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

[leroy]

Since a multiverse is actually a prediction that naturally flows from inflation theory and one that provides an actual explanation, yes.
.

Well I would say that the bolzman brain paradox represents a devastating objection to the multiverse explanation. (assuming that you are arguing that we are just a random member of this universe)

Even if we grant that there is a multiverse with potentially infinite universes, statistically speaking its more likely to have observers that live in a “not so FT universe” than observers in a FT universe like ours.

It is more likely to have an observer that is currently dreaming / imagining / hallucinating a FT universe, than an observer that lives in an actual FT universe.

As an analogy, sure if you play the lottery for a potentially infinite amount of time, you will eventually win the lottery 1,000 times in a row, but in the meantime you will have billions of “dreams” where you won the lottery 1,000 times in a row………..so any observation of you winning the lottery is more likely to be a dream.

In the same way, any observation of you living in a FT universe is more likely to be a dream. Which would be a “Reductio ad absurdum” which is why this paradox constitutes a devastating objection.

Your only alternatives are

1 Disagree and argue that this is not a devastating objection

2 provide an even more devastating argument against God being the cause of the FT of the universe.

Otherwise your assertion “the multiverse is better than God” is not justified.

ANY explanation that involves plausible natural/real phenomena is a better starting point than "God."

WHY?

 

[Subduction Zone]

WHY?

Why edit someone's post that you reply to where your question was answered?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

WHY?

I explained that in my second part of the reply. Because positing "God" is on par with positing any other fanciful thing as the source/cause/explanation. I could tell you that our universe began when the U-Djinn (genie-type spirit beings who are composed of the ether and are many times larger than even the largest galaxy) FARTED a cloud of magic dust that coalesced into matter and energy. If I wrote that down and told a couple people (even if they were selfish, immoral DENIERS of "THE TRUTH" of my words) then I would have EXACTLY the caliber of evidence you have that God has done anything. Exactly the same.

 

[leroy]

I explained that in my second part of the reply. Because positing "God" is on par with positing any other fanciful thing as the source/cause/explanation. I could tell you that our universe began when the U-Djinn (genie-type spirit beings who are composed of the ether and are many times larger than even the largest galaxy) FARTED a cloud of magic dust that coalesced into matter and energy. If I wrote that down and told a couple people (even if they were selfish, immoral DENIERS of "THE TRUTH" of my words) then I would have EXACTLY the caliber of evidence you have that God has done anything. Exactly the same.

So by that logic nothing will ever count as evidence for God right?.....................no matter what observations/discoveries are made you can always say “well U-Djinn...blabla

 

[Subduction Zone]

So by that logic nothing will ever count as evidence for God right?.....................no matter what observations/discoveries are made you can always say “well U-Djinn...blabla

No, one must merely understand the concept of evidence. And also an understanding of the burden of proof helps. If one can find an objective test for God then one can have evidence for God. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[leroy]

No, one must merely understand the concept of evidence. And also an understanding of the burden of proof helps. If one can find an objective test for God then one can have evidence for God. Otherwise, not so much.

Is there any observation, discovery test etc... That you would accept as evidence for God that you wouldn't dismiss with an "ohhh its a god of the gaps"..... Or with " flying spaghetti type arguments".?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there any observation, discovery test etc... That you would accept as evidence for God that you wouldn't dismiss with an "ohhh its a god of the gaps"..... Or with " flying spaghetti type arguments".?

I am not the one making a claim that a God exists. The burden of proof is not upon me. You were asking about evidence for God. Evidence has to be a sword that can cut both ways. If one cannot find a reasonable test for one's beliefs then all that one has are ad hoc explanations. They really are not worth too much.

 

[Bear Wild]

So by that logic nothing will ever count as evidence for God right?.....................no matter what observations/discoveries are made you can always say “well U-Djinn...blabla

No that is not true. If God is all powerful then all god needs to do is to present herself to all people and show that She God is real. That ends the question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So by that logic nothing will ever count as evidence for God right?.....................no matter what observations/discoveries are made you can always say “well U-Djinn...blabla

That's right.

Until you come up with a test that God can pass but nothing else can, you can't prove God.

 

[Milton Platt]

I am responding to a challenge made by @TagliatelliMonster

@TagliatelliMonster said:


So my best argument is the fine tuning argument, let’s see if you can show that the argument is wrong or fallacious.

The argument

0 The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life


--
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.



---
I have the same view than William Lane Creig, so unless I clarify otherwise, you can assume that WLC writings and videos represent my view

---

more detail

The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 1) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 2) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 3) | Reasonable Faith

------------

You can trump the argument by:

1 Showing that any of the premises is likely to be wrong

2 showing that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises

3 showing that the universe is not FT (stawman definitions of FT are not allowed)

4 showing that there is a better explanation for FT

5 show that there is a logical fallacy

Please specify exactly what avenue are you going to use to refute the argument (explicitly choose any of the options above)

How do you know the universe can exist in any other way than it does?

Premise #1 assumes the thing you are trying to prove...begging the question.

permise #2 must be justified with evidence. As is, I reject it because I do not believe you can justify it.

God of the gaps.....I don't know how this could happen, therefore god.

If you could prove fine tuning....which you have not and likely cannot......this does not mean the Christian (or any other specific) god is required.

 

[Heyo]

Ok so would you affirm that a “multiple tries expalnation” (say a multiverse) is a better explanation than design?

How do you explain god without multiple universes?
The multiverse hypothesis was postulated by theists long before scientists came up with it.
"God created the universe." - And where was it before there was a universe?
"God is outside of space and time." - So, it isn't inside the universe.
The only form of deism consistent with a single universe is a creator that is inside the universe, i.e. pantheism.

 

[firedragon]

No that is not true. If God is all powerful then all god needs to do is to present herself to all people and show that She God is real. That ends the question.

What if that's not Gods nature? What if you have understood this God concept absolutely wrong?

 

[firedragon]

How do you explain god without multiple universes?
The multiverse hypothesis was postulated by theists long before scientists came up with it.
"God created the universe." - And where was it before there was a universe?
"God is outside of space and time." - So, it isn't inside the universe.
The only form of deism consistent with a single universe is a creator that is inside the universe, i.e. pantheism.

The word Universe now has a particular representation. It represents one universe and there maybe more. But in the past, the word universe, especially when it comes to theologies meant everything. Everything. Which means what you and I may refer to in this day and age as Multiverse or multiple universes, in the past everything including all of these so called universes would have been referred to as "universe". Thats it.

Also in some theologies the universe like I just showed is referred to as heavens and earth. Earth meaning all land (which would mean matter) and heavens meaning sky/space.

 

[Heyo]

The word Universe now has a particular representation. It represents one universe and there maybe more. But in the past, the word universe, especially when it comes to theologies meant everything. Everything. Which means what you and I may refer to in this day and age as Multiverse or multiple universes, in the past everything including all of these so called universes would have been referred to as "universe". Thats it.

Also in some theologies the universe like I just showed is referred to as heavens and earth. Earth meaning all land (which would mean matter) and heavens meaning sky/space.

That doesn't mend the argument. If theists can invent parallel universes (regardless if you call call them "heaven" or if you claim they are really one),
scientists can do exactly the same and explain the fine tuning problem away.
(And I'd argue that cyclic universe hypothesis are also multiverse hypothesis.)

 

[firedragon]

scientists can do exactly the same and explain the fine tuning problem away.

How do scientists "explain the fine tuning problem away"?

 

[Heyo]

How do scientists "explain the fine tuning problem away"?

Basically the same way theists do but with a much more sophisticated language.

 

[firedragon]

Basically the same way theists do but with a much more sophisticated language.

Thanks.

 

[leroy]

No that is not true. If God is all powerful then all god needs to do is to present herself to all people and show that She God is real. That ends the question.

And what would prevent you from saying "" ohhhh but how do you know that it is God, abd no a fairy or the flying spaghetti monster?

What would prevent you from saying "ohhh its just a god of the gaps fallacy, just because we dont know where did this appearance come from, that doesn't mean that god did it.........?"

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So by that logic nothing will ever count as evidence for God right?.....................no matter what observations/discoveries are made you can always say “well U-Djinn...blabla

Are you joking? Have you ever even contemplated the types of evidence we mostly all DO accept for various things and ideas? Let's say someone calls themselves "an Electrician." What types of evidence would we expect them to produce in order to demonstrate that they have the skills that they say they do? Might they be able to wire a junction box for us, for example? Would that display that they have at least some of the skills they profess to? Why yes... yes it would. How about if we ask to see their membership in some sort of guild or tradesmans' outfit? Or a license to practice such endeavors under the pretenses of official business? Can you ask God for a demonstration of the things that make him classified as "God?" Nope. Can you take a look at the handiwork of God, knowing full well that he completed the work because He did so in front of your very eyes? As in - you actually bore witness to His work and can validate that He can, indeed, perform "Godly" duties? No. None of that. Not even close. The "evidence" you theists make claim demonstrates God is entirely inadequate, paltry and without actual substance. It's crap. Complete and utter crap. Come to me when you can produce God's credentials, or God Himself. Until then, best to keep those ideas to yourself. You do yourself no service by parading such garbage around as if you knew full-well what you were talking about.

 

[paarsurrey]

Are you joking? Have you ever even contemplated the types of evidence we mostly all DO accept for various things and ideas? Let's say someone calls themselves "an Electrician." What types of evidence would we expect them to produce in order to demonstrate that they have the skills that they say they do? Might they be able to wire a junction box for us, for example? Would that display that they have at least some of the skills they profess to? Why yes... yes it would. How about if we ask to see their membership in some sort of guild or tradesmans' outfit? Or a license to practice such endeavors under the pretenses of official business? Can you ask God for a demonstration of the things that make him classified as "God?" Nope. Can you take a look at the handiwork of God, knowing full well that he completed the work because He did so in front of your very eyes? As in - you actually bore witness to His work and can validate that He can, indeed, perform "Godly" duties? No. None of that. Not even close. The "evidence" you theists make claim demonstrates God is entirely inadequate, paltry and without actual substance. It's crap. Complete and utter crap. Come to me when you can produce God's credentials, or God Himself. Until then, best to keep those ideas to yourself. You do yourself no service by parading such garbage around as if you knew full-well what you were talking about.

" Have you ever even contemplated the types of evidence we mostly all DO accept for various things and ideas?"

In Science, the evidences are given as per the Scientific Method, and in Religion the proofs are given as per the Religious Method, according to the nature of the problems. Right, please?
Science or Scientific Method has got to do nothing with Religion and or no-Religion. Right, please?

Regards