Athiesm and disproving God

[Guy Threepwood]

Are you saying that universes are created unnaturally?

I'm saying there is no reference for what is 'usual', so no default answer, the burden of proof is on any explanation

otherwise I could just declare myself an 'annaturalist' I make no claim, I just reject yours- and until proven the obvious alternative is true by default..

I.e, the negative framing of a belief doesn't change what you believe, doesn't excuse any belief from burden of proof here

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Buddy, Hawkingdoes not support the 'fine tuning' argument. He also knows that you can not calculate the probability of things being the way they are.

What is the probability of an omniscient god magically popping into existence and creating a universe with you in it by the way? (Please show the math, I would love to see the calculation here. And when you show the calculation for the mathematical probability of your creator god, we can compare it to your probability calculations for the naturalistic universe ok?)

'if you have enough random iterations, you will be bound to get a universe like ours eventually' his argument- not mine

we have creative intelligence, we know it exists in this universe, many including Andre Linde (principle in modern inflationary theory) think it 'feasible' we can one day create our own universe, and that this could be where ours came from- an experiment in an 'alien universe'


this would be just one way a universe could be created through intelligent design, and if we succeed, the probability is 1:1.... while the odds of arbitrarily arriving at values for the universal constants needed to merely create space/time far less sentient life are staggeringly low- meaning lots and lots of zeros, sorry there is not an exact number you can look up on wiki- but again Hawking has it at infinity to one for all practical purposes- so it would be a good question for him


and that's the real kicker with what's left of atheist models;

Any lotto machine powerful enough to create this universe, would have to have a 'safety mechanism' forbidding it to ever create anything resembling a 'God' directly on indirectly, which would go on to make universes intentionally with a far higher success rate than the lotto machine, defeating the whole point of the theory.

And this appears already feasible in just this 1 example of an 'accidental' universe, you'd have to rule it out ever happening here or in any other to assume ours is the special original 'immaculate conception' and not just manufactured, atheist belief would appeal to a comfortable sense of being 'special' here?

 

[McBell]

'if you have enough random iterations, you will be bound to get a universe like ours eventually' his argument- not mine

we have creative intelligence, we know it exists in this universe, many including Andre Linde (principle in modern inflationary theory) think it 'feasible' we can one day create our own universe, and that this could be where ours came from- an experiment in an 'alien universe'


this would be just one way a universe could be created through intelligent design, and if we succeed, the probability is 1:1.... while the odds of arbitrarily arriving at values for the universal constants needed to merely create space/time far less sentient life are staggeringly low- meaning lots and lots of zeros, sorry there is not an exact number you can look up on wiki- but again Hawking has it at infinity to one for all practical purposes- so it would be a good question for him


and that's the real kicker with what's left of atheist models;

Any lotto machine powerful enough to create this universe, would have to have a 'safety mechanism' forbidding it to ever create anything resembling a 'God' directly on indirectly, which would go on to make universes intentionally with a far higher success rate than the lotto machine, defeating the whole point of the theory.

And this appears already feasible in just this 1 example of an 'accidental' universe, you'd have to rule it out ever happening here or in any other to assume ours is the special original 'immaculate conception' and not just manufactured, atheist belief would appeal to a comfortable sense of being 'special' here?

So, you are not going to support your claim by showing the math?
How utterly disappointing.
I was hoping you would be the first to actually support that bold empty claim.

 

[Underhill]

Indeed, i'd love to see the math comparing relative probabilities for creation by god and naturalism.
Not holding my breath though.

The argument for god has always been, if there is a god then the probability is much higher that we were created. Which is like saying if I always had 4 aces in my poker hand, I too could be a great gambler!

 

[Ouroboros]

I constantly come back to this: if God needs to be proved to exist, then it's not God to begin with. A God that truly exists must be something that we intuitively and undeniable know exists, in my opinion. If God has to be convinced through arguments, arm-twisting, and vague premises in syllogisms, then God is doing a really crappy job on being known to us, and then perhaps that's what he wants. Not to be known. If God wants to be known, then it should be easy to do it. And it's even worse if God's existence is based on probability. Perhaps God doesn't roll the dice for the universe, but it seems like we're rolling the dice for God's existence.

 

[Bunyip]

'if you have enough random iterations, you will be bound to get a universe like ours eventually' his argument- not mine

Sure Guy, an that is not the argument you attributed to him. You are disproving your own claim in regard to Hawking.

we have creative intelligence, we know it exists in this universe, many including Andre Linde (principle in modern inflationary theory) think it 'feasible' we can one day create our own universe, and that this could be where ours came from- an experiment in an 'alien universe'


this would be just one way a universe could be created through intelligent design, and if we succeed, the probability is 1:1.... while the odds of arbitrarily arriving at values for the universal constants needed to merely create space/time far less sentient life are staggeringly low- meaning lots and lots of zeros, sorry there is not an exact number you can look up on wiki- but again Hawking has it at infinity to one for all practical purposes- so it would be a good question for him


and that's the real kicker with what's left of atheist models;

Any lotto machine powerful enough to create this universe, would have to have a 'safety mechanism' forbidding it to ever create anything resembling a 'God' directly on indirectly, which would go on to make universes intentionally with a far higher success rate than the lotto machine, defeating the whole point of the theory.

Sorry Guy - that last paragraph was unreadable gibberish.

And this appears already feasible in just this 1 example of an 'accidental' universe, you'd have to rule it out ever happening here or in any other to assume ours is the special original 'immaculate conception' and not just manufactured, atheist belief would appeal to a comfortable sense of being 'special' here?

You are not making sense mate - just show us the math please.

 

[Willamena]

Which is based on believing what your own mind tells you

There is nothing else to believe.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sure Guy, an that is not the argument you attributed to him. You are disproving your own claim in regard to Hawking.
Sorry Guy - that last paragraph was unreadable gibberish.

You are not making sense mate - just show us the math please.

It's not my argument or my counter argument- it's a common refutation Krauss and many others make towards Hawking's and other multiverse theories- other than being entirely beyond study, 'if your theory requires an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory' (Krauss)

if you have any sort of argument you'd like to counter with -, that might make for an interesting debate, isn't that why we are here?..
answering arguments with 'I don't understand/believe you/ you're talking rubbish' etc etc is a dead end.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I constantly come back to this: if God needs to be proved to exist, then it's not God to begin with. A God that truly exists must be something that we intuitively and undeniable know exists, in my opinion. If God has to be convinced through arguments, arm-twisting, and vague premises in syllogisms, then God is doing a really crappy job on being known to us, and then perhaps that's what he wants. Not to be known. If God wants to be known, then it should be easy to do it. And it's even worse if God's existence is based on probability. Perhaps God doesn't roll the dice for the universe, but it seems like we're rolling the dice for God's existence.

If you could plant a chip in somebody's head which made them love you no matter what, would you do it?


Tempting maybe, but perhaps God thought this through a little further?

it would not be true love would it? in fact you'd utterly destroy any possibility of true love, that has to be chosen willingly doesn't it?


So what I would expect from a loving God, is a world where most, the vast majority of humanity, after a long personal journey, come to love God and his creation, but a minority must always exist that has freely chosen otherwise

 

[viole]

So what I would expect from a loving God, is a world where most, the vast majority of humanity, after a long personal journey, come to love God and his creation, but a minority must always exist that has freely chosen otherwise

Alas, the trend seems to go in the opposite direction.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bunyip]

It's not my argument or my counter argument- it's a common refutation Krauss and many others make towards Hawking's and other multiverse theories- other than being entirely beyond study, 'if your theory requires an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory' (Krauss)

if you have any sort of argument you'd like to counter with -, that might make for an interesting debate, isn't that why we are here?..
answering arguments with 'I don't understand/believe you/ you're talking rubbish' etc etc is a dead end.

The problem is that you have simply misread. Hawking is not defending or advocating for fine tuning, as you appear to imagine.

 

[Sonofason]

If you went back in time to the early days of life on Earth and got rid of all the blue-green algae, there would be nobody who speaks Norwegian today. Does this mean that this ancient blue-green algae possessed the knowledge of Norwegian?

Nope, the algae needed to know nothing. The architect and creator had that all under control.

 

[Renascibilitas]

To all atheist who wish to answers this:

How come so many atheist claim God isn't real because science contradicts with holy scriptures (ie The Bible, Koran, etc)? If you claim these scriptures are man-made, doesn't that make the argument of God existing invalid because what is in the scriptures is written by people and cannot be consider evidence of god? Do you get what I am saying? What other reasons do you atheist don't believe in god and why?

(No trolling please )

Mesafela created us all. Mesafela is neither a she nor a he nor has any form us humans could understand yet Mesafela creates us all. On day one Mesafela let pass the first 100,000 million years of existence and then altered time so that the next day as experienced by Mesafela was 500,000 million years of existence. Mesafela continued to explore time and how it related to space and ultimately we are a mere by-product and our only purpose is to test ourselves and to prove our love for Mesafela.

Mesafela is a loving god and will reward us if we dutifully follow the wise teachings of Mesafela which can only be discovered through years of silent meditation and prayer for guidance. You may claim Mesafela isn't real because science contradicts the truth of Mesafela and that his tales are man-made but doesn't that make the argument of Mesafela existing invalid because what has been said of Mesafela is written by people and cannot be consider(ed) the evidence of god? Do you get what I am saying? What other reasons exist that near almost everyone have that justify a non-belief in Mesafela?

 

[Sonofason]

Alright, you have a wrong assumption. Better?

It is not necessarily a wrong assumption. It just isn't necessarily a reliable assumption. That doesn't make it wrong by a long shot.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It is very easy to reason how evolution could dial in the proper aggression level on a given species. Beings of the species who are not aggressive enough won't proactively care for themselves and their situations and thus will lose evolutionary fitness. Beings who are too aggressive won't be able to coexist with others, also costing themselves evolutionary fitness. It makes full sense that the normal level of aggression for highly social species would be lower than the normal level of aggression for comparatively antisocial species, as a high aggression level in a member of a highly social species such as us would be absolutely devastating to evolutionary fitness, whereas a high aggression level in a member of an antisocial species such as crocodiles would not be nearly as problematic.

It is not easy to reason how evolution could dial in the proper self-sacrifice level. Beings of a species who are not highly self-sacrificing do not suffer for it in loss of evolutionary fitness. Beings who are highly self-sacrificing will OFTEN willingly suffer losses in evolutionary fitness, in extraordinary circumstances losing even their lives. The cowards live to cower another day while the hero William Wallace gets tortured on the rack. Evolution favors the survivor. Evolution favors the immoral. Evolution favors the coward. If evolution is creating the morality we should follow, we should admire the coward who runs for his life. Since it doesn't, we mostly uniformly admire the self-sacrificing hero.

Its incredibly easy to reason why evolution could "dial in" any specific trait that we have now. And that is because it is the most successful. What works WILL BE so to speak. And this can be taken in steps. That is the essence of evolution.