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.
Since Stephen Hawking was quoted in this thread in support of a fine tuned universe being fined tuned by a creator god, I thought would be appropriate to quote him further.
"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
Quote:
"Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."
Quote:
"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
I find this interesting in the light of his allegedly having said;
"If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form."
To put this quote in perspective, have a visit here
Moreover, the rate of expansion of the universe would automatically become very close to the critical rate determined by the energy density of the universe. This could then explain why the rate of expansion is still so close to the critical rate, without having to assume that the initial rate of expansion of the universe was very carefully chosen.
That is, cosmological inflation solves the supposed fine-tuning of the expansion rate of the universe. Hawking is then saying the exact opposite of what the proponents of fine-tuning claim that he is.
Because the probability of the universe just having the correct properties is equally as unlikely as a god just knowing those precise properties. And complex, specified entities existing by chance are very unlikely (as your protein video showed), which makes an all knowing god just existing extremely unlikely indeed.
So an improbable god who also just knows the precise properties for the universe must be less likely than the universe just having those properties. Whereas the multiverse theory means a stable universe must eventually arise.
Point 6, where I showed that you argued your god is not probable.
No, it is based on priors. But I forgot, you do not understand big numbers or probability.
The score is still 2:0 against you.
Thanks for the link to your “refutation” of my reasoning. It was good for a laugh, especially where you took the liberty of scoring your own answers. Your need to declare your own victory is amusing, but it doesn’t demonstrate a high degree of genuine confidence in your own reasoning.
Your critique of my reasoning is not a substitute for you making a your own case that a creator God does not exist. I gave 10 reasons for my belief in a creator God. Make a case for your own worldview. Are you capable of coming up with 10 good reasons to conclude that a creator God does not exist??
Since Stephen Hawking was quoted in this thread in support of a fine tuned universe being fined tuned by a creator god, I thought would be appropriate to quote him further.
I find this interesting in the light of his allegedly having said;
"If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form."
To put this quote in perspective, have a visit here
Thanks for the additional Hawking quotes. I think he was a brilliant thinker but I don’t agree with all of his assertions. The statement, “We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause“ is an example. I don’t agree with that and neither does TotN. I don’t want to encourage others to go off-topic into a discussion of Hawking, so I’ll leave it at that. Good to see you searching out information, though!
Thanks for the link to your “refutation” of my reasoning. It was good for a laugh, especially where you took the liberty of scoring your own answers. Your need to declare your own victory is amusing, but it doesn’t demonstrate a high degree of genuine confidence in your own reasoning.
Your critique of my reasoning is not a substitute for you making a your own case that a creator God does not exist. I gave 10 reasons for my belief in a creator God. Make a case for your own worldview. Are you capable of coming up with 10 good reasons to conclude that a creator God does not exist??
It isn't necessary. It is only necessary to show that you reasons are invalid and that is all the reason needed to not accept the god -claim. It is not necessary to prove that a god doesn't exist. Especially when people often mean different things by 'god'. One can prove by pointing to the extinctions that it isn't the biblical creator -god.
So then that may be dropped and it is one that uses 'evolution' to do the work. This becomes disprovable only through negative evidence: there is no sign that a god is involved (and believe me, they have tries to find it). That just pushed god back to the finger behind the Big bang. You have tried to argue for that with Fine tuning. It's probably the best argument you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Thanks for the additional Hawking quotes. I think he was a brilliant thinker but I don’t agree with all of his assertions. The statement, “We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause“ is an example. I don’t agree with that and neither does TotN. I don’t want to encourage others to go off-topic into a discussion of Hawking, so I’ll leave it at that. Good to see you searching out information, though!
You may disagree with Hawking if you want to, but I would like to see how how you substantiate that disagreement.
Thanks for the link to your “refutation” of my reasoning.
The fact you put refutation in quotes instead of responding to what I wrote indicates you have no response other than to pretend my refutation was not valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
It was good for a laugh, especially where you took the liberty of scoring your own answers. Your need to declare your own victory is amusing, but it doesn’t demonstrate a high degree of genuine confidence in your own reasoning.
I took the liberty to provide a score to demonstrate where your arguments had no impact (9 times), or where they failed (Once). The fact that you need to BS about this instead of responding to what I wrote doesn’t demonstrate a high degree of genuine confidence in your own reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
Your critique of my reasoning is not a substitute for you making a your own case that a creator God does not exist.
Yes it was. Point 6, the point you keep avoiding. Here:
I presume you are referring to the six precise parameters our universe needs to be stable. If you want to argue improbable, why use one example when you can have improbable multiplied by 6?
Your problem is if it is unlikely for one universe to just have the 6 parameters correct, then it is equally as unlikely that a god that simply exists just happens to know these 6 parameters.
So if chance and a god are equally unlikely, then there must be a more plausible alternative. Any of the multiverse theories are more plausible as they increase the probability landscape. The larger the number of universes, the more likely one will be stable.
Another home goal for you, you have just argued your god out of existence.
Are you going to actually address this point (and the objective morality argument), or are you just going to BS again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I gave 10 reasons for my belief in a creator God. Make a case for your own worldview. Are you capable of coming up with 10 good reasons to conclude that a creator God does not exist??
I do not need 10. I only need the argument from the improbability of a complex, highly specified god. You know, argument 6 you keep running from. Until you can address that, you have nothing. So once again, are you going to actually address this point, or are you just going to BS again?
If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form.
- Stephen Hawking
I just got a picture of a paddle ball while reading this. So while this god figured out the right speed, it formed a religion?
Anyway, just because you have 10 reasons to believe, doesn't mean we have to believe you. It has been shown that your reasons do not require the belief in a god, especially a Christian god.
Since Stephen Hawking was quoted in this thread in support of a fine tuned universe being fined tuned by a creator god, I thought would be appropriate to quote him further.
I find this interesting in the light of his allegedly having said;
"If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form."
To put this quote in perspective, have a visit here
Thank you very much. I was initially quite surprised and impressed by the quoting of Hawking in support of a Prime Mover apologetic, but it of course began to look like mined quotes that could be easily lifted from apologetics websites. Thanks for the link putting the quotes into context.
Iwasmadenew created this string and named it "Comparing Atheism and Christianity." So let's return to discussing Christianity.
Matthew 27:
62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
According to the Gospels and Acts, exactly what the chief priests and Pharisees feared would happen is exactly what occurred. The tomb proved to be empty and the disciples began spreading the story that Jesus had risen from the dead.
This then is a very simple and obvious question. Why is the origin of the Christian movement unlikely to be as a result of actions taken by the followers of Jesus after his death, and more likely to be the result of the corpse of Jesus returning to life and subsequently flying off into the sky?
Which of these possibilities best conforms to reason, logic and common sense? Anybody?
The fact you put refutation in quotes instead of responding to what I wrote indicates you have no response other than to pretend my refutation was not valid.
I took the liberty to provide a score to demonstrate where your arguments had no impact (9 times), or where they failed (Once). The fact that you need to BS about this instead of responding to what I wrote doesn’t demonstrate a high degree of genuine confidence in your own reasoning.
Yes it was. Point 6, the point you keep avoiding. Here:
I presume you are referring to the six precise parameters our universe needs to be stable. If you want to argue improbable, why use one example when you can have improbable multiplied by 6?
Your problem is if it is unlikely for one universe to just have the 6 parameters correct, then it is equally as unlikely that a god that simply exists just happens to know these 6 parameters.
So if chance and a god are equally unlikely, then there must be a more plausible alternative. Any of the multiverse theories are more plausible as they increase the probability landscape. The larger the number of universes, the more likely one will be stable.
Another home goal for you, you have just argued your god out of existence.
Are you going to actually address this point (and the objective morality argument), or are you just going to BS again?
I do not need 10. I only need the argument from the improbability of a complex, highly specified god. You know, argument 6 you keep running from. Until you can address that, you have nothing. So once again, are you going to actually address this point, or are you just going to BS again?
Harry: "Your problem is if it is unlikely for one universe to just have the 6 parameters correct, then it is equally as unlikely that a god that simply exists just happens to know these 6 parameters."
This statement is a bit bizarre to me. You are essentially saying that a God who created our universe (in an instant, from nothing) would not likely know what precise parameters were needed in order to allow the formation of planets and life, even though that was the whole purpose for making the universe. What you're doing here is confining God to your own limited box, assuming limitations about what a creator God is capable of. That's very similar to assumption that a God who created the whole universe would be unable to raise Jesus from the dead. It's is the same tactic... placing your own limits on what a creator God is capable of in order to suit your argument. You want to "refute" the supernatural by limiting answers to only "natural" explanations. Sloppy logic.
Harry: "I do not need 10 [reasons]. I only need the argument from the improbability of a complex, highly specified god."
Read the first post. The topic is "Comparing Atheism and Christianity" and the format is comparing how each of these worldviews answers three of life's big questions. You seem to think that critiquing my list of reasons is a substitute for you having to making your own case. Asserting "God didn't do it" does not make a case for why you think our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes. Make a case for why you think your "multiverse" answer is more probable. Otherwise I'll just ignore you and respond to TotN instead. If TotN is still participating in this thread, he will be my first priority. I'm under no obligation to respond to every other comment from the atheist "mob."
Iwasmadenew created this string and named it "Comparing Atheism and Christianity." So let's return to discussing Christianity.
Matthew 27:
62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
According to the Gospels and Acts, exactly what the chief priests and Pharisees feared would happen is exactly what occurred. The tomb proved to be empty and the disciples began spreading the story that Jesus had risen from the dead.
This then is a very simple and obvious question. Why is the origin of the Christian movement unlikely to be as a result of actions taken by the followers of Jesus after his death, and more likely to be the result of the corpse of Jesus returning to life and subsequently flying off into the sky?
Which of these possibilities best conforms to reason, logic and common sense? Anybody?
You are straying from the format you agreed to. What does your question have to do with any of the 3 questions we are answering?
BTW, you have the same issue as Harry. You want to "refute" the supernatural by restricting answers to only "natural" explanations.
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.
