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.
If this Universe is fine-tuned for life and it is a Fallen Universe where, death, disease, etc. reign what was the prior state of the Universe before the Fall? Certainly it can't be so fine tuned if life was possible in both states which are dramatically different. One being the actual creation the other being a curse on it where death reigns as the Bible says. So did the cosmological constant change?
And I think that is exactly what he did in the video! It was almost putting the conclusion into the first premise.
Agreed. It comes from the assumption that a god did it to start. It skews all the apologetics. It is why they assume that atheists have the burden of disproving a god when it the theist had to give a reason to believe in one. It is why they then say: "What other explanation is there for the Universe?"
And when we say: "We don't know." They suppose that "God"remains the only answer (never mid Which God-it's all the same God) and think they havewon the argument.
You can't compare the odds of winning one lottery to the odds of life existing on planet Earth. A more apt comparison would be the odds of one person winning many consecutive lotteries. In that scenario, there would be very little doubt in your mind that there must be some outside influence involved and not just a result of a run of good luck.
In any case, I'm not interested in spending any time trying to convince you of the existence of God. I suspect you have personal reasons why you'd prefer to believe that God does not exist. If you really had a genuine desire to know the truth you would not be content wasting your time on a discussion forum, repeating the same talking points over and over. The compulsive need to keep debating the topic of God's existence is a trait of someone who is trying to convince themselves, but never fully succeeding in doing so. If you are sure that once you die there is nothing more, you should make better use of your finite time on this planet.
Last edited by Iwasmadenew; 01-09-2020 at 09:29 PM..
You expect us to listen to you, but you are not listening to us.
Applying Bayes' theorem to the origins of the universe (forget about the origins of Life - they are far from astronomical) is pointless as we know almost nothing about the parameters that influenced it. This is not to say that there is no case to be made for conditions to be so right for this universe that the odds on chance are improbabale. But that was thought to be the case with Life and now we know a bit more, the odds are rather against a Creator other than nature.
No trying the same argument with the Universe, well - you get the same response. "When we know so little, it is pointless trying to calculate probabilities".
The argument is academic anyway because, if you could make a case for an intelligent creation, so what?
We might stop being non-theists, but it wouldn't make us religious. You still have to make a case for a religion.
You expect us to listen to you, but you are not listening to us.
Applying Bayes' theorem to the origins of the universe (forget about the origins of Life - they are far from astronomical) is pointless as we know almost nothing about the parameters that influenced it. This is not to say that there is no case to be made for conditions to be so right for this universe that the odds on chance are improbabale. But that was thought to be the case with Life and now we know a bit more, the odds are rather against a Creator other than nature.
No trying the same argument with the Universe, well - you get the same response. "When we know so little, it is pointless trying to calculate probabilities".
The argument is academic anyway because, if you could make a case for an intelligent creation, so what?
We might stop being non-theists, but it wouldn't make us religious. You still have to make a case for a religion.
No, I don't expect you to listen to me. If you read my previous post you would know why I think it would be a waste of time to try to convince someone like you of God's existence. I care enough to post a quick video link every now and then, for anyone who might have ears to hear, but it would be unrealistic and foolish to expect that I could change your mind... or that you could change mine. This reality should be obvious to anyone who's spent any time on a discussion forum like this.
01-09-2020, 11:38 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
You can't compare the odds of winning one lottery to the odds of life existing on planet Earth. A more apt comparison would be the odds of one person winning many consecutive lotteries. In that scenario, there would be very little doubt in your mind that there must be some outside influence involved and not just a result of a run of good luck.
In any case, I'm not interested in spending any time trying to convince you of the existence of God. I suspect you have personal reasons why you'd prefer to believe that God does not exist. If you really had a genuine desire to know the truth you would not be content wasting your time on a discussion forum, repeating the same talking points over and over. The compulsive need to keep debating the topic of God's existence is a trait of someone who is trying to convince themselves, but never fully succeeding in doing so. If you are sure that once you die there is nothing more, you should make better use of your finite time on this planet.
The video was specific to your own video. That's the comparison. That's it!
First, I don't consider it a waste of my time to be on here ---- or else I would not be on here. Second, you posted a video for us and now are upset that I'm spending time trying to understand it when before you were congratulating me on doing so and now telling me I'm compulsive. Third, if you are sure, and there is no way you can be, that once you die there is a god waiting for you it is you who should not be wasting time on here.
If you guys had any real evidence and if God was more apt is giving us some we all might just know he exists but instead all you theists have is stupid game playing with Bayesian epistemology. It's the same ole dumb deductive syllogism nonsense your philosophers have been offering up for ever and not figuring out how pathetic they are. Here is a history of your apologetics:
Yes. This is the argument. Intuitively is seems convincing that conditions have to be so exact for Life and the existence of the universe at all that Someone Must have Intended it.
On the other hand, the fact that most of the universe is hostile to life (as we know it) can be argued either way, especially as the biochemical elements (thanks to novae) exist in the universe. That life had to appear where conditions made it possible was highly likely, OR that the conditions had to be Just Right (the Goldilocks argument) for life at all. Which is why I tip extinctions into the scale to argue that this is not how a Plan would work. Especially as the complexity, DNA codes and I/C arguments have bee debunked.
Earth. A planet consisting of more than 70% water, specifically made for the use of 'man', a creature that has no gills. Such brilliant design eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I believe that if someone follows the truth wherever it leads, they will find it.
Not exactly what you do is it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
You can't compare the odds of winning one lottery to the odds of life existing on planet Earth. A more apt comparison would be the odds of one person winning many consecutive lotteries. In that scenario, there would be very little doubt in your mind that there must be some outside influence involved and not just a result of a run of good luck.
If things were not 'just right' for the life on this planet, it doesn't mean that there would be no life on the planet. It may be that it would be life that is different to as we presently know it.
It is not the water that shapes the puddle, it is the hole that shapes the water
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. "
No, I don't expect you to listen to me. If you read my previous post you would know why I think it would be a waste of time to try to convince someone like you of God's existence. I care enough to post a quick video link every now and then, for anyone who might have ears to hear, but it would be unrealistic and foolish to expect that I could change your mind... or that you could change mine. This reality should be obvious to anyone who's spent any time on a discussion forum like this.
but we addressed the point of the the video and you follow up with a little diagram of your argument which we just answered. You are the one not listening. Indeed, your post is ignoring the responses and puttng it down to refusing to be convinced - by an argument we showed was invalid.
I am impressed that you made that effort. It’s rare to see someone who seems like they are genuinely seeking to understand something they don’t agree with.
My understanding of the argument is that the more unlikely something is, the more it points to intentionality. The video shows that even if we allow for a much wider range of acceptable life-permitting values the result is still compelling and points more towards intentionality and not chance.
Which leaves you with the problem of a more complex designer, which must also be designed by an even more complex designer, ad infinitum. Point 6, remember, which makes an intelligent creator god less compelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I believe that if someone follows the truth wherever it leads, they will find it. The struggle is not with the ideas of others as much as it is a struggle over one’s own capacity to be intellectually unbiased.
The problem is often not intellectual bias, but intellectual honesty. Many people even avoid looking for the truth.
You can't compare the odds of winning one lottery to the odds of life existing on planet Earth.
Of course you can. The odds of you wining a lottery is improbable. But if you include everyone in the US, the odds of someone winning the lottery is probable. Because if you expand the probability landscape (more people or more attempts), even the improbable becomes more probable. Point 6, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
A more apt comparison would be the odds of one person winning many consecutive lotteries. In that scenario, there would be very little doubt in your mind that there must be some outside influence involved and not just a result of a run of good luck.
No, we are only talking about one instance, one stable universe, ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
In any case, I'm not interested in spending any time trying to convince you of the existence of God.
Excellent, we shall no longer see your compulsive need to post refuted videos, and your compulsive need to not address point 6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I suspect you have personal reasons why you'd prefer to believe that God does not exist. If you really had a genuine desire to know the truth you would not be content wasting your time on a discussion forum, repeating the same talking points over and over.
You are the one bringing these points up, remember? And then you repeat this stupid excuse and then run away for a month or two before your compulsion brings you back here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
The compulsive need to keep debating the topic of God's existence is a trait of someone who is trying to convince themselves, but never fully succeeding in doing so. If you are sure that once you die there is nothing more, you should make better use of your finite time on this planet.
Is that why you have the compulsive need to post refuted videos while avoiding point 6. Because you are trying to convince yourself.
As for your image, it is missing your most improbable god.
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.
