leroy
Well-Known Member
Why would I need “defenses” you haven’t provide a single argument, you haven’t even been capable of explaining your point of disagreement.
-
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!
Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God
- Thread starter leroy
- Start date
leroy
Well-Known Member
So what? My point is that a single society of intelligent creatures can create millions of simulations, implying that most intelligent observers would be part of a simulation……….your multiverse hypothesis leads to this redioctio ad absurdum paradox which is why you ether :
1 bite the bullet and conclude that we live in a simulation
or
2 change your hypothesis for anotherone that avoids this paradox
Yes, but the good news is that nature is testable, we know what can nature do and cant do………….a FT universe can´t be caused by nature (I would argue) because there is no reason for why “nature” would have any tendency towards a life permitting universe, ¿why would nature care?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
People and nations have been trying to figure existence out for a long time now. I guess they made up gods, like Zeus and Artemis, things like that. But the Bible clinches the deal in my opinion because it singles out a group of people, led them out of slavery and fulfilled prophecy. It just all makes sense to me.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One cannot cherry pick out very vague "fulfilled" prophecies and ignore terribly failed prophecies.
joelr
Well-Known Member
You don't know that? The limits of computation are restricted - there are several physical and practical limits to the amount of computation or data storage that can be performed with a given amount of mass, volume, or energy.
If we are a typical civilization then there is no reason to think this science fiction senario is true?
Simulation theory doesn't add anything, it just moves the goal post to where did the original life start and how.
Wait, what? A FT universe cannot be created by nature? That doesn't make sense.
But you say why would nature care? You think just because we find ourselves in a hospitable universe (the only one we would find ourself in) that means it "cares" about us?
It doesn't.
And we see only a very small amount of the universe is hospitable for life and with dying suns, asteroids, climate changes and other life ending events the universe does isn't made for life, it just is something that happens in the right conditions but ends fairly easily.
joelr
Well-Known Member
All religions single out a nation. Zeus was God of a group as well.
There is no doubt that the Israelite bible is Jewsih Mythology. We know where the creation/flood myths are from as well as the later additions during the Persian period.
Archeology has shown the Israelites came out of the Canaanite society. Exodus is a national myth of the Jewish people. Early Israelite beliefs even had a Canaanite Goddess Ashera as Yahwehs consort and old Hebrew variants of the OT say EL was passing out the nations and gave Yahweh Israel. El was the Canaanite highest God.
The prophecy thing isn't even close to real, there is nothing but vague prophecies and things written after the fact made to look like a prophecy being fulfilled. There are also literally hundreds of statements made by Yahweh that never happened. All the enemies of Israel would bow down to them and so on.
Cannan also had a highest God, laws, wisdom, parables as did every nation. All erased and destroyed as each nation was taken over by Christians in later centuries.
God going to one group of people is exactly what we would expect if it were just mythology. No other nation recorded miracles or appearances of Yahweh. They wrote about their Gods doing amazing things.
Except they are all made up stories.
A real God who wanted to communicate could have spoken to the entire world at the same time.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That would be ostrich part. You simply ignore all those who disagree with your claims / arguments and explain why.
I don't need an "argument". I'm not the one who's presenting an "argument" or who is making claims.
YOU are the one that is doing that. My, and other people's, responses are only responses to the arguments / claim you make.
And the responses consist of pointing out flawed and unsupported premises and fallacies.
I have no need for any "counter arguments".
leroy
Well-Known Member
As I told you before, It’s not my fault that the moderators of this forums are biased in favor of me and deleted all the comments where you pointed the flaws of the argument.
Otherwise how do you explain the fact that none of those comments are currently available?
.. But seriously I don’t understand you tactic, what is the point of inventing ridiculous excuses and lies, to avoid a direct engagement with the argument?..…. what’s the goal of that strategy …….. why canyou say something like “I don’t accept the argument because I think that “poin A” is false and my evidence for it is X,Y S and Z.
For example if you ever use the multiverse hypothesis to explain the FT of the universe I would tell you that the argument fails specifically because of the bolzman brain paradox………..you may or may not agree but at least you would have a specific point to address……… why cant you do the same?
leroy
Well-Known Member
You don’t need much computational data to make a simulation, you don’t need to simulate all the universe at once, you just need to simulate what the observer is observing
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I just scrolled through the first page of this thread and half the posts there already pointed out problems with your premises and overall argument.
And that's only page 1.
Throughout the thread,
- I pointed out your unsupported premises
- pointed out how your "argument" has zero explanatory power
- had to explain to you over and over and over again how demanding an "alternative" explanation from me is just an argument from ignorance
- ....
Go back and read it. I just scrolled through the first 5 pages. It's all there.
I don't. No matter how much you insist on me doing so.
You're the one presenting an argument. I'm just responding to your argument.
Throughout the thread, you have insisted on my coming up with "alternative explanations".
I have consistently pointed out to you how your claims fall and stand on their own merrit and I don't need "counter arguments" or "alternative explanations" to evaluate YOUR claimed explanation.
You handwaved it all away and simply continued to repeat the same fallacies.
There's only so many times I'll repeat the same things and address the same points.
In fact, I feel like I am already FAR to patient with stubborn guys like you. And in fact, I have already received PM's about this very discussion of people telling me that my patience is incredible and even bizar.
But even my patience has limits.
Your "tactic" is one of endurance. You keep going and going and going and you try to win the argument not by actually presenting evidence, but rather by trying to outlast other people, to tire them out with your stubborness.
If you look at the last 20 pages, it's just same nonsense over and over again.
And plenty of people, including myself, have explained how nonsensical that is and how it fails. As with all objections to your WLC-style apologetics, it falls on deaf ears and within 2 posts, you're back with the same claims.
Because there is a limit to even my patience.
So gratz, you win, you tired me out. Like a pigeon playing chess.
leroy
Well-Known Member
And I answered that premises are supported in the sources of the OP………….If you disagree then you are expected to go to the sources and explain exactly where is your point of disagreement……………….but you wont do that because you don’t know why you disagree,
You asserted the argument has zero explanatory power, but you never justified that assertion.............
- ....
And I explained to you multiple times that if you disagree with the statement “God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” Tacitly you are claiming that you have a better explanation in mind.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
That's right, because we evolved to adapt to the planet we on.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I don't believe everything you say.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I guess you'd agree with the scientist that said some flying object probably came from alien life somewhere. (lol)
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The difference is about archeology and the Canaanites is that the Israelites knew their heritage. Lineage. Family loyalty is very strong. Tribes are generally speaking strongly tied in alliances against -- other tribes. Families at the beginning developed tribes and tribal land ownership, when another group tried to take over the land or used it, there could be warfare. Remember that God's voice was heard only a few times, and then not by everybody. I personally don't think God's voice literally needs to be heard by everybody. What language would it speak? What would it say?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
God O in science stone.
Science products all taken from stone planet.
Best science tested body O plan ET.
Said by science man. Males quote.
O one natural body energy mass stone lots of gods. Minerals and chemicals.
Human sciences about how to create change.
God body O natural product.
Science forced God ..s to change.
Man choice.
Science proved presence of God creator of science by sciences.
Their owned human proof.
Without stone no science second realisation do not give God a name. God disappeared into sink holes.
What other proof does man the namer need?
Science products all taken from stone planet.
Best science tested body O plan ET.
Said by science man. Males quote.
O one natural body energy mass stone lots of gods. Minerals and chemicals.
Human sciences about how to create change.
God body O natural product.
Science forced God ..s to change.
Man choice.
Science proved presence of God creator of science by sciences.
Their owned human proof.
Without stone no science second realisation do not give God a name. God disappeared into sink holes.
What other proof does man the namer need?
Actually, more your use of it as an elitist. Another member made this post:
To which you responded with a post that included the following:
Now, apart from being elitist and snobbish in and of itself, these rhetorical questions imply that YOU in fact DO study cosmology, but it turns out that your knowledge and the extent of your "study" of these and other subjects of cosmology and physics are not only just as limited, but apparently without the self-conscious admission of the limits of such "study." Also speaking of elitism:
I first referred to Davies in a quote from a multiverse proponent and physicist Carr here:
Your response? You dismissed the entire quote, and focused on this part with the reply:
So Davies can be apparently ruled out here (despite the fact that he was just one name Carr mentioned in the contexts of many physicists who feel that multiverse models/cosmology has more in common with religion with physics) ?
To quote a counter-example (one I have already quoted in this thread e.g., here):
Suppose there was only one universe. Then it would be very difficult to explain miraculous features of our universe, such as the structure of elementary particles and the value of the vacuum energy, without resorting to some sort of creator. In the multiverse picture, however, there are an enormous number (10^500 or more) of different universes, so some of them possess these miraculous features that lead to intelligent life, without a help of any creator. This, of course, does not prove that there is no such creator, but given that a goal of science is to try to understand our physical nature as much as possible without relying on such an almighty person, the approach of the multiverse is exactly that of science." (emphases added)
Nomura, Y. (2018). Demystifying the Multiverse. In Y. Nomura, B. Poirier, & J. Terning (Eds.). Quantum Physics, Mini Black Holes, and the Multiverse: Debunking Common Misconceptions in Theoretical Physics (Multiversal Journeys). Springer.
Also, I quoted Susskind, in a popular physics book no less, explicitly speaking about fine-tuning in the context of a creator:
I could go on, but as my point was never to argue that fine-tuning is evidence for a creator or for design, and as you don't apparently wish to learn anything anyway, there seems little point.
It's your use. When you present your "glowing balls" as something that is supposed to resemble real physics rather than a drastically simplified novel term used in a YouTube clip to boil things down to the basics for those who can't understand even fairly mildly more sophisticated works, and then turn around and rhetorically ask another member if they study cosmology, then I have a problem with that. You can call it whining if you wish to.
In the case of string theory, by the way, the above is so wrong it boggles the mind. Not in terms of the "no God" part, but rather that string theory does or can make predictions or even can be tested when such fundamental claims of the "theory" as finiteness cannot be proven or even really attempted to be proven as there is no definition of what constitutes string theory to make this or any other claims about what it must show. This is why claims about string theory predictions that could have actually been tested but were falsified did not deter proponents in the least, as when the so-called predictions were falsified it was claimed that this was due to our current ignorance of the basic, fundamental nature of string theory and therefore that such failures actually help us understand what it will turn out to be:
"To be sure, string theory has provided numerous “predictions”, like short scale modifications of the gravitational force, black holes at CERN, dielectron resonances, or the existence of super-symmetric particles at low energy, but so far all these “predictions” have been falsified by observation...If there is an accurate string description of the real world, then there are probably so many of them to make the discovery of the right one virtually impossible and in any case devoid of predictive power."
Rovelli, C. (2013). A critical look at strings. Foundations of Physics, 43(1), 8-20.
"A central point to understanding string theory is that it cannot be formulated the way all other fundamental theories are, by giving the dynamical variables and the equations they obey. We do not know what the fundamental dynamical variables of string theory are, nor the equations they obey."
Woodard, R. P. (2009). How far are we from the quantum theory of gravity?. Reports on Progress in Physics, 72(12), 126002.
The entire point revolves around fine-tuning, what it is and what it implies. Apart from stating that it doesn’t entail any Gods and fundamentally misunderstanding just about every topic related to it from physics as well as the nature of physics and cosmology more generally, you haven’t had much to say on the subject.
I linked to it. You can follow the link. Here, I’ll help you: this is the post. You make the comments (quoted for you again above) right before the embedded clip.
And now I'll be reporting this post. It's one thing to disagree with me, mock my views, describe my claims as bogus or refer to my posts as whining or any number of other derogatory things you've said or could say. No problem. But you are now and have repeatedly insulted me personally, calling me a creep and a liar and I have (repeatedly) in good faith linked you to where you made the remark I quoted and for which you have repeatedly called me a liar. You've repeatedly called me a creep and a number of other disparaging things that are not attacks on my posts or my views or even on my knowledge but me personally and in ways that are unrelated to this topic or physics more generally.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Not remotely close to how elitist you have been acting.
NO, they imply I am aware of cosmological findings, concepts and the like. I do not care about your eliteist opinion on this.
But the best thing is my remark on inflation and different patches of spacetime is EXACTLY what Alan Guth said. Your objections do not change anything. Go write a paper and change the current models. Otherwise you are no different than any layman. All your rants about how non-experts in Cosmology cannot possible repeat the words of actual cosmologists, DO, NOT, CARE.
My original objections stand no matter how much you don't like it. Yes I've heard Carroll say there may even be no fine-tuning and other things you stated out with. Except you purposely came at me trying to belittle me and failed to realize this isn't a technical discussion but a theism discussion to which my comments are fine. I should have just blocked you right away but I do not like being bullied so I decided to give it right back to you.
It's theorized the early universe was unified. Guess what, I'm using the concept. If you don't like it please complain to a wall.
Turock called the early universe a ball of light. Have a rant? The wall is waiting.
At this point I realized what you are about and have no interest in talking to you.
Blah blah, you should have tried a civil conversation then instead of (failing) to desparately try to find anything to prove me wrong on and make constant attempts to belittle me, my education and then respond to posts I did not make to you.
There is exactly zero laymen or scientists in any field who believe one must be an expert in all science fields before they can weigh in on theism or deism debates and in fact the majority of athiest debaters do not have any degree in Cosmology or physics. This entire line of whining is a supernova of a fail. Oh, all of the string theorists are wrong? Wow, don't care random guy on internet.
That self assured rant about strings is perfect. All of the string theorist disagree. I already know strings cannot be tested, I know much about Cosmology. I've read enough Gribbin and a few others to know the basics.Your obvious aggression isn't being met with actual scientific answers. Why do you even think I would have an actual conversation with you when it's so obvious (then you admitted it) you were just trying to get back at a supposed "bullier"?
When you chose to come at me hard we were done.
If you want to change that, write a paper, get a nobel prize. Can't do that? Don't care. About your opinion either. Any chance of a conversation was gone with your first post.
Oh, laymen in Cosmology can't have opinions or debates about theism? Cool. Don't care. Bye.
Ya think? Not from you.
Oh it is whining. The reference needed no further explanation in the context of the discussion.
I knew you were attempting to bust me on every and any term so I purposely used a term from an actual cosmologist just to smash you and demonstrate you were being petty. It worked like a charm.
I do not care about your rants on how Cosmologists misuse terms.
Oh wow, you still think I have any interest in speaking with someone who makes a fake post to respond to just to make themselves look better. You were dishonest and my posts alone were not enough so you had to post me out of context.
I backed up my science with actual Cosmologists and actual papers. Your issues do not win out over actual scientists. So those matters are closed. I made my case. Then you wrote false words I did not say to you to respond to. It's a loss for you all around.
Taking someones words out of context to bolster yourself is being untruthful.
You also made several attacks on me and misrepresented my words. Several attacks. Now you play off like you are this great character and I'm hostile. Wow.(Hint, you come at me, I'll come right back)I will not be explaining them to you because I do not care about your opinion. But I will point them out to a moderator since we are going there.
And every single thing I said was in relation to some comment you made to me. Now you try to play off like that didn't happen. More dishonesty.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
I'll source anything you like. A few:
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible
William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, has investigated the archeology of the ancient Near East for more than 30 years
"
Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.
So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today."
"
One of the astonishing things is your discovery of Yahweh's connection to Asherah. Tell us about that.
In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."
Asherah is the name of the old Canaanite Mother Goddess, the consort of El, the principal deity of the Canaanite pantheon. So why is a Hebrew inscription mentioning Yahweh in connection with the Canaanite Mother Goddess? Well, in popular religion they were a pair."
The Israelite prophets and reformers denounce the Mother Goddess and all the other gods and goddesses of Canaan. But I think Asherah was widely venerated in ancient Israel. If you look at Second Kings 23, which describes the reforms of King Josiah in the late 7th century, he talks about purging the Temple of all the cult paraphernalia of Asherah. So the so-called folk religion even penetrated the Temple in Jerusalem.
Is there other evidence linking Asherah to Yahweh?
In the 1970s, Israeli archeologists digging in Kuntillet Ajrud in the Sinai found a little desert fort of the same period, and lo and behold, we have "Yahweh and Asherah" all over the place in the Hebrew inscriptions.
Are there any images of Asherah?
For a hundred years now we have known of little terracotta female figurines. They show a nude female; the sexual organs are not represented but the breasts are. They are found in tombs, they are found in households, they are found everywhere. There are thousands of them. They date all the way from the 10th century to the early 6th century."
Carol Meyers professor:
NOVA | The Bible's Buried Secrets | Moses and the Exodus | PBS
Evidence of the Exodus
Q: You and other scholars point out that there isn't evidence outside the Bible, in historic documents and the archeological record, for a mass migration from Egypt involving hundreds of thousands of people. But it may be plausible that there was a much smaller exodus, an exodus of people originally from the land of Canaan who were returning to it. Is that right?
Meyers: Yes. Despite all the ways in which the exodus narratives in the Bible seem to be non-historic, something about the overall pattern can, in fact, be related to what we know from historical sources was going on at the end of the Late Bronze Age [circa 1200 B.C.E.], around when the Bible's chronology places the story of departure from Egypt.
Now, what is the evidence? First of all, during this period there likely were a lot of people from the land of Canaan, from regions of the eastern Mediterranean, in Egypt. Sometimes they were taken there as slaves. The local kings of the city-states in Canaan would offer slaves as tribute to the pharaohs in order to remain in their good graces. This is documented in the Amarna letters discovered in Egypt. So we know that there were people taken to Egypt as slaves.
There were also traders from the eastern Mediterranean who went to Egypt for commercial reasons. And there also probably were people from Canaan who went to Egypt during periods of extended drought and famine, as is reported in the Bible for Abraham and Sarah.
So Canaanites went to Egypt for a variety of reasons. They were generally assimilated—after a generation or two they became Egyptians. There is almost no evidence that those people left. But there are one or two Egyptian documents that record the flight of a handful of people who had been brought to Egypt for one reason or other and who didn't want to stay there.
Now, there is no direct evidence that such people were connected with the exodus narrative in the Bible. But in our western historical imagination, as we try to recreate the past, it's certainly worth considering that some of them, somehow, for some reason that we can never understand, maybe because life was so difficult for them in Egypt, thought that life would be greener than in the pastures that they had left.
Remembering the Exodus
Q: So even though most of the early Israelites had not themselves made the exodus from Egypt, they adopt this story as part of their heritage.
Meyers: Yes. While very few Israelites may have actually made the trek across Sinai, it becomes the national story of all Israelites and is celebrated in all kinds of ways. Their agricultural festivals become celebrations of freedom, for instance. Many aspects of a new culture emerge and are linked with the "memories" of exodus.
The people who made the exodus from Egypt remember the experience, relive it, recreate it in rituals. They pass their rituals on to others, to future generations and to other people. We do this in our own American lives: Very few of us have ancestors who came over on the Mayflower, and yet that story has become part of our national story.
"The theme of the Exodus is an archetype in not only the Bible but in western culture in general."