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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you disagree with the statement “God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” then you are tacitly implying that you have a better explanation in mind……………..as an analogy if you disagree with the statement “A heart attack is the best explanation for John´s dead” you are implying that you have a better explanation in mind.

"If you disagree with the statement 'the present King of France is bald,' then you are tacitly implying that the present King of France has hair."

For God to be the best explanation, it has to be an explanation. Justifying that is still on you.

Why do you try to shift the burden of proof so often? Is it because you know deep down that your God can't meet a reasonable burden of proof?

 

[QuestioningMind]

After you tell me which societies you feel are free in another thread.

You mean the post where you tried to suggest that because people aren't 'free' in absolutely every respect that it SOMEHOW justifies owning other people as property? I already answered it. Now let's hear about this 'research' you did that shows the ToE isn't based on the scientific method.

 

[leroy]

For every observer? As well as a measurable set of laws, physics, relativity. Sim theory has many issues and avoids all fundamental questions. Computers and civilizations have limits. Nature is the one thing that we already know is far more capable.

For every observer? As well as a measurable set of laws, physics, relativity. Sim theory has many issues and avoids all fundamental questions. Computers and civilizations have limits. Nature is the one thing that we already know is far more capable.

For every observer? As well as a measurable set of laws, physics, relativity. Sim theory has many issues and avoids all fundamental questions. Computers and civilizations have limits. Nature is the one thing that we already know is far more capable.

No, the other observers other than yourself could also be part of your “dream”………. My question is very simply , under your view which includes potentially infinite universes, what would prevent simulations to be more common than “real worlds”?

 

[leroy]

"If you disagree with the statement 'the present King of France is bald,' then you are tacitly implying that the present King of France has hair."

I am tacitly implying that I have good reasons to think that he has hair------ why is this so hard to understand?

For God to be the best explanation, it has to be an explanation. Justifying that is still on you.

Ok then explain what exactly do you mean by “an explanation”………are other alternatives like “multiverse” “chance” anthropic principle” “cosmic evolution” “aliens” etc. qualify as explanations according to your own personal criteria?.....If these are not “possible explanations” then what are they?

Why do you try to shift the burden of proof so often? Is it because you know deep down that your God can't meet a reasonable burden of proof?

Asking “based on your research and understanding what is the best explanation” is not shifting the burden proof,

A better question is why do you what to avoid the burden proof at all cost? …………. Why cant you say “I disagree specifically with “X” because “bla bla bla”

 

[YoursTrue]

No it is not fallacious nonsense, please make an honest effort and try to understand….

If you disagree with the statement “God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” then you are tacitly implying that you have a better explanation in mind……………..as an analogy if you disagree with the statement “A heart attack is the best explanation for John´s dead” you are implying that you have a better explanation in mind.

If you don’t want to propose an alternative explanation then your answer shouldn’t “I don’t know”………”I simply don’t know if God is the best explanation or not”





Granted, that is true, you are free to point the flaws and mistakes of the argument…….so be my guest, please spot the specific points that you think are flawed or wrong.

Based on experience with the unseen presence I have come to better understand as I live longer, I make a decision.

You mean the post where you tried to suggest that because people aren't 'free' in absolutely every respect that it SOMEHOW justifies owning other people as property? I already answered it. Now let's hear about this 'research' you did that shows the ToE isn't based on the scientific method.

You might do your own research. I did mine. But -- the facts, so-called, speak for themselves. There IS no solid proof or evidence that life began from some soupy mass.There is also no evidence that the universe began from -- um -- nothing. Or better yet -- a big bang. In other words, do your research -- I did mine.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am tacitly implying that I have good reasons to think that he has hair------ why is this so hard to understand?






Ok then explain what exactly do you mean by “an explanation”………are other alternatives like “multiverse” “chance” anthropic principle” “cosmic evolution” “aliens” etc. qualify as explanations according to your own personal criteria?.....If these are not “possible explanations” then what are they?




Asking “based on your research and understanding what is the best explanation” is not shifting the burden proof,

A better question is why do you what to avoid the burden proof at all cost? …………. Why cant you say “I disagree specifically with “X” because “bla bla bla”

because -- because --

 

[YoursTrue]

You mean the post where you tried to suggest that because people aren't 'free' in absolutely every respect that it SOMEHOW justifies owning other people as property? I already answered it. Now let's hear about this 'research' you did that shows the ToE isn't based on the scientific method.

I didn't suggest what you imply I suggested or 'tried to' suggest.

 

[YoursTrue]

No it is not fallacious nonsense, please make an honest effort and try to understand….

If you disagree with the statement “God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” then you are tacitly implying that you have a better explanation in mind……………..as an analogy if you disagree with the statement “A heart attack is the best explanation for John´s dead” you are implying that you have a better explanation in mind.

If you don’t want to propose an alternative explanation then your answer shouldn’t “I don’t know”………”I simply don’t know if God is the best explanation or not”





Granted, that is true, you are free to point the flaws and mistakes of the argument…….so be my guest, please spot the specific points that you think are flawed or wrong.

Based on experience with the unseen presence I have come to better understand as I live longer, I make a decision.
"Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid. The LORD, the LORD himself, is my strength and my defense; he has become my salvation." NIV.
Lord in capital letters you probably know by now is the common cover-up for what is known as the tetragrammaton. At least they put it in all caps so the discerning reader knows.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Based on experience with the unseen presence I have come to better understand as I live longer, I make a decision.

You might do your own research. I did mine. But -- the facts, so-called, speak for themselves. There IS no solid proof or evidence that life began from some soupy mass.There is also no evidence that the universe began from -- um -- nothing. Or better yet -- a big bang. In other words, do your research -- I did mine.

Thank you for revealing your phenomenal ignorance concerning the ToE. First off the ToE strictly addresses the question how did simple life forms develop into more complex lifeforms over time. It says NOTHING about how life came to exist on this planet... that's the study of biogenesis. NOR does it address how the universe came to exist in its current state.

So I suggest that the first bit of 'research' you need to do is to learn what the theory actually claims and NOT what you've been told that it claims.

 

[leroy]

Thank you for revealing your phenomenal ignorance concerning the ToE. First off the ToE strictly addresses the question how did simple life forms develop into more complex lifeforms over time. It says NOTHING about how life came to exist on this planet... that's the study of biogenesis. NOR does it address how the universe came to exist in its current state.

So I suggest that the first bit of 'research' you need to do is to learn what the theory actually claims and NOT what you've been told that it claims.

The relevant question are: do you believe that life came from a priomdial soup/mass etc.) Do you believe that the universe came from nothing?.....whether if you personally whant to label them as part of the ToE or not is irrelevant.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you for revealing your phenomenal ignorance concerning the ToE. First off the ToE strictly addresses the question how did simple life forms develop into more complex lifeforms over time. It says NOTHING about how life came to exist on this planet... that's the study of biogenesis. NOR does it address how the universe came to exist in its current state.

So I suggest that the first bit of 'research' you need to do is to learn what the theory actually claims and NOT what you've been told that it claims.

I know what the "ToE" says. As I said, I learned it a while ago as an avid student. I did my research, pro and con. I decided against believing in evolution, the theory of. I decided it is not true. Scientific explanation -- there is none. Conjecture (theory) is what it is. Have a nice evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

The relevant question are: do you believe that life came from a priomdial soup/mass etc.) Do you believe that the universe came from nothing?.....whether if you personally whant to label them as part of the ToE or not is irrelevant.

I love the argument some put forth. "We don't know..." No? Ain't answered that yet? I can only imagine "QuestioningMind" decides which he believes...or does not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am tacitly implying that I have good reasons to think that he has hair------ why is this so hard to understand?

There is no present King of France. "The present King of France is bald" is false. "The present King of France is not bald" is also false. (Click on the link to see a discussion on Berttand Russell's explanation of why)

Ok then explain what exactly do you mean by “an explanation”………are other alternatives like “multiverse” “chance” anthropic principle” “cosmic evolution” “aliens” etc. qualify as explanations according to your own personal criteria?.....If these are not “possible explanations” then what are they?

The question of what else would explain the universe is irrelevant to the question of whether God explains the universe.

... and unless God would explain the universe, God would not be the best explanation. It can't be the "best" explanation if it isn't an explanation at all.

Asking “based on your research and understanding what is the best explanation” is not shifting the burden proof,

This thread is about your argument for God. When you ask for other people to make arguments for things other than God, you're shifting your burden.

A better question is why do you what to avoid the burden proof at all cost? …………. Why cant you say “I disagree specifically with “X” because “bla bla bla”

I don't avoid the burden of proof in the proper contexts. I just don't play along when theists try to play games.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The relevant question are: do you believe that life came from a priomdial soup/mass etc.) Do you believe that the universe came from nothing?.....whether if you personally whant to label them as part of the ToE or not is irrelevant.

It is 100% relevant when we are discussing whether or not the ToE is a product of the scientific method.

Do I believe that life came from a primordial soup? That's one reasonable hypothesis, but currently there is no established theory for how life began on this planet, so it would be premature for me to say that I believed we definitely came from a primordial soup. Do I believe that the universe came from nothing? No I do not, nor do I know of any scientific hypothesis that suggests that the universe came from nothing.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I know what the "ToE" says. As I said, I learned it a while ago as an avid student. I did my research, pro and con. I decided against believing in evolution, the theory of. I decided it is not true. Scientific explanation -- there is none. Conjecture (theory) is what it is. Have a nice evening.

Yet you demonstrated that you actually don't know what the ToE says, since you foolishly mentioned the Big Bang theory, neither of which have anything to do with the ToE. I'm still waiting to hear what 'research' you did to determine that the ToE doesn't employ the scientific method. You simply 'deciding it's not true' doesn't constitute research.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet you demonstrated that you actually don't know what the ToE says, since you foolishly mentioned the Big Bang theory, neither of which have anything to do with the ToE. I'm still waiting to hear what 'research' you did to determine that the ToE doesn't employ the scientific method. You simply 'deciding it's not true' doesn't constitute research.

Yes, I know the "Big Bang" theory has little to do in your mind with the "ToE," but as the song goes, "nothing comes from nothing..." (lyrics from one of the songs from The Sound of Music) And that is what the "ToE" is all about. Nothing from something? that comes from ?? Yes, the ToE is built on the premise that -- a soupy mass came from -- um -- somewhere? maybe? Oh, another flying object maybe from an alien somewhere some time back?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet you demonstrated that you actually don't know what the ToE says, since you foolishly mentioned the Big Bang theory, neither of which have anything to do with the ToE. I'm still waiting to hear what 'research' you did to determine that the ToE doesn't employ the scientific method. You simply 'deciding it's not true' doesn't constitute research.

P.S. You can keep waiting, when you do the research and come up with scientists talking about why evolution is NOT necessarily true, let me know. As another song goes -- I'll Be There -- ok maybe I won't be, gotta try it and see.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is 100% relevant when we are discussing whether or not the ToE is a product of the scientific method.

Do I believe that life came from a primordial soup? That's one reasonable hypothesis, but currently there is no established theory for how life began on this planet, so it would be premature for me to say that I believed we definitely came from a primordial soup. Do I believe that the universe came from nothing? No I do not, nor do I know of any scientific hypothesis that suggests that the universe came from nothing.

But the primordial soup, that's no figuring yet how it got there, what atoms were there and how they got there, is that right? That's not to mention what some scientists think were the earliest structures. As if they just got there, emerged by chance. Yup, finished with that. You can talk about it, but now I am convinced life did not just happen. What happened is when I realize gravity is there. A happenstance. I know gravity exists because I'm alive. See, otherwise, I wouldn't know it exists. Happenstance.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is 100% relevant when we are discussing whether or not the ToE is a product of the scientific method.

Do I believe that life came from a primordial soup? That's one reasonable hypothesis, but currently there is no established theory for how life began on this planet, so it would be premature for me to say that I believed we definitely came from a primordial soup. Do I believe that the universe came from nothing? No I do not, nor do I know of any scientific hypothesis that suggests that the universe came from nothing.

P.S. You have no reasonable proof either that different happenstances by circumstance produced the various branches of the tree of evolution. What you do have is conjecture from artifacts.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yet you demonstrated that you actually don't know what the ToE says, since you foolishly mentioned the Big Bang theory, neither of which have anything to do with the ToE. I'm still waiting to hear what 'research' you did to determine that the ToE doesn't employ the scientific method. You simply 'deciding it's not true' doesn't constitute research.

Something Good Julie Andrews Christopher Plummer Sound of Music flv YouTube - YouTube