It seems to me that some Christians on here do not understand Atheists

[1robin]

I'm afraid you have to watch the whole documentary from start to finish at your convenience to see the whole picture.

Well, I have to weigh the time I have with how much time you are requesting that I invest in something. Since I am familiar with Hawking's relevant positions concerning the universe and many other secular scientist's theories about the nature of the universe I find it hard to justify spending hours reacquainting myself with what I have almost certainly investigated before. It gets even worse since I know that there are philosophical principles that rule out any possibility of the nature of the universe being different in any way that defies my argumentation. That is why I wanted you to post the specific claims from Hawking that apply to my argumentation. However if I find some down time this weekend maybe I will check it out anyway.

 

[1robin]

I also like calculations of probabilities. Suppose Adam and Eve actually existed. Now what is the probability that your exact DNA would come up after thousands of years. I know this chart doesn't start off with Adam and Eve, but it should at least give some indication about the unlikeliness of you existing. We can see straight away that the odds against you existing are so great that a god must personally have seen to it that you are here.
What Are The Odds of You Existing At All?

I have heard this argument before. However before I address it can I impose on you to look into the post where I tried to show how the chances of any life permitting universe existing based on chance are absurd. I think you will find they are not the same type of statistical model. If you do so then please explain how the two probabilities we are discussing are similar or dissimilar. That will allow me to make a targeted response. I already have an idea of how I am going to tackle this but first I want to assure that we are on the same page.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

People will believe almost anything. You claim a bunch of people living in superstitious times witnessed miracles. However, these claims are passed on by members of the religion and its leaders. A letter from or about a religious leader does not evidence for supernatural events make. Supposed claims from supposed witnesses thousands of years ago about supernatural events is not convincing.

The witnesses are established by the historical documents, and the strength of their witness by their eventual suffering and deaths. And they didn't get it from religious leaders, these are the Apostles who knew Jesus personally.

Claiming it happened a long time ago therefore it's not convincing... is not very convincing. You can go ahead and do that, but also throw out all of ancient history along with it.

 

[ArtieE]

There is no known actual infinite in the natural world, and there is every reason to thing that natural infinites are impossible.

Thought somebody might be interested in the possibility that the age of the universe could be infinite.
Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

 

[ArtieE]

Well, I have to weigh the time I have with how much time you are requesting that I invest in something. Since I am familiar with Hawking's relevant positions concerning the universe and many other secular scientist's theories about the nature of the universe I find it hard to justify spending hours

The documentary is about 36 minutes and well worth the time.

 

[ArtieE]

I have heard this argument before. However before I address it can I impose on you to look into the post where I tried to show how the chances of any life permitting universe existing based on chance are absurd. I think you will find they are not the same type of statistical model.

Actually, I am looking at this a different way. I am thinking that you can't possibly be here by chance. Just think of all the things that would have to happen exactly the way they did throughout all of history all the way from Adam and Eve. I am simply saying that it appears that the whole of history was fine tuned so that you can be here.

 

[1robin]

Thought somebody might be interested in the possibility that the age of the universe could be infinite.
Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

I will be happy to get into the intricacy's of why actual infinites concerning any natural property cannot possibly exist but first let me see if I can get rid of the notion without having to invest that much.

Saying that a natural infinite (for instance time, space, matter, etc...) exist is like claiming someone invented an over unity engine (perpetual motion machine). as soon as someone claims this you can simply stop listening because by Newton's laws perpetual motion (another infinite) is impossible. It is so well established that patent offices will no longer even investigate them. They simply stamp them denied and move on. the reasons why naturally existing infinites are impossible is even more absolute but it takes more time to illustrate. So can we agree that natural infinites can't exist or do we need to dive down the rabbit hole? We will arrive at the same place by the short road or the very long road. It is up to you.

 

[1robin]

Thought somebody might be interested in the possibility that the age of the universe could be infinite.
Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

I may can find a half hour, but I sure hope I find something new or at least possible if I invest the time.

 

[JustWondering]

Yes I posted the SCIENTIFIC conclusions from non-theistic SCIENTISTS. They are qualified to make the SCIENTIFIC conclusions they made and their claims are KNOWABLE. You however, posted a quote from one of the SCIENTISTS I used where he made a PHILISOPHICAL conclusion which he is in no way qualified to make and it was also a conclusion he has no way to know even if he was right.

1. Use SCIENTISTS for SCIENCE, do not use SCIENTISTS for THEOLOGY or PHILOSOPHY.
2. Even worse do not ignore SCIENTISTS when used by me for SCIENCE, then expect me not to ignore SCIENTISTS you use for PHILOSOPHY and THEOLOGY.

Please get this figured and use the proper source for the type of claims you make, and do not ignore scientists when their science is inconvenient for you.

Do you realize your actually doing the exact same thing you wrongly accused me of?

Mainstream philosophy and common sense. I would have supplied source after source for this but you simply ignore sources you do not like, so why should I bother. This stuff is freshmen level philosophy. Why is it a mystery to you?

Logical laws and philosophic principles, but this stuff is apparent to anyone with common sense. You can not have an infinite regression of causation and actually have a cased thing. There is no known actual infinite in the natural world, and there is every reason to thing that natural infinites are impossible. You cannot traverse an infinite series of seconds to arrive at the present one but you can start at second number one and arrive at this particular second. You can have an infinite series of events in time so as to arrive at this particular event, but you can start at event number 1 and reach this particular event. This is kindergarten stuff. Even if you ignore the mountain of philosophical problems with actual infinites all the evidence we have suggests that the universe began to exist. I posted two of the best scholars there are as to the scientific reasons why the universe is finite. You ignore everything and cling to your preference no matter how impossible it is.

Again you are actually doing the exact things you falsely accused me of doing. I am getting quite exhausted with it.

For at least the third time. I quoted qualified SCIENTISTS concerning SCIENCE. You quoted a SCIENTIST concerning a PHILISOPHICAL conclusion that even if it was true he has no way of knowing it and he is utterly unqualified in philosophy to begin with.

Let me state this again I DID NOT EVER SAY I KNEW how the universe came to be. I said that the evidence WE DO KNOW about the universe all points to the universe coming into being a finite time ago and WE DO KNOW that the universe seems astronomically fine tuned for life. I said THE BEST CONCLUSION from that scientific evidence is the philosophical and theological conclusion that there exists an eternal intelligence which explains all the SCIENTIFIC evidence WE DO KNOW about. Doing that is not an assumption, it is a sound and logical deduction as to the best conclusion from the evidence.

To put a final nail in the coffin as to what WE KNOW: Here is the same unbelievably well qualified secular scientist speaking about one of the greatest and most robust cosmological models to have ever been created called the BGVT.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

You are not going to overturn well established theories of applied science which are validated by the massively overwhelming preponderance of the evidence by quoting fringe theoretical scientists with brand new theories that have yet to be vetted. Their claims must pass the same tests Hoyle's theories have before they can challenge the BBT. If I had a dollar for every discovery that comes out of the LHC that falls flat after a test or do I would be doing pretty well. I will tell you this however, even if whatever kooky string theory you linked to was actually true (and it almost certainly isn't) it will not get you a universe that did not begin to exist a finite time ago because all potential infinites (outside of thought experiments) are utterly impossible.

I am really getting bored here, please post an example of a known infinite of any kind in the known universe and please stop ignoring the quotes of SCIENTISTS concerning SCIENCE that I provide as in the bolded text above. If your going to actually do over and over that which you falsely accused me of doing there is not really any reason to keep this up on my part.

You didn't really address any of my questions. I said clearly that NOBODY knows how the universe began or has a complete understanding of how it functions now. You responded with a title of an article from a web site dedicated to supporting intelligent design. In said article, even the writer had to admit that Vilenkin doesn't even have a solid theory for how the universe began or what if anything came before. Which supports MY position. Since all the scientists with all the math and theories in the world cannot provide any concrete evidence and arguments for how the universe began, where it came from, or where it's going, saying that it is fine tuned is absurd. At this point all that science can accurately say is that the universe exists and explain why some things work as they do in it. Since science really doesn't factor into your belief system anyway, I'm wondering why you're so concerned with it. You are simply left with a god of the gaps argument. For which no evidence exists for or against.

 

[1robin]

Actually, I am looking at this a different way. I am thinking that you can't possibly be here by chance. Just think of all the things that would have to happen exactly the way they did throughout all of history all the way from Adam and Eve. I am simply saying that it appears that the whole of history was fine tuned so that you can be here.

This is the exact way that it appeared you did mean this. I can really short circuit this in a hurry by saying my world view contains a being who fills the roll of agent causation to explain everything including very improbable things. However that is no fun, so I anticipated an in depth discussion but first I wanted to make sure that what your saying is that the fine tuning of the values which could produce a life permitting universe is not surprising because some other improbable event took place. Is that actually what your saying?

 

[ArtieE]

I will be happy to get into the intricacy's of why actual infinites concerning any natural property cannot possibly exist but first let me see if I can get rid of the notion without having to invest that much.

I am not trying to question that, I am just presenting an article where they seem to have no problem with the age of the universe being infinite.

 

[1robin]

You didn't really address any of my questions. I said clearly that NOBODY knows how the universe began or has a complete understanding of how it functions now. You responded with a title of an article from a web site dedicated to supporting intelligent design. In said article, even the writer had to admit that Vilenkin doesn't even have a solid theory for how the universe began or what if anything came before. Which supports MY position. Since all the scientists with all the math and theories in the world cannot provide any concrete evidence and arguments for how the universe began, where it came from, or where it's going, saying that it is fine tuned is absurd. At this point all that science can accurately say is that the universe exists and explain why some things work as they do in it. Since science really doesn't factor into your belief system anyway, I'm wondering why you're so concerned with it. You are simply left with a god of the gaps argument. For which no evidence exists for or against.

I am done with you in this thread for now. You have no idea what your talking about, you ignore everything I post, you are not familiar with basic philosophy nor science, and you can not challenge me with anything relevant.

No hard feelings but I want to spend my time debating well reasoned responses instead of your constantly doing exactly what you falsely accused me of doing. I will continue our debate in the homosexual thread because I have yet to see if you can offer me a good debate on that subject.

 

[ArtieE]

This is the exact way that it appeared you did mean this. I can really short circuit this in a hurry by saying my world view contains a being who fills the roll of agent causation to explain everything including very improbable things. However that is no fun, so I anticipated an in depth discussion but first I wanted to make sure that what your saying is that the fine tuning of the values which could produce a life permitting universe is not surprising because some other improbable event took place. Is that actually what your saying?

I am simply saying that if the universe was fine tuned for life then it must have been fine tuned for exactly you given that the chances of your DNA in particular to exist here and now by chance are so small that they are practically zero. Either you are a chance result of the universe, or the universe was deliberately created to produce you.

 

[JustWondering]

The witnesses are established by the historical documents, and the strength of their witness by their eventual suffering and deaths. And they didn't get it from religious leaders, these are the Apostles who knew Jesus personally.

And how do you KNOW this?! Because your bible and religious leaders say so. Look I'm done now. Believe what you want, have a nice day.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Claiming it happened a long time ago therefore it's not convincing... is not very convincing. You can go ahead and do that, but also throw out all of ancient history along with it.

Actually, there's an element of truth to it. You yourself would regularly discount ancient history where it involves unlikely events.

Something as simple as claims around military forces and casualties in war is notoriously inaccurate the further back one reaches, with simple logistic calculations able to prove this beyond doubt.

The concept of 'historical accuracy' was also vastly different, and the way we look at documentation from those times is commonly flawed.

That's not a specific comment or criticism related to this thread, just a general comment on ancient history.

 

[ArtieE]

I may can find a half hour, but I sure hope I find something new or at least possible if I invest the time.

At least you will get a detailed and coherent overview of his point of view.

 

[1robin]

I am not trying to question that, I am just presenting an article where they seem to have no problem with the age of the universe being infinite.

That is because they are philosophical morons no matter how competent in science. Actual infinites are not a scientific issue, it is a philosophical issue. Actual infinites do not merely not exist, they can't exist. I am like the patent office concerning claims that an impossibility actually is possible. I am simply not going to invest much time in an idea I know very well is Ludacris. Pretty much all freshman philosophy students know that actual infinites can't exist. I do not mean to seem arrogant or dismissive of your claims but I have been at this for a long time and am so weird as to be almost obsessed by this stuff. That combination for all it's failing does lead a person to concrete conclusions after decades in the effort.

 

[1robin]

I am simply saying that if the universe was fine tuned for life then it must have been fine tuned for exactly you given that the chances of your DNA in particular to exist here and now by chance are so small that they are practically zero. Either you are a chance result of the universe, or the universe was deliberately created to produce you.

With God all this stuff has an explanation. However I still do not think the two statistical modules are equal but it does not seem you want to investigate that further.

 

[1robin]

At least you will get a detailed and coherent overview of his point of view.

I already have that but I must look at it anyway. I have to leave for today, have a good one.

 

[JustWondering]

I am done with you in this thread for now. You have no idea what your talking about, you ignore everything I post, you are not familiar with basic philosophy nor science, and you can not challenge me with anything relevant.

No hard feelings but I want to spend my time debating well reasoned responses instead of your constantly doing exactly what you falsely accused me of doing. I will continue our debate in the homosexual thread because I have yet to see if you can offer me a good debate on that subject.

Since when has science been concerned with proving or disproving your god? You are the one who originally brought up the fined tuned universe concept and said you could defend it, yes? You tried to bring up string theory which is not a proven theory to back up your idea about how improbable it was for the universe to support life. That's not going to work. You tried appealing to authority by dredging up scientists theories in the hopes of supporting your position, but they don't KNOW how the universe started any more then you or I do. So you really don't have anything there do you? The concept of a fined tuned universe is a purely theological argument with no scientific backing to it. I'm simply cutting through all the BS and tap dancing you want to do to avoid the core of the argument. The only place this argument was leading to was you claiming that your god exists outside the boundaries of our known universe and is not bound by its rules anyway. So why spend any time on science when it can't help you? You're left with a god that cannot be proven or disproven to exist. Can the universe be the creation of a powerful entity in another universe? Maybe, truth is often stranger than fiction. Is this entity similar to anything described in any of humanities ancient mythological stories? Doubtful.