It is a real thing.
Just doesn't prove that gods created it.
(There are other explanations.)
Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence
- Thread starter TransmutingSoul
- Start date
Just doesn't prove that gods created it.
(There are other explanations.)
Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia
I saw no prediction there.My post was #7, yours was #8
I win.
Regards Tony
And now I'm doing your job for you.
See post #21.
It is a real believe, and on human time scales it seems correct. The thing is the universe and trillions of gravity sources don't work on human time scales
What test/proof would you request?
I can advise that this was a challenge given by Baha'u'llah. He allowed them to select any poof/test that they wanted from him, the only stipulation was they could only choose one test and had to agree upon it. Then when submitted, thay had to agree if it was performed/presented then they were one and all to embrace the truth of the Cause. They failed to follow through.
There are many individual records of people that went to test Baha'u'llah and what resulted.
So what is available are the records of those that did submit tests to the Messengers. They failed to produce any negative result.
Regards Tony
The "Finely Tuned Universe" is about long
time scales that eventually give rise to
sentient beings, eg, humans.
Our time here has been short, but everything
has been leading up to us (you & me).
But not universal time scales.
And consider that we (all life) is a side effect of entropy, the ultimate chaos
I don't request one. But someone offering
evidence for a claim ought to....
1) Show the evidence has been somehow confirmed,
& not disproven, ie, test it.
2) Use that evidence in a cogent argument to support
a claim.
It's reasonable to ask the claimant what they have.
The one asking wants to know, but wouldn't.
Entropy & chaos are unnecessary concepts to
consider how the universe unfolded as it has.
The problem is that most people using the
terms have no understanding of them.
Possibly helpful...
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Ignore his confusing bathtub water example.
Last edited:
That is exactly what is offered by the Baha'i Writings, in the understanding that evolution is as a species. The potential of Humanity was there at the beginning.
Also we are told creation is very ancient, and that humanity is also very ancient, previous civilizations have come and gone, mostly all records of them have been lost in the events and changes of time.
Regards Tony
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
True, but the religious are constantly claiming to have evidence3 when they do not have any. As you can see from the OP he does not even appear to understand the concept.
Evidence should have the ability to cut each way, if you are relying on it. If the evidence cannot show that a God does not exist then it cannot show that one does.
There are other possible ways to justify one's beliefs, it does not look as if evidence is one of those ways.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Explain why this argument could not also be used for The Flying Spaghetti Monster
The proof of God was given by Jesus his Revelation, sacrifice and Word that became the Christian Faith. Likewise for the Faith of Islam.
The person of Jesus and Muhammad, their Revelations and the Word they Gave became the accepted standard and Law for a great majority of Humanity.
What greater proof do you need?
These proofs stood the test of time, until these faiths started not to reflect the Word given by God.
Regards Tony
Observable evolution could be used as evidence for gods.
Of course, it's also evidence for evolution as an unguided
stochastic process. It proves neither, despite being evidence.
I use that reply in answering your question.
The Word of God becomes the standard required for humanity to implement in their daily lives, it makes us, or breaks us, it is creative, not fictional.
Regards Tony
You've offered evidence, not proof.
The distinction is that evidence is part of an argument,
& it won't necessarily become a successful argument.
Proof is a successful argument based upon verified
premises, & inerrant reasoning.
Ya ain't there yet, fella.
As for the prophets, they're just humans
who claim things, like L Ron Hubbard,
Jim Jones, & Joseph Smith.
To claim is not to prove.
Last edited:
If there's no way to observe God,
that poses a big problem for the
believer who wants to convince
the non-believer.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
hmm this O.P seems to me a rather unusual method of providing evidence or testing for God.
The usual stuff that humans seek is a little less ambiguous and a bit more realism. The trouble is, there is a rather fundamental barrier that first needs to be both explained and more importantly crossed...epistemology!
unless a person actually seeks the need to understand the questions of where why are we here? where did we come from? and where we are going? Then why would they even be interested in someone attempting to prove God?
That would seem to me to be like trying to sell a male diesel mechanic womens perfume for his workshop. Its kinda useful but not really wanted. Hes likely to pass it onto someone else!
Anyway, despite the above, I would have thought that the usual means of providing an "on the balance of probabilities" case for God might focus on stuff like:
1. historical evidence (archeology and artifacts that support the story)
2. Oral and written tradition
3. consistency in the story and its alignment with other physical evidence
4. perhaps witnesses to the story
now when it comes to the Bible, there are bucket loads of all of the above trails of evidence. The really interesting thing about it is that when it comes to consistency, if the bible was a "con" it is one of the most elaborate and incredibly consistent "cons" in history! The reasons why I say this are:
1. finding of the dead sea scrolls shows that in 2,000 years, the autograph has barely changed even though it has been passed on from person to person, tribe to tribe, country to country without the use of any control mechanism that could even ensure consistency (most of the variants we have have gone across cultures that have even been at war with each other...so fundamentally they would not seek to remain consistent with writings from another cultures)
2. the bible refers to a couple of civilisations where the was no other evidence of the existence of said civilisations...until recently when external evidence was found proving the bible account was actually true! (aka Hittites and Assyrians)
3. evidence uncovered of Pontius Pilate...until this evidence was relatively recent found, the entire story of him in the bible was considered by most naysayers as being a biblical fairytale.
one could go on, but I think the gist of what I am saying has been illustrated.
The real problem is, unless a non believer has reason to seek answers to the questions of Epistomology, and isn't satisfied with the evolutionary tale, why would they come searching? Unfortunately what really pains me is that in our schools, we do not teach these things. Its apparently dangerous for kids to be taught about religion/s...dangerous to teach them to really question all possibilities when it comes to explaining our existence. Ive seen facebook groups for a school my kids attended where parents demanded any form of "religious indoctrination" during school hours cease. They based there demands entirely on wives tales without any real evidence at all explaining why. Its really unfortunate that society blocks this...people really do not understand or appreciate the importance of religion in our lives. This leaves most of our kids with no knowledge that the alternative to humanism is a viable pale to search for truth. They have no where to turn and so don't bother to even go looking...its like being lost in the desert with only a single roadhouse supporting one's existence. That is a terrible shame.
I think if religion was allowed to be taught correctly in schools, following a proper curriculum combining the history, archeology, bible writings, and writings of extant authors, people would have far less animosity towards it and then all individuals could make a balance decision on whether or not they wished to follow the Bible. Right now, for the majority this is not the case.
I started out my life in a non Christian family. Fortunately for me, that changed during my early teenage years. I am really glad my parents did become Christians...i got to see the change in them and compare that hope they have with the lack of hope in the rest of my extended family. I have been to funerals for young kids who have died...the complete sense of loss and helplessness in those kids and family members at those funerals is truly heartbreaking...if only they were given the opportunity I have been given to gain a genuine knowledge and understanding of an alternative to the humanism outcome "when you die its kaput"!
Lets face it, I like Pascals Wager and its extremely valid when one is standing at a funeral where a group of young people have died as a result of poor choice in a motor vehicle that ended up in a multiple fatality accident.
So for me there are but two choices...it really is binary (despite attempts to argue against this in an attempt to discredit the wager).
As just one bit of evidence to support the binary choice view...anyone who plays lotto does so in the hope they can win. Its binary choice...you can only potentially win if you choose to play the game. If you don't play you cant win...its that simple!
So here's my fundamental view of it...
1. I believe in God, I am part of the group...i engage with it as I should and am told to by the Bible...i choose the gift of salvation
2. An atheist has no interest in God, rejects any offer of salvation, God cannot save him even if he wanted to (you can lead a horse to water, but making it drink?)
Outcomes
If I am wrong what do I lose? Both the atheist and I end up the same
But if I am right, I gain salvation as outlined by the bible and live happily for all eternity visiting other worlds and there will be no more tears and crying, hurt or harm...no more funerals for young kids who made poor choices and died in multiple fatality car accidents.
The atheist on the other hand, if the said atheist who rejects God turns out to be wrong...well he gets the crap burned out of him and then it really is "kaput"!
Anyway, that's my view of it.
The usual stuff that humans seek is a little less ambiguous and a bit more realism. The trouble is, there is a rather fundamental barrier that first needs to be both explained and more importantly crossed...epistemology!
unless a person actually seeks the need to understand the questions of where why are we here? where did we come from? and where we are going? Then why would they even be interested in someone attempting to prove God?
That would seem to me to be like trying to sell a male diesel mechanic womens perfume for his workshop. Its kinda useful but not really wanted. Hes likely to pass it onto someone else!
Anyway, despite the above, I would have thought that the usual means of providing an "on the balance of probabilities" case for God might focus on stuff like:
1. historical evidence (archeology and artifacts that support the story)
2. Oral and written tradition
3. consistency in the story and its alignment with other physical evidence
4. perhaps witnesses to the story
now when it comes to the Bible, there are bucket loads of all of the above trails of evidence. The really interesting thing about it is that when it comes to consistency, if the bible was a "con" it is one of the most elaborate and incredibly consistent "cons" in history! The reasons why I say this are:
1. finding of the dead sea scrolls shows that in 2,000 years, the autograph has barely changed even though it has been passed on from person to person, tribe to tribe, country to country without the use of any control mechanism that could even ensure consistency (most of the variants we have have gone across cultures that have even been at war with each other...so fundamentally they would not seek to remain consistent with writings from another cultures)
2. the bible refers to a couple of civilisations where the was no other evidence of the existence of said civilisations...until recently when external evidence was found proving the bible account was actually true! (aka Hittites and Assyrians)
3. evidence uncovered of Pontius Pilate...until this evidence was relatively recent found, the entire story of him in the bible was considered by most naysayers as being a biblical fairytale.
one could go on, but I think the gist of what I am saying has been illustrated.
The real problem is, unless a non believer has reason to seek answers to the questions of Epistomology, and isn't satisfied with the evolutionary tale, why would they come searching? Unfortunately what really pains me is that in our schools, we do not teach these things. Its apparently dangerous for kids to be taught about religion/s...dangerous to teach them to really question all possibilities when it comes to explaining our existence. Ive seen facebook groups for a school my kids attended where parents demanded any form of "religious indoctrination" during school hours cease. They based there demands entirely on wives tales without any real evidence at all explaining why. Its really unfortunate that society blocks this...people really do not understand or appreciate the importance of religion in our lives. This leaves most of our kids with no knowledge that the alternative to humanism is a viable pale to search for truth. They have no where to turn and so don't bother to even go looking...its like being lost in the desert with only a single roadhouse supporting one's existence. That is a terrible shame.
I think if religion was allowed to be taught correctly in schools, following a proper curriculum combining the history, archeology, bible writings, and writings of extant authors, people would have far less animosity towards it and then all individuals could make a balance decision on whether or not they wished to follow the Bible. Right now, for the majority this is not the case.
I started out my life in a non Christian family. Fortunately for me, that changed during my early teenage years. I am really glad my parents did become Christians...i got to see the change in them and compare that hope they have with the lack of hope in the rest of my extended family. I have been to funerals for young kids who have died...the complete sense of loss and helplessness in those kids and family members at those funerals is truly heartbreaking...if only they were given the opportunity I have been given to gain a genuine knowledge and understanding of an alternative to the humanism outcome "when you die its kaput"!
Lets face it, I like Pascals Wager and its extremely valid when one is standing at a funeral where a group of young people have died as a result of poor choice in a motor vehicle that ended up in a multiple fatality accident.
So for me there are but two choices...it really is binary (despite attempts to argue against this in an attempt to discredit the wager).
As just one bit of evidence to support the binary choice view...anyone who plays lotto does so in the hope they can win. Its binary choice...you can only potentially win if you choose to play the game. If you don't play you cant win...its that simple!
So here's my fundamental view of it...
1. I believe in God, I am part of the group...i engage with it as I should and am told to by the Bible...i choose the gift of salvation
2. An atheist has no interest in God, rejects any offer of salvation, God cannot save him even if he wanted to (you can lead a horse to water, but making it drink?)
Outcomes
If I am wrong what do I lose? Both the atheist and I end up the same
But if I am right, I gain salvation as outlined by the bible and live happily for all eternity visiting other worlds and there will be no more tears and crying, hurt or harm...no more funerals for young kids who made poor choices and died in multiple fatality car accidents.
The atheist on the other hand, if the said atheist who rejects God turns out to be wrong...well he gets the crap burned out of him and then it really is "kaput"!
Anyway, that's my view of it.
Last edited:
Altfish
Veteran Member
How come then, I can I live my life very happily without God, it does not make me, break me, I am still creative and is fictional