Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[QuestioningMind]

I answered to that multiple times (but perhaps not directed towars you)……….the Bolzman Brain paradox refutes any chance hypothesis.

What the paradox states is that the probabilities of having a FT universe by chance are so low that it would be more likely that our observations are just an illusion or a dream…………we life in a simpler universe (with less FT) but at this moment you happen be dreaming abut living in a FT universe.

With simpler universe I mean for example a universe with just 1 star and 1 planet, or even simpler a single bolzman brain.

This leads to a reductio ad absurdum, because if all your observations are just a dream, then we can’t know anything about the real world. (until you wake up)

This is why chance hypothesis (including my cat did it by accident @9-10ths_Penguin ) fail.

I'm sorry, but why are you citing an untestable hypothesis as if it has any legitimacy? I can just as easily hypothesis that the universe came into existence as an unintended consequence of a magical pixie farting. Since neither hypothesis can be tested, neither is of any use, other than as an interesting thought experiment.

 

[gnostic]

I am making the positive claim that the existence of cats without FT (without atoms/molecules/chemistry etc) is impossible because by definition cats are made out of atoms..

If you what to claim that the existence of God is impossible, be my guest, but you have a burden proof just like I do with the cat.?

This is simply more rhetoric and making more empty assumption.

The existence of cats, already exist, and more are born, through natural processes - eg reproduction, pregnancy, live birth - therefore, there are no needs to assume that “FT”, “Design” or God’s involvements in this natural process.

But once you are making positive claims of any or combination of the three (eg FT, Design or God), then that burden of proof falls on you.

Someone disagreeing with your positive claim that FT, Design or God cause the existence of cat, that someone don’t have burden of proof, you have the burden, because you are the one who is making positive of 3rd party.

Someone disagreeing with your positive claims, don’t have burden of proof.

Only those making positive claims have the responsibility of burden of proof, therefore you are the one who needs to provide evidence.

You are simply trying to shift the burden of proof to others...which is simply evasion. You are the one who is “running away” that you have accused other of doing...you are trying to transfer your own flaws upon others.

 

[Valjean]

Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

Friend @leroy!

One presented "Atheist Method" vide one's post #159 in this thread. One is engaged with "Atheism" and now the current post is 630 plus.
How would one amend or add the points enumerated with one's experience with Atheism, please?
I am curious, please!
Regards

What does atheism have to do with anything?
You seem to think atheism is some kind of religion, or belief system or lifestyle.

Atheism is not a thing! There is no "method" in atheism!
Atheists have nothing in common but a lack of belief. You, yourself, lack belief in Thor or Cthulu. Does your athorism have any affect on your lifestyle, beliefs or religion?

Paarsurrey, it's astonishing to me how one could have read so many posts about atheism, in this thread alone, and still have no idea what atheism is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope, you still need FT for the cat to even exist.


if you disagree, develop your argument.

I don't necessarily disagree; I'm saying it's irrelevant.

If my cat's actions can have effects back at the beginning of the universe, then my cat can be both the cause of and a product of the universe.

We're not worrying about the ultimate causes for the "explanations" we're giving, because if we were, we'd be asking whether your God is a product of "chance, natural forces or design" itself.

In this context God would be any designer that can exist independently of FT

That's not how it works. You define your God, then we'll see if that God could exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can I ever provide evidence for God, if you always demand for “prior evidence” ?your rhetoric seems to be

Theist: Look at “A” this is evidence for God

You: No that is not evidence

Theist: why not

You: because there is no evidence for God ……….first you have to provide evidence for the existence of God………..then we can discuss “A”

I don't entirely blame you for being taken in by a con man like William Lane Craig, but you really ought to know that these arguments from ignorance just aren't rational.

If you want us to actually accept your view, back it up by something that actually suggests God, not just these crappy "well, what else but God could explain this?"-type arguments.

 

[Valjean]

I didn't raise chance up, questioning mind did.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis. It's not proven.

Nothing is "proven." A round Earth isn't "proven."
But abiogenesis is reasonable, it fits all the current evidence.

Goddidit, on the other hand, has absolutely no supporting evidence, and no known mechanism to explain it.

This is a false dilemma, is it not?

 

[Valjean]

I can make my conclusion without the underlying assumptions modern science makes.

Intelligence is not inferred by measurement of a phenomenon. It is qualitative and requires reasoning to the best explanation.

How does science test qualitative aspects such as qualia? And then all that involves the qualia phenomenon?

It's not a question of qualia. It's a question of evidence.

"Underlying assumptions of modern science?" "Reasoning?"
Logic, reasoning and the tested, dependable laws of science are how we determine how the universe works.
Feelings and impressions, on the other hand, have been with us forever, have led to a thousand different conclusions, and are demonstrably unreliable.

 

[leroy]

I don't necessari; I'm saying it's irrelevant.

If my cat's actions can have effects back at the beginning of the universe, then my cat can be both the cause of and a product of the universe.

We're not worrying about the ultimate causes for the "explanations" we're giving, because if we were, we'd be asking whether your God is a product of "chance, natural forces or design" itself.

If you don’t have atoms you can have cats, and if you don’t have FT you can’t have atoms. Therefore the cat could have not been the cause………. Your hypothesis is incoherent.

If my cat's actions can have effects back at the beginning of the universe, then my cat can be both the cause of and a product of the universe.

No because your cat cant excist without FT……………if you don’t have a FT universe you cant have cats…………..So the cause of FT must be something that exists independently of cats.

That's not how it works. You define your God, then we'll see if that God could exist.

whats wrogn with my definition?

 

[paarsurrey]

Nothing is "proven." A round Earth isn't "proven."
But abiogenesis is reasonable, it fits all the current evidence.

Goddidit, on the other hand, has absolutely no supporting evidence, and no known mechanism to explain it.

This is a false dilemma, is it not?

I understand that Neo-Vedanta or reform Vedanta belong to Brahmo Samaj, does one belong to it, please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

Not valid, and flawed is what it comes down to.

It's utter simplicity actually. The truth of it is obvious. If it were not then mindless regularities can put purposes with functionality into nature.

But mindless regularity does exist in nature, and no-one but the religious is claiming there's any purpose.
No. It's not obvious. You're "reasoning" from a false premise.

 

[leroy]

If you want us to actually accept your view, back it up by something that actually suggests God, not just these crappy "well, what else but God could explain this?"-type arguments.

Well I keep asking this question for months and you and your friends are running away.

What discovery / observation / data etc… would you accept as evidence for God, that you wouldn’t dismiss by ether

1 Ohh it’s a God of the gaps

2 No, No, first provide evidence for the existence of God and then we can discuss that observation

3 Its an argument from ignorance

4 God is not an explanation…

This is a real question, what hypothetical observation would you accept as evidence (nor proof) for God?...I´ll give some examples.

1 If we were in the center of the universe

2 If you look at the sky and the clouds say Penguin I exist, sincerely God

3 If you see a miracle with your own eyes and with witnesses, say someone resurrects after being clearly and unambiguously dead

4 if an asteroid hits the earth forming a crater with letters and sentences (say the first 5 verses of the gospel of John)

Would any of these things count as evidence for God? ……….. Or would you say ohhh it’s a God of the gaps, just because we don’t know where the letters and sentences come from , it doesn’t mean God did it.

 

[Valjean]

I understand that Neo-Vedanta or reform Vedanta belong to Brahmo Samaj, does one belong to it, please? Right, please?

Regards

Not "belong to it." It's a metaphysics I identify with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you don’t have atoms you can have cats, and if you don’t have FT you can’t have atoms. Therefore the cat could have not been the cause………. Your hypothesis is incoherent.

Just because you don't understand a hypothesis doesn't make it incoherent.

Do you understand what a closed timelike curve is?

No because your cat cant excist without FT……………if you don’t have a FT universe you cant have cats…………..So the cause of FT must be something that exists independently of cats.

... unless there are loops in time. Then, objects in the present (e.g. my cat) could cause effects in the past (e.g. the formation of the universe).

whats wrogn with my definition?

It's not a definition, for starters. It's a claim about an undefined thing.

 

[paarsurrey]

It's not a question of qualia. It's a question of evidence.

"Underlying assumptions of modern science?" "Reasoning?"
Logic, reasoning and the tested, dependable laws of science are how we determine how the universe works.
Feelings and impressions, on the other hand, have been with us forever, have led to a thousand different conclusions, and are demonstrably unreliable.

Valjean wrote, " "Underlying assumptions of modern science?" "Reasoning?"
Logic, reasoning and the tested, dependable laws of science are how we determine how the universe works."

It is a tall claim, I understand, that science determines how the Universe works, please. Science/Scientific Method had not surfaced yet, but the Universe was working billions of years before, please. Kindly get corrected please? Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Not "belong to it." It's a metaphysics I identify with.

Please identify the denomination of Vedanta (reform), if one may please?
Regards

 

[osgart]

But mindless regularity does exist in nature, and no-one but the religious is claiming there's any purpose.
No. It's not obvious. You're "reasoning" from a false premise.

An eyeball just does what it does and nevermind that it allows you to see. By the laws of motion solely it forms ever so gradually and we can make use of the unintended thing. Same thing for memory, and all the things we use for to do something. Fortuitous events by the bushel. Utterly without meaning do these things exist and take form. Got it! I'm making purpose out of purposeless things about humans.

 

[leroy]

J



... unless there are loops in time. Then, objects in the present (e.g. my cat) could cause effects in the past (e.g. the formation of the universe).

The cause and effects “laws” are maintained even with “loops in time” (even if the chronological order is not respected) ……….for example even with loops in time, a cup of coffe cannot be the cause of the “grains of coffe” because you cant have a Cup if the grans don’t exist in the first place.

It's not a definition, for starters. It's a claim about an undefined thing.

That is the issue, you simply claim that “it is not a definition” but you don’t provide a justification for that assertion……how am I suppose to respond if I don’t even know where is your disagreement?

 

[paarsurrey]

It's not a question of qualia. It's a question of evidence.

"Underlying assumptions of modern science?" "Reasoning?"
Logic, reasoning and the tested, dependable laws of science are how we determine how the universe works.
Feelings and impressions, on the other hand, have been with us forever, have led to a thousand different conclusions, and are demonstrably unreliable.

Valjean wrote, " "Underlying assumptions of modern science?" "Reasoning?"
Logic, reasoning and the tested, dependable laws of science are how we determine how the universe works." Right friend, please? "

Yes, there are assumption of Science, no surprise friend, please:
Basic assumptions of science - Understanding Science
undsci.berkeley.edu › article › basic_assumptions
Science operates on the assumptions that natural causes explain natural phenomena, that evidence from the natural world can inform us about those causes, and that these causes are consistent.

Don't these assumptions make science resorting to circular
reasoning sometimes or always, please? Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

leroy wrote, "you what to ridicule my position rather than providing serious arguments is very telling,"

When Atheism have no solid reasoning Atheism leave providing serious argument and resort to ridicule, is it good point to be added to Atheism Method as one mentioned in one's post #159, please?
Regards

How would atheism provide a serious argument? Argument for what? Atheism has no beliefs, it has nothing to argue for.
All we can do is continue to point out that atheism is the default, and that you have no solid reasoning.

159. The atheist method:
1 avoid the burden proof at all cost. How could someone making no claims have a burden? A burden to defend what? I'm sorry, but you've completely misconstrued atheism. The thing you keep posting about, and calling 'atheism', is Not Atheism!
2 never answer questions directly clearly and unambiguously. Show me an example.
I believe we do answer questions clearly, and any ambiguity is your own misunderstanding. If you ask questions like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" no 'clear, unambiguous answer' is possible.
3 apply unrealistically high standards with claims that support the existence of God. Example, please. There are no high or low standards. There's only valid and invalid; reasonable and unreasonable.
4 just claim "god of the gaps" when you cant answer to a specific line of evidence. Please learn what the "God of the gaps"
argument is before you use it.
5 never accept nor deny a specific claim, keep your position ambiguous. Example, please.
We are clear and unambiguous. Don't blame our arguments on your inability to follow them.
6 never provide your specific points of disagreement for an argument. But we always provide these! Please show some
examples so we can understand what you're talking about.

This is not a "method." This is just a list of grievances and responses the poster couldn't understand or answer.

 

[leroy]

You could make the same argument for the universe created by any other configuration of laws and constants, as well, and our own and any other pattern can be explained by chance.

Every time you see pattern you conclude "God." Rational people make no such argument from incredulity.
"This kind of pattern?" What kind is that? Wouldn't any other pattern be just as astonishing?

well ..............
Whats the difference between hitting the center of a bulls eye with an arrow or hitting any other spot?.............all spots are equally probable right?

If you observe an arrow flying and hitting the center of a bulls eye what would you conclude

1 Maybe there is an archer who intended to hit the center of the bulls eye (even if you don’t know who he is, or where did he come from)

2 or would you say, it´s a coincidence, the center of a bulls eye is as unlikely as any other spot, so maybe the wind was blowing it moved the arrow and the arrow simply happened to hit the center of the bulls eye