universe configured for an abundance of intelligent life.
Given the size of the observable universe alone and even if there is only one species per galaxy that is intelligent like us more or less - that means hundreds of billions to trillions of intelligent beings. I'd say that is a pretty good argument for this universe born and bred for life. Actually, the universe could be born and bred for a god - god being the information for the universe and the universe the hardware for that information. Hand in glove.
Final point - the above I wrote basically obliterates any idea that I have any affinity for religion - which to me are far more closer to man made creations than any sort of godly creation.
So to expand, it isn't just the fine tuning for biological life. There are multiple physical constants that are fine tuned to produce anything at all from the Planck era to now. So it is possible that if these constants were different there would be something beyond a singularity, but i'm not sure that is very likely. We'd need to determine that the constants we have would be a natural necessity. Too many dependencies are required to produce what we have now so I think we'd need to be able to understand these necessary constants - all of them in the right order. Something neither side can reproduce. At least not now. I mean if we understood them and then reproduced them perhaps a universe could be created - oh an Intelligence Designer.
You still have the problem of an intelligent designer just knowing these numbers. You can not claim a problem for one side, and then ignore that very problem for your own position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
I think in terms of a multiverse - you are a lot further along in acceptance of that than Scientists. Even Roger Penrose and his conformal cyclic cosmological model is simply conceptual. I mean - Scientists are looking more into the CMB for 'evidence' of a past dead universe but I mean it is really just an idea of his by now. That said, good of him that is how we progress with weird funky ideas - even in science
Except many cosmological models based on known science produce multiverses. And you still have to answer why should there only be one universe when multiples of things is normal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
You say the universe isn't fine tuned for life because most of it is hostile to life. Sure but we are ourselves in a hostile space only protected by the earth - so again I think it's a question of odds. I think the odds would be stacked against naturalism if the universe as we know it witht the big bang happening, and all these constants we know of simply occured as they needed to to produce this existence.
But why would a god design an old, large universe just so that bacteria and some monkeys could evolve in a remote section of it?
The problem with odds for any god hypothesis is that the greater the chances one has, the more probable the improbable becomes. I will quote from Wikipedia, as I am not sure my English is good enough for me to explain this.
"The [infinite monkey] theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events which has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly eventually occur, given enough time."
So as the number of chances approaches infinity, it becomes much more probable for even unlikely but possible events to occur, and therefore no god is required to explain even unlikely events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
I don't agree with you that the fine tuning argument goes against a complex god. Why? Fine tuning itself is complex. Why this process and not another. There could be good reasons for it.
Fine tuning is an argument against complexity just happening, and that would include complex gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
Where I agree with you is where then would god come from to create a fine tuned universe or any universe at all really. That is as much a question mark as to the nature of existence itself. It is an added 'layer' for sure but Science needs many added unknown layers to explain existence.
Either there was something or there was absolutely nothing, including gods. No god is there in that logic, and is excluded in one of the options, so if you want to argue the something is a god, then you need to provide evidence for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
Again, we simply do not have enough evidence to go by to prove naturalism alone is responsible for the universe.
Star formation, lightning, the water cycle, or our evolution can all be explained by naturalism. Nowhere do we need to invoke a god to explain why these things happen. Just look at any scientific formula, there are no gods in any of them. Just natural forces such as gravity, electrical charges, etc.
One could assert a god started it all, and then let naturalism play out, but then you are admitting naturalism alone explains why things are as they are, wherever naturalism 'came from'.
Think of it as a wind up mouse, which runs across the floor because of the tension in the spring. The tension is the actual cause, not that someone wound up the mouse, which in this analogy is the indirect cause. The tension is what is responsible, regardless of where that tension came from.
And before anyone points out the obvious, the fact that the indirect cause in the analogy is an intelligent actor does not refute analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
So many questions and not nearly enough answers on both sides. You rely on scenarios and unknown naturalism factors to account for existence yourself so my point is, I don't think Athiests should be using the lack of evidence for god to prove there is no ID when there is a lot of evidence we don't have to prove that the universe can exist without ID, without information that lacks a designer.
Naturalism, for which we have evidence, explains things much better than a creator, which requires too many ad hoc explanations. And evidence we do not have is evidence we do not have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
Also science isn't out to prove the non-existance of god. It is to help us explain the physical world. Can this point to 'proving' non-existence of god or ID -well it is a matter of perspective. It is way to early in our understandings of existence to say we've crossed the finish line in explaining existence.
I do not need science to disprove a god, it is just that the conclusion of science, naturalism, provides an alternative based on evidence we have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
You've picked a side Harry and that's great. I haven't and it is ok - neither side - theistic or atheistic is in a position to display hubris on the matter imo.
I did not pick a side, I simply followed the one that has evidence, and reject those that rely on 'what could be', 'maybe', or 'we do not know'.
Shirina is presenting a very human centric view of ID if it happened. Why would a god have only created a universe for humans. Why would we be the only game in town.
A very good point, if only many of the theists recognized the human centric view of their beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
It is likely the universe is fine tuned enough to produce an extraordinary amount of life. We've only scratched the surface for life within a small part of our own galaxy, let alone the hundreds of billions to trillions of galaxies each with on average 100 Billion stars -in just the observable universe. Beyond the observable universe obviously there would be a whole lot more stars, planets and galaxies so how many intelligent beings in the universe are required for it to be fine tuned to your liking? Would you require life to be present waving to us in the Bootes void because that is not what I mean by a universe configured for an abundance of intelligent life.
Given the size of the observable universe alone and even if there is only one species per galaxy that is intelligent like us more or less - that means hundreds of billions to trillions of intelligent beings. I'd say that is a pretty good argument for this universe born and bred for life. Actually, the universe could be born and bred for a god - god being the information for the universe and the universe the hardware for that information. Hand in glove.
The problem is we do not know if life is possible on many of the worlds that are different from ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
Final point - the above I wrote basically obliterates any idea that I have any affinity for religion - which to me are far more closer to man made creations than any sort of godly creation.
Agreed, and I find it refreshing that you are looking at this from actual evidence, and not relying on religious dogma.
I also find it refreshing that you are polite, and not using the frequent ad hominems used by others.
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.
