Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[infrabenji]

yes but can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that nature is all there is?


...
but anyway I find the fine tuning argument very convincing.... why isn't this argument good enough for you.?

I suggest that God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe, if you think you have a better explanation feel free to share it and discuss which explanation is better

. this is a summary of the FT argument
https://crossexamined.org/the-argument-from-cosmic-fine-tuning/



+ just to be clear, I Dont claim that the FT argument proves God beyond reasonable doubt, but I do claim that it's the best explanation..... which in my opinion it's enough to justify theism (you don't need proof beyond reasonable doubt)

We haven't even started the debate and you're already shifting the burden of proof. Doesn't it bother you? That I'm willing to be convinced with out 100% certainty and yet you are 100% certain that god exists? As far as convincing each other by argument I'm by far the more generous of the two of us. Giving you a margin of error that you have not given to me. So let's not shift the burden of proof. I've never made the claim that nature is all there is. Let's tackle the fine tuning argument real quick. I've found many problems with this argument. Here are a couple I'd like to point out that definitely outline major flaws in the argument. I have about 20 more problems with the fallacious reasoning supporting this argument that I can show you. I thought it made more sense not to over load you. I don't think that would be fair. If you also find the problems with the argument worrisome we can try another one or keep going. It's up to you.

The fine tuning argument is based on the dichotomy of:

• The parameters of the universe are a "happy coincidence"
• or God selected the parameters to fulfil some purpose.

This is a false dichotomy. A better fork would be:

• The parameters of the universe are a "happy coincidence",
• or God selected the parameters to fulfil some purpose,
• or the universe could not be other than it is,
• or some unknown natural process caused the universe to be as it is.

The problem is it is almost impossible to rule out the last two options, making the argument an argument from ignorance and god of the gaps. It's easy to confuse natural processes with random processes, which leads them to equate them. The argument is essentially the same as saying "lighting occurs and Thor is the best explanation" at a time before the understanding of electricity.

An Invalid use of Probability
"Premise 2. The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis."
"Astrophysicist [and creationism apologist] Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants-122 in all-would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e., without divine design). Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking: one chance in 10138-that’s one chance in one with 138 zeros after it!"
The argument assumes that there is a certain range of values that each physical constant could assume. The greater these ranges, the more unlikely that a given set of constants would have assumed the values we observe. However, to simply imagine a certain range of possible numerical values that each constant could assume and calculating the probability that this value would be arrived at by mere chance is fallacious for two reasons. Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us a) what range the constants could possibly assume in reality and b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values (Texas sharp shooter fallacy). If in a lottery one number were drawn from a pot of five numbers, then winning the lottery would become comparatively likely. Likewise, even if a trial with an extremely unlikely outcome - say winning an actual national lottery - were repeated a sufficient number of times, the outcome would become likely to occur overall.

To avoid an argument from ignorance, you must rule out all other hypotheses, including as yet unknown hypotheses, to make an argument by elimination. It is almost impossible to rule out all undiscovered hypothesis in a field so far removed from human experience. However, without doing this, you inevitably make an argument from ignorance and commits god of the gaps.

 

[Colt]

I very much doubt that my educators have all been atheists, in fact I'm sure some of them weren't. You seem to have a very anti-atheist bias.



You must have had a very poor or limited experience.



I was presented with a belief but what convinced me was the experience. I believed absolutely that, as you put it, "Proof of God comes through experiencing God." - and that I'd genuinely experienced God. I was wrong.

Then you need to retry experiencing God if you want to find God. And just because you didn't doesn't mean others haven't.

 

[Colt]

Doesn't change the fact that it can happen. And then there are things completely out of our control at this point, like increasingly damaging and deadly severe weather. Life is always trying to find a way to kill us, not coddle us.

Reality sucks but its the only place to get a hot meal. And when floods come, seek higher ground.

 

[infrabenji]

Someone who has decided God is a psycho has his mind made up and is the one trolling Christians. There are dozens like you here on RF and they are only here for one reason. To tell Christians how wrong they are. If you think you are fooling anyone then you should be doing the rock kicking.

I could give you dozens of examples that would lead me to believe the christian god is not sane. Let's look at genocide, slavery, rape, genital mutilation. Only some of the things god condones in the bible. Yeah, I'm not down with christian god. Even if you could demonstrate him that he is real, and at that point I would accept that he was, I still wouldn't worship him. I'm asking you to make that argument. Can you or are you afraid/ nervous maybe? In case you didn't notice I'm willing to debate any religion so why accuse me of trolling christians. All I get is trolled and called names by christians. So christ like. Christians throw that stuff around like party confetti instead of actually putting their beliefs to the test as I am. Or do you just like trolling a debate forum literally called
Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

 

[ratiocinator]

Craig would reply a singularity represents a hole in the spatio-temporal manifold. It is not a physical state where the laws of physics change; it is a missing point of space-time. The laws of physics are completely annulled there since they are formulated in a space-time background. Ergo, that wouldn't be a problem for Craig since the singularity represents the beginning of the universe (i.e., space and time), which Craig will happily accept.

You can, of course, deny the existence of singularities (along with the majority of cosmologists and contra Craig), but then your previous point about the laws of physics changing will also be denied.

I don't think many people take the singularity seriously (as a physical reality) any more. It's a mathematical term that describes what happens if you just apply general relativity. A quantum theory of gravity will almost certainly give a different result. The singularity is telling us that we don't know what happened.

 

[ratiocinator]

Then you need to retry experiencing God if you want to find God.

Why do you think the result would be any different? Why would I even want to find 'god' if it exists and insists on playing childish games of hide-and-seek?

And just because you didn't doesn't mean others haven't.

And others thinking that they have (as I did) doesn't mean they actually have.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I could give you dozens of examples that would lead me to believe the christian god is not sane. Let's look at genocide, slavery, rape, genital mutilation. Only some of the things god condones in the bible. Yeah, I'm not down with christian god. Even if you could demonstrate him that he is real, and at that point I would accept that he was, I still wouldn't worship him. I'm asking you to make that argument. Can you or are you afraid/ nervous maybe? In case you didn't notice I'm willing to debate any religion so why accuse me of trolling christians. All I get is trolled and called names by christians. So christ like. Christians throw that stuff around like party confetti instead of actually putting their beliefs to the test as I am. Or do you just like trolling a debate forum literally called
Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

Sorry. I do not have time to reply. I am too busy kicking rocks. But you have fun with your little "atheist looking for religion" game.

 

[Magical Wand]

I don't think many people take the singularity seriously (as a physical reality) any more. It's a mathematical term that describes what happens if you just apply general relativity. A quantum theory of gravity will almost certainly give a different result. The singularity is telling us that we don't know what happened.

Yeah, I agree. That's why I said "You can, of course, deny the existence of singularities (along with the majority of cosmologists..." Haha.

 

[infrabenji]

Sorry. I do not have time to reply. I am too busy kicking rocks. But you have fun with your little "atheist looking for religion" game.

Okay buh by

 

[ratiocinator]

Yeah, I agree. That's why I said "You can, of course, deny the existence of singularities (along with the majority of cosmologists..." Haha.

Oops.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Why do you think the result would be any different? Why would I even want to find 'god' if it exists and insists on playing childish games of hide-and-seek?



And others thinking that they have (as I did) doesn't mean they actually have.

"Why would I want to find God" from someone who says "let's see if I can be convinced" does not sound like he wants to be convinced. Just more game playing.

 

[ratiocinator]

"Why would I want to find God" from someone who says "let's see if I can be convinced" does not sound like he wants to be convinced. Just more game playing.

I think you've mistaken me for somebody else....

Added: And there was an 'if': "Why would I even want to find 'god' if.."

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The difference between us as far as I can see, is that I don’t walk around in fear of drowning in puddles or whatever.

Hmm, how very presumptive of you. Recognizing the numerous and sundry threats that are ever present in our environment is not living in fear of them. Caution does not equate with agoraphobia. The difference between us seems rather to be that I recognize and respect the lethality of life, and thus appreciate my continued survival all the more for it. You, on the other hand, appear to be blissfully and naïvely optimistic in your belief of life's coddling nature for You, the Miracle of Creation.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Hmm, how very presumptive of you. Recognizing the numerous and sundry threats that are ever present in our environment is not living in fear of them. Caution does not equate with agoraphobia. The difference between us seems rather to be that I recognize and respect the lethality of life, and thus appreciate my continued survival all the more for it. You, on the other hand, appear to be blissfully and naïvely optimistic in your belief of life's coddling nature for You, the Miracle of Creation.

I haven’t been coddled mate. Anything but. But I am grateful for my life, all of it.

So was my granddad, who spent 4 years in the trenches in WWI, lived through the Great Depression, knew poverty and unemployment, lived through the blitz, dug bodies out of the rubble with his bare hands. And was sustained by his faith all his life, and at the end, gave thanks for all of it.

I figured if he could be grateful for his life, I really should be grateful for mine. And I am.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I haven’t been coddled mate. Anything but.

So then you recognize, I assume, that Life is a constant struggle from several angles. Wunderbar.

 

[dybmh]

@infrabenji , Hi, nice to meet you. Apologies for the lengthy reply. My intention was to give you a complete argument in support of supernatural phenomena so that you know precisely where I'm coming from.

What I gather from your posts in this thread is that your position is: there are no reasons to believe in God, gods, or the supernatural. As has been pointed out by others, evidence for God or gods ( if they exist ) is subjective, therefore there is no objective evidence to support any claim of their existence. However I haven't seen anyone approach the claim that supernatural phenomena don't exist.

The first challenge for me, as someone who is taking the affirmative position on the existence of supernatural phenomena, is to define supernatural in manner which is agreeable for both of us.

For me, for this discussion, supernatural and spiritual are unexplainable unpredictable phenomena. If we can agree on this definition I invite you to do a thought experiment with me regarding whether or not spiritual / supernatural events are real.

The thought experiment is this: Is there a finite end to the number discoveries which can be observed in the natural world? I say, no. Not only that, but in some fields making one objective repeatable discovery leads to many more unanswered questions. In these cases, even though knowledge is objectively increasing, the unknown, the mysteries of reality, are increasing at a faster rate. If this is true, then isn't it logical to conclude that there will always be phenomena which do not appear to fit within what is considered natural, or repeatable, or observable?

This is essentially a God-of-the-gaps argument, but replace God with supernatural, and add to it the one-to-many relationship between a new discovery and the many unanswered questions which result from it. From this point of view, the unexplainable , the mysteries of the real world, is net increasing even though scientific discovery is increasing too. The question is: which is increasing at the greater rate. I propose that as knowledge increases, the mysteries increase faster, which is a plausible reason to believe in spiritual/supernatural phenomena. I'm not attempting to prove this; I'm only trying to provide a valid reason for this belief.

It's true that the things in the past which were considered supernatural ( illness for example ) have been demystified. This, imo, does not discredit the thought experiment above. It takes some imagination, but, if one discovery often leads to many new unanswered questions, then it's reasonable to infer that there will always be unanswered questions, unrepeatable phenomena which is deemed supernatural. These would be a set of both natural phenomena which can be explained at some later date as well as unexplainable supernatural phenomena.

Again, the reason to believe in supernatural events comes from the deviation between the rate of increase between what is known and what is unknown. I can't predict the future, but I can assess the trend. If there is always much much more unknown than known **and** if the known contributes to the unknown; then that is a valid reason to conclude that there are phenomena which will never be explained by material, natural, physical causes. In summation, imo, the unknown will always eclipse the known.

Granted, this is just a thought experiment. Even if we agree that these ideas have merit, without objective examples it's still a weak argument in favor of supernatural events. Because of this, I'd like to supplement the thought experiment with three examples of what I deem to be supernatural phenomena. At this time, as far as I know, there is no material scientific explanation of these events. Also, I think you'll agree, if there is ever discovered the how and why these things occur, the discoveries would trigger many many more questions thus supporting the thought experiment provided above.

In order from strongest to weakest:

1) Tibetian Tummo. Have you heard of it? It's being able to raise one's body temperature through breathing and mental visualization. It's been tested and verified in the 80s; you can look it up. There's a wikipedia article on it: link. There's also a practitioner named Master Zhou Ting Jue who has demonstrated heating his hands to 190 deg F. There's a TV show on History channel which attempted to debunk Master Zhou Ting Jue and was unable to do so. I posted a thread here to discuss him specifically: link. Unfortunately the History Channel expose was taken down off youtube; but the other video posted in the thread shows clearly what is done. Please note that Master Zhou Ting Jue does not appear to be exherting himself to accomplish the temp increase.

2) Past Life Experiences: there are about 4-5 very convincing examples of people who with astonishing detail are able to recall events, places, and people from their past lives. In addition to these 4, there is a list floating around out there documenting many of these past life experiences which were researched and published as unexplainable. I think this list has been posted here a few times in the past. If there is interest I can look it up. The point is, in rare cases memories do not end with mortality.

3) Love: This is in my opinion the least convincing example, but still worthy of mention. My assertion is that Love in all its various forms is completely unpredictable and often unexplainable. This qualifes it as supernatural / spiritual. Even if there is a discovery of the fundamental neuro-chemical causes for all types of Love, I have a hard time believing that delivering this to people would result in predictable relationships.

So, that's it. I cannot prove there is a God, or gods. But there are reasons to believe in the supernatural. This is based on the trajectory of scientific discoveries which lead to more unanswered questions in perpetuity a well as a few objective unexplained phenomena which are so bizzarre I doubt that they will every be completely understood as natural.

I look forward to reading your reply if you choose to do so.

Sincerely,

edit: Master Zhou Ting Jue is demonstrating Qi-Gong, which is Chinese, not from Tibet.

 

[Tiberius]

From my personal understanding and experience of how the teaching has helped me fully change as a person

But that's not actually evidence. For all you know, it could just be a random idea you had that you attributed to a God or other kind of higher power.

 

[Tiberius]

Craig would reply a singularity represents a hole in the spatio-temporal manifold. It is not a physical state where the laws of physics change; it is a missing point of space-time. The laws of physics are completely annulled there since they are formulated in a space-time background. Ergo, that wouldn't be a problem for Craig since the singularity represents the beginning of the universe (i.e., space and time), which Craig will happily accept.

This seems contradictory.

Craig says that a singularity is a missing point of space-time. So how can space and time come from a missing point in space time?

You can, of course, deny the existence of singularities (along with the majority of cosmologists and contra Craig), but then your previous point about the laws of physics changing will also be denied.

Why would I deny the existence of singularities? There's a ton of evidence for them, and I'm not aware of an alternative theory which has been accepted as even plausible.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why would I deny the existence of singularities? There's a ton of evidence for them...

No. There is no evidence at all for them at all. They are what happens to the equations of general relativity when we apply it to certain situations, like black holes and the 'start' of the universe (i.e. we extrapolate backwards in time). There is very good evidence both for black holes and the big bang theory, which means the history of the universe expanding from a very hot and dense state about 13.5 billion years ago, but none at all for singularities per se.

...and I'm not aware of an alternative theory which has been accepted as even plausible.

There are only hypotheses. The point is that we know that we need something that will combine gravity with quantum effects in the relevant situations, and we don't have that yet.

 

[Magical Wand]

This seems contradictory.

Craig says that a singularity is a missing point of space-time. So how can space and time come from a missing point in space time?

It does not. That's the whole point of his argument! Given that space-time ends (or rather, begins) at some point in the past, it must have a non-spatio-temporal cause, and this increases the probability of theism given that God was defined by theologians that way (namely, as non-spatio-temporal) for millennia.

And notice he doesn't even have to argue for the singularity since you're already giving it to him. So, you're making his job easier.

Why would I deny the existence of singularities? There's a ton of evidence for them, and I'm not aware of an alternative theory which has been accepted as even plausible.

There is a ton of evidence the Big Bang theory is correct, but that's not evidence of an initial curvature singularity. Anyway, I shouldn't have mentioned this since isn't relevant to the present discussion. The relevant point is that you already concede to Craig that singularities are real.