• 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!

Science and God

viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Darkforbid said:
It pure speculation. Also it makes no difference to the ultra ultra ultra fine tuning seen in our universe
Click to expand...

I am sure God is much less speculative, lol. Anyway, the ultra ultra has a probability that depends on the number of Universes and how they vary.

Ciao

- viole
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Please explain more. Are we debating the multiverse?
Click to expand...

No, I am just hinting to the logical possibility of them as a naturalistic explanation of the fine tuning. Assuming fine tuning needed to be justified at all, which is really not necessary. It is a bit like using an atomic bomb to kill a mosquito.

No evidence of multiple, possibly infinite Universes with all possible combinations of constants? Who cares? They have the same evidence of a conscious fine tuner, with the advantage that we know that at least one universe exists, while we have zero that a god exists too. So, going from1 to many, seems less problematic than going from zero to 1.

Ciao

- viole
 
Darkforbid

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
viole said:
No, I am just hinting to the logical possibility of them as a naturalistic explanation of the fine tuning. Assuming fine tuning needed to be justified at all, which is really not necessary. It is a bit like using an atomic bomb to kill a mosquito.

No evidence of multiple, possibly infinite Universes with all possible combinations of constants? Who cares? They have the same evidence of a conscious fine tuner, with the advantage that we know that at least one universe exists, while we have zero that a god exists too. So, going from1 to many, seems less problematic than going from zero to 1.

Ciao

- viole
Click to expand...

Well that's a head in the sand argument
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
viole said:
No, I am just hinting to the logical possibility of them as a naturalistic explanation of the fine tuning. Assuming fine tuning needed to be justified at all, which is really not necessary.

No evidence of multiple, possibly infinite Universes with all possible combinations of constants? Who cares? They have the same evidence of a conscious fine tuner, with the advantage that we know that at least one universe exists, while we have zero that a god exists too. So, going from1 to infinite, seems less problematic than going from zero to 1.

Ciao

- viole
Click to expand...

So seems is evidence. Nice! :D
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Darkforbid said:
Why would you think you can speak for all atheists,, that would be highly delusional
Click to expand...

I know how they think. Keen spirit.
By the way, did you take me seriously?

Love the believer, hate the belief. That was a parody of love the sinner, hate the sin. Wasn’t that obvious? :)

Ciao
- viole
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Darkforbid said:
Why would you think you can speak for all atheists,, that would be highly delusional
Click to expand...
I seem to remember that atheists are only united by a lack of belief/disbelief in gods.

So atheists are united and not united on other aspects than atheism itself. Wait, one of these 2 position amounts to a contradiction, which means that at least one atheist have a wrong belief. That can't be the case, because they are so rational, intelligent and what not.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
viole said:
Well, try find X so that M = X*1. Where M is an arbitrarily large number.
Now, try to find an X, so that 1 = 0*X.

Good luck.

Ciao

- viole
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is logic in your head. It says nothing about multiverses, because that is independent of logic in your head.
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
I seem to remember that atheists are only united by a lack of belief/disbelief in gods.

So atheists are united and not united on other aspects than atheism itself. Wait, one of these 2 position amounts to a contradiction, which means that at least one atheist have a wrong belief. That can't be the case, because they are so rational, intelligent and what not.
Click to expand...

A lack of disbelief in God? Do you know an atheist who claims lack of disbelief in God?

Ciao

- viole
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yeah, that is logic in your head. It says nothing about multiverses, because that is independent of logic in your head.
Click to expand...

that just says why it seems it easier to go from 1 to many, when you know 1 exists, than reaching 1 for X when you have zero evidence of X.

Is it really so complicated?

Ciao

- viole
 
Darkforbid

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
I seem to remember that atheists are only united by a lack of belief/disbelief in gods.

So atheists are united and not united on other aspects than atheism itself. Wait, one of these 2 position amounts to a contradiction, which means that at least one atheist have a wrong belief. That can't be the case, because they are so rational, intelligent and what not.
Click to expand...

Yep, atheists think rhetoric is rational and scientific
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top