The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Skwim]

I would not know how to go about accounting for this astronomically fine tuned universe without God.

"Fine tuned"? Does fine tuning include all the violence and destruction that continually takes place in the universe? Is it that the universe happens to have a planet---one among billions---with sentient life make it fine tuned? Just what are your standards for "fine tuned"? Because, as I see it there's no fine tuning whatsoever.

In fact, I regard it as very much out of tune.

​

 

[1robin]

You are posting a false equivalency between science and religious faith. Religious beliefs are mostly unfalsifiable but scientific deductions can be found to be false. The process is very different, and no religion uses the scientific method, which is the required approach in science.

I actually did the opposite. I proposed an inequality but one that is completely backwards.

1. Faiths actually burden is only the absence of a defeater.
2. I raise that to best explanation but I did not have to.
3. Sciences burden in evidence that gets close to certainty.


Non-theists get this exactly backwards, and I never suggested there is an equality here.

Nor can one logically claim that their religious concept of origins is "probable". In order to make that deduction, one would have to know all the possibilities and then weigh them on some criteria that has proven value. We do not have any such criteria, nor do we know all the possibilities of causation.

No we don't. Science does not even pretend to attempt this why would faith be required to do so. This is what I mean, you have it exactly backwards. Faith does not require this at all. Faith only requires it's negation to not be proven. I go further and make contingent claims like the best explanation for the evidence we have. Exactly what claim of any type is based on knowing al the evidence there potentially is?

You say "He must me non material, he must extremely powerful, extremely intelligent, independent of space and time, etc... God is an exact match in every way", but look at all of the assumptions you've made. You say there can be only one, which is logically questionable. You say he's "non-material", but how could one possibly deduce that? You say He must be "extremely powerful", and yet a relatively insignificant change can sometimes lead to more significant changes down the road. "Intelligent", the same thing. "Independent of time and space" is actually illogical since everything we seemingly experience is dependent on other factors. And "God is an exact match in every way" is only based on your jumping to all sorts of conclusions unmatched by any evidence whatsoever-- sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Your 0 and 3 so far. I did not conclude it must be one being. I said whatever it is must be certain things and concluded God meets them all. I could have done so with perfect justification. There is a rule that you do not multiply entities beyond necessity. However I did not do so.

But let's say your belief in a creator-god is correct. So? Does this mean that this is the God of the Bible? Just because one may really like the Bible and that it means something to them doesn't mean that it's accurate. I like the Bhagavad Gita, and it means something to me, but that doesn't mean that the events depicted in it are accurate.

I just explained that. Philosophy says the creator must be x, y, and z. God meets every criteria, and nothing else does. That more than justifies faith but it does not justify absolute certainty. I complain about your requiring certainty from what makes no claims to it, and not doing so for what does, you respond by doing exactly what I complained of.

MY FAITH IN CREATION IS NOT A CERTAINTY. IT IS THE BEST EXPLENATION FOR THE EVIDENCE.

So, what do I propose? Glad you asked. What I suggest is to read the Bible, listen to sermons, read other scriptures, read scientific articles, listen to scientists, contemplate on it all plus some more, and see what helps you. Whatever happened in the past, happened. We don't have to have positive verification of every detail in order for us to function today. If the Bible is meaningful to you, as I know it is, that's perfectly fine. You don't have to prove everything is right within it to get a sense of direction out of it.

I can't prove science is right. Science can't prove any science is ever right. How you can then demand I must prove the bible is right escapes me. Faith not only has no requirement for proof it excludes it's existence. You do not use this faith standard for any other aspect of your life, why use it there? Regardless I do have some proof. I know God exists, I experienced him as certainly as my eyes experience my keyboard. However that is light years beyond what is required for faith.

And then realize that others will do the same, along with the doubts I think we all have, and they can function much like you can function. It's not that you have to accept what they believe as being equal to what you believe, so I'm not suggesting any false equivalency that you supposedly must follow.

No you are not. Your supposing a false inequality exactly backwards from what is true. Your demanding proof of what has no requirement for it and using faith for what does.

You see me posting "I don't know" a lot, which is because I know that I'm only seeing in my life of 69 years the tip of the iceberg and not the whole enchilada (which I'm having for dinner today-- the enchilada, not the iceberg). However, "I don't know" doesn't stop me from having values and morals that I believe are important, nor should it with anyone else.

There are not only two positions here. There is not "certainty" or "hopelessness". No aspect of human experience suggests this. There are vast scales of reliability in between those two. If the world actually operated the way you suggested the entire legal system would collapse, science would be irrelevant, 98% of human endeavor would no longer be valid.

 

[1robin]

Fine tuned for what exactly? Please describe exactly what the universe is supposed to be fine tuned for.

Why don't you just ask me which direction is up. The fine tuning argument is so common and so well known and so absolute your question appears rhetorical or bait for something. I can predict exactly what you going to respond with and exactly why it is wrong but that is no fun, so it is tuned for life. Now please tell me how much of it has life and make your point then I will show that is irrelevant.

 

[metis]

I actually did the opposite. I proposed an inequality but one that is completely backwards.

1. Faiths actually burden is only the absence of a defeater.
2. I raise that to best explanation but I did not have to.
3. Sciences burden in evidence that gets close to certainty.


Non-theists get this exactly backwards, and I never suggested there is an equality here.

No we don't. Science does not even pretend to attempt this why would faith be required to do so. This is what I mean, you have it exactly backwards. Faith does not require this at all. Faith only requires it's negation to not be proven. I go further and make contingent claims like the best explanation for the evidence we have. Exactly what claim of any type is based on knowing al the evidence there potentially is?

Your 0 and 3 so far. I did not conclude it must be one being. I said whatever it is must be certain things and concluded God meets them all. I could have done so with perfect justification. There is a rule that you do not multiply entities beyond necessity. However I did not do so.

I just explained that. Philosophy says the creator must be x, y, and z. God meets every criteria, and nothing else does. That more than justifies faith but it does not justify absolute certainty. I complain about your requiring certainty from what makes no claims to it, and not doing so for what does, you respond by doing exactly what I complained of.

MY FAITH IN CREATION IS NOT A CERTAINTY. IT IS THE BEST EXPLENATION FOR THE EVIDENCE.

I can't prove science is right. Science can't prove any science is ever right. How you can then demand I must prove the bible is right escapes me. Faith not only has no requirement for proof it excludes it's existence. You do not use this faith standard for any other aspect of your life, why use it there? Regardless I do have some proof. I know God exists, I experienced him as certainly as my eyes experience my keyboard. However that is light years beyond what is required for faith.

No you are not. Your supposing a false inequality exactly backwards from what is true. Your demanding proof of what has no requirement for it and using faith for what does.

There are not only two positions here. There is not "certainty" or "hopelessness". No aspect of human experience suggests this. There are vast scales of reliability in between those two. If the world actually operated the way you suggested the entire legal system would collapse, science would be irrelevant, 98% of human endeavor would no longer be valid.

I'm sorry, but the above is terribly bizarre and intellectually dishonest, including falsely having me supposedly say things I didn't say. Why do I subject myself to the nonsense you fabricate both with science and with theology? You're right, I am the problem, and I'll make certain this time that it won't happen again.

 

[cottage]

Anything is impeachable but a conviction is a whole other matter. We could not convict a confessed perjurer I don't think Kalam is in danger. If your going to resolve to abandon civility an imply mentor relationships without any justification at any time then will fast lose interest. It is not the fallacy of composition it is a logical deduction. I can give you papers written on just why it isn't, it is not even taken as a serious contention.

Let me put it this way: You use Craig’s arguments, terms and expressions; similarly I’m in thrall to David Hume’s philosophy, and I tend to borrow from his vocabulary as well as his actual arguments. I would be very pleased to consider Hume a mentor.

I must have emphatically and in detailed dozens of times stated the iron clad nature of their premise but pointed out my agreement that the final leap is more than I would have taken. I would agree they result in a God like cause or explanation not my God necessarily. I d just cannot keep repeating that indefinitely. The last step is a little aggressive but very reasonable. The rest is unassailable.

The Kalam seems to be held almost as an article of faith by some theists, though I’m not sure why. It certainly isn’t “ironclad”! The following is just one of several arguments that show why the argument is unsound.

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist

Conclusion: The universe has a cause

The primary premise is extraordinarily presumptuous in what it sweepingly asserts. And we are entitled to ask from which sense impression do we derive: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”? No present experience can confirm what the statement confidently announces to be the case as a general proposition. The argument can only apply to the particular, and that is to say by inference from what actually exists. So right off the bat the premise has an omission. I’ve inserted the missing clause into the primary premise to see if that helps us out of the difficulty, but as I explain below it does not!

P1. Whatever begins to exist in the universe has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist

Conclusion: The universe has a cause

Even with the inserted clause the primary premise (P1) is false. We don’t observe objects beginning to exist; we only see material objects that change their form. In all cases the new objects are formed from already existent matter. The universe is expanding, but I’m aware of no argument that conclusively informs us that matter in the universe is being added to; and so the objects cannot therefore be described as beginning to exist in the way the argument misleadingly supposes. And if we don’t see things beginning to exist then we certainly can’t ascribe a cause to them!

At the very most, all we can say is this:

1. The universe began to exist
2. Everything in the universe has a cause
C. Everything in the universe began to exist (including cause and effect)

If we accept #1 and #2 as above then the premises are valid and the argument is sound. But because the premises are derived inductively the argument even in this form can never be certain. But I think most people would agree that it is a modest and reasonable conclusion that doesn’t seek to sophistically venture outside our experience.

Returning to the argument in its original form, the conclusion (P1) is arrived at by a false or misleading inference. But the argument would be fallacious even if it were true that things in the universe began to exist, because it does not follow if objects began to exist in the universe have a cause then the universe itself must have a cause. That is the Fallacy of Composition, where it is claimed that whatever is true of a part of an object is therefore true of the whole object. That would be like saying because it is known that an organ such as the liver can regenerate itself the human body as a whole can regenerate itself. The fact is we cannot venture beyond the universe, and so we cannot assert that causal relations will exist outside the universe merely by inference from what we experience within the universe. And if causal relations can’t be established beyond our experience, then how can it be asserted that the universe is caused?

I think I've covered this pretty thoroughly now. So i'm done with the Kalam argument, unless you have a seious rebuttal?

 

[1robin]

"Fine tuned"? Does fine tuning include all the violence and destruction that continually takes place in the universe? Is it that the universe happens to have a planet---one among billions---with sentient life make it fine tuned? Just what are your standards for "fine tuned"? Because, as I see it there's no fine tuning whatsoever.

In fact, I regard it as very much out of tune.

​

Hey you must wait your turn. Artie was supposed to make the claims I predicted would be made. This is exactly what knew was coming before I typed a word. It is a probability mistake of the highest order. A world which would include even a single life for of any kind, heck even one in which a biological life form could potentially occur in is astronomically low compared with possible universes. Each additional life form just adds to that probability. To start off getting any universe at all has no probability what so ever without God. Then you need one with material stuff in it (which is unlikely) then one that material stuff has a lifespan of significant degree to not crash back together nor fly apart before life can begin. Then one with a narrow band of gravity, nuclear forces, of screw it I will copy and paste, this gets old repeating.

N, the ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism, is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. According to Rees, if it were smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[13]

Epsilon (&#949, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.07. If it were 0.06, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.08, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[13]

Omega (&#937, also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[13]

Lambda (&#955 is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. Lambda is around 0.7. This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If it were extremely large, stars would not be able to form.[13]

Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 1/100,000. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[13]

D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is three. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were two or four.[13]
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multiply these times a billion or trillion.

 

[1robin]

I'm sorry, but the above is terribly bizarre and intellectually dishonest, including falsely having me supposedly say things I didn't say. Why do I subject myself to the nonsense you fabricate both with science and with theology? You're right, I am the problem, and I'll make certain this time that it won't happen again.

Feel free not to subject your self to me any time you wish. That will not change the facts that:

1. Faith never, ever, ever, ever, requires certainty. It only requires the absence of a defeater.
2. My faith posits best fit explanations but does not have to.
3. That virtually everyone in history uses deduction and inference in almost every decision they make but for some reason some balk in doing so in it's most appropriate sphere, which is faith. Belief is most at home in faith and most out of place in science.
4. IMO you have repeatedly done what I said in number 3 and I stick by that.

 

[idav]

Multiply these times a billion or trillion.

How many times did god roll the dice? You assume he only did it once and rolled a perfect universe first chance he got. With all the talk of probability that sounds unlikely that god could roll a perfect universe in one try, and why assume god only created once.

Also the probabilities don't change over time getting it less and less like to spawn life. If the probability of this universe is 1 in 1 billion then that is the same probability for the other 999 million universes. Of course we find ourselves in one of them but that doesn't make it less likely, just as you know you have to play to win. I'd be more suprised of winning a lottery I wasn't playing.

 

[Ouroboros]

Fine tuned for what exactly? Please describe exactly what the universe is supposed to be fine tuned for.

I'd say it's fine tuned for dark matter, dark energy, stars, galaxies, and black holes.

What is it now? 22 sixtillion stars estimated? That's some 4 trillion stars per person on this planet (that would make stars 4 trillion times more important than humans LOL!). If every person counted their own set of stars, and counted one per second, it would take about 100,000 years to count them all.

 

[idav]

I'd say it's fine tuned for dark matter, dark energy, stars, galaxies, and black holes.

What is it now? 22 sixtillion stars estimated? That's some 4 trillion stars per person on this planet (that would make stars 4 trillion times more important than humans LOL!). If every person counted their own set of stars, and counted one per second, it would take about 100,000 years to count them all.

Is that the current estimate? 4 Trillion stars per person. Wow!

God overkill much?

 

[1robin]

Let me put it this way: You use Craig’s arguments, terms and expressions; similarly I’m in thrall to David Hume’s philosophy, and I tend to borrow from his vocabulary as well as his actual arguments. I would be very pleased to consider Hume a mentor.

I can't argue with any of that but I will make one observation.

One of the most self contradictory phrases I have ever heard is from Hume though I do acknowledge he was a brilliant man.

The Kalam seems to be held almost as an article of faith by some theists, though I’m not sure why. It certainly isn’t “ironclad”! The following is just one of several arguments that show why the argument is unsound.

Didn't we juts do this?

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist

Conclusion: The universe has a cause

Replace conclusion with best conclusion and I will stick by this.

The primary premise is extraordinarily presumptuous in what it sweepingly asserts. And we are entitled to ask from which sense impression do we derive: “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”? No present experience can confirm what the statement confidently announces to be the case as a general proposition. The argument can only apply to the particular, and that is to say by inference from what actually exists. So right off the bat the premise has an omission. I’ve inserted the missing clause into the primary premise to see if that helps us out of the difficulty, but as I explain below it does not!

Let me back up a bit because I do not hold any specific view but a composite. I think all things that begin to exist do have causes but I also add that every event has a cause. I am not confined to the things that begin to exist alone. However this is that certainty minus any X is equal to wrong idea. If a thing begins to exist it either has a cause or not. Which is the most rational conclusion? That is what I take away from the cosmological argument. I have said over and over I do not draw the level of certainty that they suggest but do affirm their deduction vastly superior to their opposites.

Come on and lets get this over with. Which is better? An uncaused universe or one that has a cause? or some science fictional punt?

P1. Whatever begins to exist in the universe has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist

Conclusion: The universe has a cause

Even with the inserted clause the primary premise (P1) is false. We don’t observe objects beginning to exist; we only see material objects that change their form.

This is exactly what I on about. This is a perfect argument of the type. We do not know so what was claimed is wrong. This does not follow. You are left where I at least started with a likely claim that is not proven. That is actually being generous I think but there is not room here to really start showing it. I am not sure how close to certainty you can get but you are no where near unlikely. Since every event has a cause why would beginning events be an exception?

In all cases the new objects are formed from already existent matter. The universe is expanding, but I’m aware of no argument that conclusively informs us that matter in the universe is being added to; and so the objects cannot therefore be described as beginning to exist in the way the argument misleadingly supposes. And if we don’t see things beginning to exist then we certainly can’t ascribe a cause to them!

I think I must have attempted to explain this one theory a hundred times so far. They are running together. Even if what is seen is composed of other things eventually we need to get the things to begin with. I think it was Lewis who said natural law explains A + B but there is the rub you must first catch your A. A thing assembling out of other things is not an exception to cause and effect it is confirmation of it. Unless beginnings are in some other category of event deducting a cause for them is consistent with al known events. It is like testing every animal but one on earth and find it is carbon based but the one that can't be can't be deducted from anything.

What is the universe expanding into if not new space? Aquinas actually made a prime mover argument from what you think is evidenced against God.

At the very most, all we can say is this:

1. The universe began to exist
2. Everything in the universe has a cause

Try this one.
1. Every observable event has a cause.
2. It is likely every event whether observed or not has a cause as well.

C. Everything in the universe began to exist (including cause and effect)

The concept of cause and effect is not an event. You can't put cause and effect in a box. It is a principle by which everything seems to obey. It it's self is an abstract idea. But even if the other way around it is just another thing that runs out of nature before it runs out of explanations.

If we accept #1 and #2 as above then the premises are valid and the argument is sound. But because the premises are derived inductively the argument even in this form can never be certain. But I think most people would agree that it is a modest and reasonable conclusion that doesn’t seek to sophistically venture outside our experience.

I don't think cause and effect is a thing. Even if it is it is just another in need of a God.

Returning to the argument in its original form, the conclusion (P1) is arrived at by a false or misleading inference. But the argument would be fallacious even if it were true that things in the universe began to exist, because it does not follow if objects began to exist in the universe have a cause then the universe itself must have a cause. That is the Fallacy of Composition, where it is claimed that whatever is true of a part of an object is therefore true of the whole object. That would be like saying because it is known that an organ such as the liver can regenerate itself the human body as a whole can regenerate itself. The fact is we cannot venture beyond the universe, and so we cannot assert that causal relations will exist outside the universe merely by inference from what we experience within the universe. And if causal relations can’t be established beyond our experience, then how can it be asserted that the universe is caused?

Hold the phone. The universe beginning to exist is a very well founded secular cosmological conclusion consistent with all manner of evidence. It is on the almost certainty the premise is founded. You need to get into science to challenge it not pick on it's philosophical adoption. Endless things are deducted from beyond experience. Science depends on it, heck most of life depends on it. You ever experienced the temperature on mars? What about the center of the earth? Seen a lake of ammonia? Dark matter? A boson? An orbital?

I think I've covered this pretty thoroughly now. So i'm done with the Kalam argument, unless you have a seious rebuttal?

I ran out of serious days ago. Now I am numbly repeating myself. I can leave it here without regret.

 

[Ouroboros]

Is that the current estimate? 4 Trillion stars per person. Wow!

God overkill much?

Exactly.

The estimate (last time I read about it) was 100 billion star in our galaxy. And 100 billion galaxies, many of them much, much larger than ours. Our galaxy is only a medium sized (if I remember right). The total number of stars some 22 sixtillion, which is 22,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (22 and 21 zeros).

Now compare that to the estimated number of single cell microbes in the ocean: 2.9x10^29, which 2.9 followed by 29 zeros! In other words, there are more single cell organisms in our ocean than there are stars in the universe!

on top of that, you have millions of microbes and bacteria in your GI tract right now, helping you digest food. Now, was the world perfectly designed for stars or microbes? Not sure which... LOL! Definitely not human it seems.

--edit

Here's a kicker thought if we consider that the universe is fine tuned for life. It would mean that we should find a lot, I mean, a tremendous amount of life in the universe. We should, by that claim, be able to find intelligent life all over the universe. So... did Jesus die for the trillions of species of aliens too? Or only just for the special us?

 

[1robin]

How many times did god roll the dice? You assume he only did it once and rolled a perfect universe first chance he got. With all the talk of probability that sounds unlikely that god could roll a perfect universe in one try, and why assume god only created once.

Also the probabilities don't change over time getting it less and less like to spawn life. If the probability of this universe is 1 in 1 billion then that is the same probability for the other 999 million universes. Of course we find ourselves in one of them but that doesn't make it less likely, just as you know you have to play to win. I'd be more suprised of winning a lottery I wasn't playing.

Never as Einstein pointed out. Dice are only relevant if naturalism is true. I did not assume anything. I have never seen any evidence for anything beyond a single finite universe with one cycle. I was not giving probabilities for any single universe but for types of universe. Look up Bozeman brains to get the idea.

If God does not exist evolution has won a trillion lotteries it was not playing.

 

[cottage]

Why don't you just ask me which direction is up. The fine tuning argument is so common and so well known and so absolute your question appears rhetorical or bait for something. I can predict exactly what you going to respond with and exactly why it is wrong but that is no fun, so it is tuned for life. Now please tell me how much of it has life and make your point then I will show that is irrelevant.

I would agree that the Teleological/fine tuning argument is at the top of the tree when it comes to the three classic arguments, though it doesn’t of course prove God

It is an inferential argument that rests on the analogy that wants to make a connection between human design and what is observed in nature in order to show that the universe is also designed and therefore requires an intelligent designer (God). But while we can agree that a designed thing logically implies a designer, it does not follow from that tautology that the universe was in fact designed. It should be noted that by implying a designer the teleological argument takes a causal form, but as that is a subject I have discussed previously in the Cosmological Argument I won’t drag that over the coals again in this response.

We see much evidence of disorder in nature, such as erupting volcanoes, floods and pestilence. Now volcanoes erupt because of the movement of tectonic plates, which allows the magna in the earth’s core to escape as lava, reducing the pressure in the Earth’s core in the same way as an automobile’s radiator is fitted with a pressure release device. Defenders of the argument to design would say the existence of this facility in both cases demonstrates the need for a designer. And indeed the need for automobile’s radiator release valve is crucial, for without that particular design feature the performance and reliability of the engine would be seriously compromised. But to draw such a similarity with nature would be to say that a designer of the universe was compelled to work within the constraints of nature. For if the argument is that a supreme designer caused the universe to exist, and every effect is subject to that sustaining cause, then there cannot on that account be any random, unplanned events or freaks of nature. Defenders of the argument cannot expect to say that God designs particular parts of nature but not some other parts.

We understand that volcanoes are a sufficient and necessary condition for the prevention of a dangerous build up of pressure in the earth’s core, which makes perfect sense as a self-regulating aspect of nature, but they are not a necessary condition for the existence of the world unless we want to say a creator was compelled to incorporate them in his design, which is logically contradictory if God is the omnipotent being. For if there were no pressure in the earth’s core then there would be no need for volcanoes.

That there is pressure in the earth’s core, and volcanoes to relieve it, suggests that is the way the earth has evolved, rather than a designer who designed one aspect and then had to incorporate a further aspect to prevent a potential failure inherent in the first. So if is believed that a celestial engineer fine tuned the world then the engineer is evidently a poor artificer. Volcanoes serve no purpose whatsoever other than as a reaction to a series of malfunctions in nature. And yet volcanic eruption and the movement of the tectonic plates sits perfectly with the rudderless progression of nature, which is almost defined by its fault lines and failures. In nature there are many accidents and catastrophes that occur because we live in a maladjusted world where the elements are in conflict with one another, which is hardly an example of fine tuning or perfect design. Admittedly, this only speaks of poor design and therefore a less than supreme designer, but I suspect that even without the contradiction that isn’t how most believers would want to think of God

 

[1robin]

I'd say it's fine tuned for dark matter, dark energy, stars, galaxies, and black holes.

Could be. There is no conflict.

What is it now? 22 sixtillion stars estimated? That's some 4 trillion stars per person on this planet (that would make stars 4 trillion times more important than humans LOL!). If every person counted their own set of stars, and counted one per second, it would take about 100,000 years to count them all.

Numbers do not indicate importance in any way to God. I sand more important that the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe? Why? BTW how many stars was God allowed? How do you know? Also long before there were more than a few thousand stars (people used to count them) visible, biblical people without telescopes recorded there existed countless numbers of them.

 

[1robin]

Is that the current estimate? 4 Trillion stars per person. Wow!

God overkill much?

How many stars are consistent with God exactly? How do you know? How many other earths are there?

 

[1robin]

Exactly.

The estimate (last time I read about it) was 100 billion star in our galaxy. And 100 billion galaxies, many of them much, much larger than ours. Our galaxy is only a medium sized (if I remember right). The total number of stars some 22 sixtillion, which is 22,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (22 and 21 zeros).

Now compare that to the estimated number of single cell microbes in the ocean: 2.9x10^29, which 2.9 followed by 29 zeros! In other words, there are more single cell organisms in our ocean than there are stars in the universe!

on top of that, you have millions of microbes and bacteria in your GI tract right now, helping you digest food. Now, was the world perfectly designed for stars or microbes? Not sure which... LOL! Definitely not human it seems.

--edit

Here's a kicker thought if we consider that the universe is fine tuned for life. It would mean that we should find a lot, I mean, a tremendous amount of life in the universe. We should, by that claim, be able to find intelligent life all over the universe. So... did Jesus die for the trillions of species of aliens too? Or only just for the special us?

Uh oh. God can only have 3 trillion per person. I guess I was not born again.

It most certainly does not follow we should find a lot. BTW why is speculative science's actual calculations about billions of planets with life sacrificed on the alter of a mistaken argument thought to contend with God? Talk about fair weather fans. Even one cell is so astronomically improbable given the possible types of universe that could exist that my argument would not suffer if that is all here was. Instead off trillions of examples just in our front yard alone. We don't know what is in 90% of the ocean it is hyperbolic absurdity to speculated
about what would make no difference anyway. Atheism really suffers when making these fundamental errors.

Also how much exactly is alot?

 

[1robin]

I would agree that the Teleological/fine tuning argument is at the top of the tree when it comes to the three classic arguments, though it doesn’t of course prove God

What your responded to was a gripe about asking an obvious question not a proof of God.

It is an inferential argument that rests on the analogy that wants to make a connection between human design and what is observed in nature in order to show that the universe is also designed and therefore requires an intelligent designer (God). But while we can agree that a designed thing logically implies a designer, it does not follow from that tautology that the universe was in fact designed. It should be noted that by implying a designer the teleological argument takes a causal form, but as that is a subject I have discussed previously in the Cosmological Argument I won’t drag that over the coals again in this response.

I am aware of no connection to human design. Only brute probability.

We see much evidence of disorder in nature, such as erupting volcanoes, floods and pestilence. Now volcanoes erupt because of the movement of tectonic plates, which allows the magna in the earth’s core to escape as lava, reducing the pressure in the Earth’s core in the same way as an automobile’s radiator is fitted with a pressure release device. Defenders of the argument to design would say the existence of this facility in both cases demonstrates the need for a designer. And indeed the need for automobile’s radiator release valve is crucial, for without that particular design feature the performance and reliability of the engine would be seriously compromised. But to draw such a similarity with nature would be to say that a designer of the universe was compelled to work within the constraints of nature. For if the argument is that a supreme designer caused the universe to exist, and every effect is subject to that sustaining cause, then there cannot on that account be any random, unplanned events or freaks of nature. Defenders of the argument cannot expect to say that God designs particular parts of nature but not some other parts.

I think we are going to get of on a tangent involving how arbitrarily good the design was. This is a common false optimality issue. My argument was only for intent not necessarily the quality of the intent. Bad design is still design. I do not for one second agree anything was designed poorly given purpose, but a house that a partially caved in was still intended by intelligence.

We understand that volcanoes are a sufficient and necessary condition for the prevention of a dangerous build up of pressure in the earth’s core, which makes perfect sense as a self-regulating aspect of nature, but they are not a necessary condition for the existence of the world unless we want to say a creator was compelled to incorporate them in his design, which is logically contradictory if God is the omnipotent being. For if there were no pressure in the earth’s core then there would be no need for volcanoes.

I made no argument from any natural event that has a necessary natural mandate. Volcanoes are required by pressure, Universe are required by nothing. In much of the crap in this universe has no requirement to be what it is. They exist as brute fact unexplainable by any natural necessity. That is where my argument comes.

That there is pressure in the earth’s core, and volcanoes to relieve it, suggests that is the way the earth has evolved, rather than a designer who designed one aspect and then had to incorporate a further aspect to prevent a potential failure inherent in the first. So if is believed that a celestial engineer fine tuned the world then the engineer is evidently a poor artificer. Volcanoes serve no purpose whatsoever other than as a reaction to a series of malfunctions in nature. And yet volcanic eruption and the movement of the tectonic plates sits perfectly with the rudderless progression of nature, which is almost defined by its fault lines and failures. In nature there are many accidents and catastrophes that occur because we live in a maladjusted world where the elements are in conflict with one another, which is hardly an example of fine tuning or perfect design. Admittedly, this only speaks of poor design and therefore a less than supreme designer, but I suspect that even without the contradiction that isn’t how most believers would want to think of God

I did not mention volcano's. I mentioned initial conditions not mandated by any natural explanation known or probably knowable that are all improbable. I did thin of an argument against another aspect of my claim that comes from this one but I am not giving you hints.

 

[idav]

--edit

Here's a kicker thought if we consider that the universe is fine tuned for life. It would mean that we should find a lot, I mean, a tremendous amount of life in the universe. We should, by that claim, be able to find intelligent life all over the universe. So... did Jesus die for the trillions of species of aliens too? Or only just for the special us?

I know what you mean. From the looks of it the universe is fine tuned for life to struggle.

Never as Einstein pointed out. Dice are only relevant if naturalism is true. I did not assume anything. I have never seen any evidence for anything beyond a single finite universe with one cycle. I was not giving probabilities for any single universe but for types of universe. Look up Bozeman brains to get the idea.

If God does not exist evolution has won a trillion lotteries it was not playing.

So Einstein claimed when he was upset about the results QM was displaying. That question is still open.

No, as long as evolution has it's beginning then what it ends up doing is inevitable. Evolution ends up winning the only lottery it played and it was the only game in town.

 

[idav]

How many stars are consistent with God exactly? How do you know? How many other earths are there?

I don't know thats a good question. With relativity I get an idea of how powerful energy is. I suppose an energy amount required to sustain it's awesome power. Our lack of divine would be relative to what is otherwise sustained.