See:
Incredulity, Argument From
Please explain in detail how you could
possibly know a single thing about any proposed "other universes." Thanks.
And while you're at it, perhaps you might explain to us all what
a non-created universe might look like?
Ibid.
Yes they are. However, you've fallaciously insisted on asking two questions at once. Are Process and Mechanisms an answer? Most probably, yes.
Where they came from is another question altogether, isn't it?
We
do? Why?
What is The Same Problem again? Not being able to state with absolute certainty the origin of everything?
Q. - Isn't nature simply a self-evident consequence of the universe?
Q - Meanwhile, you'd agree that supernatural, non-temporal, immaterial intelligence is
not a self-evident consequence of the universe, correct?
Then why insist on attempting to draw a meaningful distinction between the two? And why are some theists willing to state unequivocally that their God has no creator, but unable (or perhaps unwilling) to grant this same special exception to the universe?
It cannot be stressed enough that the theistic side of this debate can only make wildly speculative claims about whatever intelligence (divine or otherwise) that they might "have." They cannot demonstrate it.
Additionally, if we allow that there indeed really is An Intelligence®, it
has them and not the other way 'round, no? Who would have the temerity to assert ownership over Divine Intellect?
Do you also ever ponder why anyone would
run towards such an "answer" as intelligence?
So you're arguing that if no one believed in an infinite, supernatural intelligence floating around outside time and space
called God, they might be more inclined to believe in an infinite, supernatural intelligence floating around outside time and space?
Does the confirmed existence of a god or gods tell us anything about their alleged intelligence? Couldn't the universe just as easily be the work of a committee of completely moronic gods?
No one is arguing for or against the existence of well-educated countries.
Or were you trying to say something else?
Hah! Seriously?
Even if we grant that humanity was indeed created, you don't need to hold a PhD in history to know that the entire stretch of humanity's existence has largely been one long episode of Getting It Wrong.
...
Let's play a round of
Name That Primordial Belief and we'll see if it was in fact right or wrong. I'll start:
"Our sun orbits the earth." Primordial belief that was right or wrong?
...
Translation: When your beliefs and actions are dictated by Divine Authority, it sure makes everything a whole lot easier, doesn't it?
You have failed to demonstrate that withholding judgement and avoiding unmerited certainty is an exercise in faith.
Typically, this is called "skepticism" and the reason we have an entirely different word for it is because ... (((drumroll))) ... it's a different thing altogether from faith.
It isn't faith. Even the Bible says so:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." ~ Hebrews 11:1
Using this handy theistic definition of faith, it's impossible to conclude that science is a faith-based exercise. Sorry.
Who's advocating that there is no intelligence
at all? Where did all those watches come from?
Some folks see intelligence as a possible consequence of time, space, and material existence. This is because the evidence leads to this conclusion.
Theists see intelligence is an immaterial antecedent of time, space, and material existence. This is because they insist on leading the evidence based on their conclusions. Their evidence? The superstitious claims of ignorant Bronze Age pastoralists.
Do "things" become more ordered as "it" goes along?
We are not the only life form that there is. Next?
How? It seems much more accurate to say that creationism begs the question by assuming that there is a divine intelligence.
So you're arguing that
God didn't create the universe from nothing, correct? What sort of material did he have to work with prior to the creation of the universe?
Wait. Aren't theists the ones arguing that everything came from nothing? That God created the universe
ex nihilo?
Isn't the Bible pretty clear on the question? Don't most theists start from the assumption that there was nothing in existence prior to God's alleged act of creation? If so, then it's quite accurate to say that creationists are claiming to know that everything came from nothing.
As you yourself have been arguing, this "something-from-nothing theology"
does seem counter-intuitive. Is this why creationists have been obliged to posit the existence of a god (or gods) to spackle over this incongruity?
Please explain how a non-temporal, immaterial, supernatural intelligence could look
like anything. Thanks.
"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.” ~ Stephen Hawking
It's only fine-tuned for
life as we know it, isn't it? And if we're the only life in the entire universe, isn't it much more accurate to say that this universe is rather badly-tuned for life? Do we in fact have evidence of life elsewhere to support the notion that the entire universe is "fine-tuned" for life?
Really, it's just our planet, not the universe ... right? If you moved the Earth to some other spot
in the solar system, it wouldn't support life as we know it.
As if we could decide to tune ourselves at all?
Yet here we are. Feel free to quibble and fret over the odds.
We live in a universe where discussions of other planets have been made possible by science. Perhaps some day in the future, science will allow us to visit some of these other planets? Perhaps even some day, other universes will be the more than just the subject of hypothetical thinking?
For now, we have an incalculably vast universe of own to be concerned with.
Care to recast that last bit in the name of clarity?
Unsubstantiated claim. Why do we have to believe in any difference(s) occurring and forming into something?
See:
Physics 101.
What if The Processes are simply an attribute of matter itself?
Perhaps they were not "formed" separately? Perhaps they're an inevitable consequence of existence?
1.) You haven't demonstrated that other universes exist.
2.) You haven't demonstrated that other universes are finely tuned.
2.) You haven't explained how humanity could possibly do more than speculate about these other universes even if they do exist.
What's Square One again? That the universe exists? I suppose so.
It's correct to say that monotheistic creationists claim
to know (based on little/bad/nonexistent evidence) that an
eternal, non-temporal, disembodied, just
and merciful, insanely
jealous, supernatural intelligence created the universe warts 'n all, right? I say "Let 'em."
Other folks may
prefer to not make declarations of certainty (based on little/bad/nonexistent evidence). I say "Let 'em."
Meanwhile, Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa (of the London School of Economics and Political Science) has concluded from his
research that:
"
Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid." ~ Satoshi Kanazawa
I say "Let 'im."
)
