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

[YoursTrue]

Isn't there a positive claim out there that no creators are needed and thus everything happens by natural laws that science has already discovered?

There must be reasons that people draw these conclusions.

Any idea, @idea?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't there a positive claim out there that no creators are needed and thus everything happens by natural laws that science has already discovered?

There must be reasons that people draw these conclusions.

No, the claim is that there does not appear to be any need for a creator. That is not a positive claim, it is an observation. Now if one said "there is no need for a creator" without qualification that would be a positive claim that needs evidence.

Do you understand the difference between those two claims? The first observes is that there are no known events that demand a creator. Everything appears to have come to existence naturally. The second goes further and states that there is no need for a creator. Qualifications can be very important in a discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

But the religious method doesn't use verified, testable facts, or even reason. It just makes assertions based on nothing and discourages any questioning or investigation. It's not a method at all.
That's why it's called 'faith,' Paarsurry, because it's unjustified belief.

No, it's not "unjustified belief." It depends (faith does) on several things. Faith should be based on something solid. I can't say "I have faith that there are butterflies with human-looking heads somewhere else in the universe" and think that's a justified belief, can I?

 

[osgart]

No, the claim is that there does not appear to be any need for a creator. That is not a positive claim, it is an observation. Now if one said "there is no need for a creator" without qualification that would be a positive claim that needs evidence.

Do you understand the difference between those two claims? The first observes is that there are no known events that demand a creator. Everything appears to have come to existence naturally. The second goes further and states that there is no need for a creator. Qualifications can be very important in a discussion.

Fair enough. For me it appears creation happened naturally and natural processes are the method of creation from a creator source.
Anything I infer after that is philosophical. And philosophy can be a method of knowing something through perception, consciousness, experience, and reason.

So I have an observation with philosophical implications.

 

[osgart]

Any idea, @idea?

My guess is that they assume that everything can only be known through tested observations, and nothing can be known by way of reasoning from accurate observations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough. For me it appears creation happened naturally and natural processes are the method of creation from a creator source.
Anything I infer after that is philosophical. And philosophy can be a method of knowing something through perception, consciousness, experience, and reason.

So I have an observation with philosophical implications.

No, not philosophical, merely wishful thinking. Philosophy has rules of logic that one must follow. That is not what is happening here.

 

[osgart]

No, not philosophical, merely wishful thinking. Philosophy has rules of logic that one must follow. That is not what is happening here.

So you don't like my reasoning from my observations.

There is a logic to my reasoning. You would just assume that it's filled with non sequiturs.

I'm not wishing it were true in my mind. It is very likely true in my mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you don't like my reasoning from my observations.

There is a logic to my reasoning. You would just assume that it's filled with non sequiturs.

I'm not wishing it were true in my mind. It is very likely true in my mind.

Yes, because your reasoning is flawed. Sorry. Bad logic is still "logic" I suppose. But all that you have is wish fulfillment. You do not have evidence, and you do not have a proper philosophy.

 

[osgart]

Yes, because your reasoning is flawed. Sorry. Bad logic is still "logic" I suppose. But all that you have is wish fulfillment. You do not have evidence, and you do not have a proper philosophy.

What is a proper philosophy in your terms?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is a proper philosophy in your terms?

Please, whenever one says "in your terms" the odds are that they do not understand what the argument is in the first place.


For a philosophical argument you need as least one and usually several premises. The premises help to support one's conclusion. But if the premises are not valid neither is the argument.

 

[osgart]

Please, whenever one says "in your terms" the odds are that they do not understand what the argument is in the first place.


For a philosophical argument you need as least one and usually several premises. The premises help to support one's conclusion. But if the premises are not valid neither is the argument.

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.

 

[osgart]

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.

The door was made by a carpenter. A simple logical statement that is likely true. It doesn't need several premises to be true. All that need be seen is a finely crafted door in place. The good reasoning is there.

 

[idea]

lol the highest stage -- ok. Have a goood night. Time to go.

Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" ...a stage of angst and struggle.
James W. Fowler - Wikipedia
It's ok, keep rationalizing and defending, it is what stage 4 people do

and yes, there are higher stages in spiritual progression. The highest stages are those who no longer need to argue with everyone, have peace and well-being. It takes years, some never get there.

 

[osgart]

Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" ...a stage of angst and struggle.
James W. Fowler - Wikipedia
It's ok, keep rationalizing and defending, it is what stage 4 people do

and yes, there are higher stages in spiritual progression. The highest stages are those who no longer need to argue with everyone, have peace and well-being. It takes years, some never get there.

Makes me wonder why so many non believer's choose RF. Obsessed with ng bones with people.

 

[idea]

Makes me wonder why so many non believer's choose RF. Obsessed with ng bones with people.

I'm SBNR - spiritual, not affiliated. I don't have any problem with non-believers. I suppose if you were a vegetarian surrounded by carnivores (whose diet was revolting, violent, and immoral to you), you would want to argue as well. Why do people argue politics? The same reason they argue religion. Like it or not, political and religious views form part of the relationship we have with others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The door was made by a carpenter. A simple logical statement that is likely true. It doesn't need several premises to be true. All that need be seen is a finely crafted door in place. The good reasoning is there.

And we know that it was built by people because we have seen people make such objects. The same argument does not apply to the universe.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm SBNR - spiritual, not affiliated. I don't have any problem with non-believers. I suppose if you were a vegetarian surrounded by carnivores (whose diet was revolting, violent, and immoral to you), you would want to argue as well. Why do people argue politics? The same reason they argue religion. Like it or not, political and religious views form part of the relationship we have with others.

OK, you talk about "The Power." Actually, let me put it to you this way -- I used to be where you're at, but not exactly. Could be I'm at a Higher Power. You think? I mean, what "Power" are you talking about? Granted, there are levels of recognition of one's ability.And, as far as fighting goes -- do you think you're right? Or is it simply you have to express in the most abstruse terms things about your way of looking at things? So what is it about the "Power"? Frankly, my dear, I don't really want to ask you to explain much. Further, as far as arguing politics or religion, why are 'you' here? So you don't argue -- ? -- you just express yourself? (only wondering, but you need not reply if you don't want to, of course.)

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm SBNR - spiritual, not affiliated. I don't have any problem with non-believers. I suppose if you were a vegetarian surrounded by carnivores (whose diet was revolting, violent, and immoral to you), you would want to argue as well. Why do people argue politics? The same reason they argue religion. Like it or not, political and religious views form part of the relationship we have with others.

You say, "heaven is here." It is? How do you figure that?

 

[osgart]

And we know that it was built by people because we have seen people make such objects. The same argument does not apply to the universe.

And if we have never seen door makers but concluded that people made the door? Such as a child would do.

 

[YoursTrue]

My guess is that they assume that everything can only be known through tested observations, and nothing can be known by way of reasoning from accurate observations.

lol if only I understood what you just said. I was just thinking today that what was said by doctors only recently as if it were fact has been subverted by more observation, then they retract their earlier posits and say "well, that's science."
Doing some little investigating, I found a very interesting but kind of sad article in "The Atlantic" about doctors and treatment. I hope you get a chance to read it, but here's a statement from the article:
"When you visit a doctor, you probably assume the treatment you receive is backed by evidence from medical research. Surely, the drug you’re prescribed or the surgery you’ll undergo wouldn’t be so common if it didn’t work, right?"
(read the article...) When Evidence Says No, but Doctors Say Yes - The Atlantic