There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Awkward Fingers]

Hmm in the quote of mine you used, I don't recall any hostility when it was written, and I would think I would remember..
Are you sure you're not finding hostility where none is intended?

 

[Serenity7855]

If one ask "where is the evidence that any of the thousands of gods ever created, had a hand in any aspect of any part of nature", I woud like to see evidence that supports it.


Most of the fine tuning theory falls apart knowing there are literally billions of planets like ours

That and the extreme conditions life has been found in destroys the fine tuning arguement.

It would be nice to see you substantiate that. It will be a first, but it would be nice. Only all the evidence I have seen strongly points towards a fine tuning, and there is a lot of evidence that has been collected over the years, however, I would still be happy to see your evidence. .

 

[Serenity7855]

To reiterate, when you give hostility to begin with, don't be surprised when people respond in kind.

To reiterate right back atya what hostility do you refer to? Please do not say in my op when it is tame when compared to your friends posts.

 

[outhouse]

It would be nice to see you substantiate that..

Sunstantiate what exactly?

The number of possible planets in the universe? would you argue that?

That life exist in extreme locations?? really? I need to supply you with that knowledge too?

 

[SkepticThinker]

To reiterate right back atya what hostility do you refer to? Please do not say in my op when it is tame when compared to your friends posts.

THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE.

What are you not getting here?

 

[ruffen]

Sure why not. If you write it I'll read it.

If its not too much trouble could you put in some actual evidence? That has been in short supply

Thanks in advance

I'll try to keep it short, but there's a lot to say, so here we go.

The Universe is described by a lot of parameters, for example:
- the strength of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear force
- the mass of various elementary particles
- the speed of light
- the amount of dark matter vs dark energy vs normal matter vs radiation
- the speed of the expansion of the Universe
- the presence and abundance and suitability for life in the Universe
etc

The claim is that, for example, if the relationship between the four know natural forces were much different from what they are, molecules and chemistry and complex structures could not form. Or that if the amount of dark energy was much larger, the Universe would expand too rapidly for large-scale structures to form. There are many claims like this, and it can indeed seem like all parameters must be what they are for the Universe to look the way it looks.

To claim that any parameter in the Universe is fine-tuned, is to claim that you know what the probability distribution of every parameter is.

It is to claim that of all possible values, you know what possible values are, and how likely the actual value is within that range.

For example, as long as you don't know how likely our Universe's specific weak-nuclear-force-strength is among the possible values it could have had, you cannot say that the current value is unlikely or fine tuned.

And, as long as you don't know which other value ranges of each constant that could still have produced a Universe suited for life advanced enough to ponder this question, you get even further away from claiming that it is fine tuned.

Would life be able to form if light speed was any different from what it is? What is the probability that the light speed happened to get the value it has? Is "God" or "random" the only two options? What may be the underlying cause for the speed of light being just what it is? Is there a cause for this, or would any value be equally probable, requiring a fine-tuner to get it just right?


I'll give an example of a non-random universal parameter. Pi. It's 3.14159....etc. One could claim that if Pi was anything different, say 3.5 or 2.8, then the circumference of a circle would not add up in relation to its diameter. Therefore circles and spheres would be impossible, therefore Earth could not be round, it would have gaps and holes or overlapping terrain, and therefore life could not exist in a Universe where Pi was 3.5 or 2.8. Therefore, it must be God's work that Pi is exactly what it is, because if it was random, the probability of it getting exactly this infinite non-recurring decimal value, would be infinitely small.

BUT - Pi is not the cause of circles and spheres. It is a result. The reason for Pi being what it is, is a simple geometric relationship. It is not possible to conceive any Universe where Pi could be anything different from what it is. So Pi is not fine-tuned to create spherical objects in space. The probability of Pi being exactly what it is, is 100%.


To claim that you know that any parameter or constant in the Universe is fine tuned, is to claim that you know the underlying cause, so that you know whether it is random or a simple necessary geometric result of some 1-dimensional superstrings or whatever. As long as we don't know the underlying cause or mechanism that made each constant what it is, we cannot claim that it is fine tuned.


It's like the puddle lying in a ditch and figuring out that the ditch is fine-tuned for its existence. If the ditch had any other shape, it would not fit the puddle as we know it. The chance that any random ditch shape should exactly fit the puddle, is so slim that the ditch must be intelligently fine-tuned to fit the puddle perfectly.


So to recap, to claim that any parameter in the Universe is fine tuned is to claim that:
- you know the underlying mechanism or cause of the value
- you know that this mechanism is either random or fine-tuned, and not similar to the geometric necessity of Pi being what it is
- you know what range of values it possibly could have had
- you know the probability distribution within that range
- you know which subrange within that range could have supported intelligent life
- you know the probability distribution of which possible/probable values of that parameter would most likely have been able to support intelligent life (ie. if the value that would be most suited for life is the most probable value, or an unlikely value)
- you therefore know that the value, if not-fine-tuned-by-an-intelligent-being, would have an extremely small or zero probability of happening in a natural Universe


I don't think you can claim to know any of these things, so claiming the Universe must be fine-tuned by an intelligent being, is completely unsubstantiated.

I'd also like to add that this is now debunked regardless of any multipe Universes existing, BUT if many Universes exist and their values for each parameter vary, then we shouldn't be surprised that our Universe is among those that do support our existence in it. But as multiple Universes are not substantiated, my argument does not require the existence of other Universes.



The point is that we cannot claim that anything is fine-tuned when we don't know anything about the possible or probable values of each parameter, the underlying causes for their value, or what values are needed to support intelligent life.

 

[Serenity7855]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is bunk. It basically says that
1 Everything that starts to exist has a cause for its existence
2 The Universe started to exist
3 Therefore the Universe has a cause for its existence
4...... therefore that cause is somehow God.

1 is not necessarily true. Electron-antielectron pairs pop in and out of existence apparently uncaused. And even if everything within the Universe that starts to exist (from preexisting material) has a cause for existence, it does not follow that the Universe itself started existing (from nothing?) must have a cause. We've never actually witnessed ex-nihilo creation of spacetime so we know nothing about it.

What objections might be raised against this argument? Premise (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause seems obviously true— at the least, more so than its denial. Yet a number of atheists, in order to avoid the argument’s conclusion, have denied the first premise. Sometimes it is said that sub-atomic physics furnishes an exception to premise (1), since on the sub-atomic level events are said to be uncaused. In the same way, certain theories of cosmic origins are interpreted as showing that the whole universe could have sprung into being out of the sub-atomic vacuum. Thus the universe is said to be the proverbial “free lunch.”

This objection, however, is based on misunderstandings. In the first place, not all scientists agree that sub-atomic events are uncaused. Many physicists today are quite dissatisfied with this view (the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation) of sub-atomic physics and are exploring deterministic theories like those of David Bohm. Thus, sub-atomic physics is not a proven exception to premise (1).

Second, even on the traditional, indeterministic interpretation, particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum; they do not come from nothing. 8 Third, the same point can be made about theories of the origin of the universe out of a primordial vacuum. 9 Popular magazine articles touting such theories as getting “something from nothing” simply do not understand that the vacuum is not nothing, but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws. Philosopher of science Robert Deltete accurately sums up the situation: “There is no basis in ordinary quantum theory for the claim that the universe itself is uncaused, much less for the claim that it sprang into being uncaused from literally nothing.”
WLC

2. is not necessarily true. Yes the Universe is not infinitely old, but as both time and space started existing at the Big Bang, there was no time before it. So no time has existed when the Universe did not exist. So if "beginning to exist" means "going from non-existence to existence", there has never been a time when the Universe was non-existing.

Stephen Hawkins said "In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. " The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

3. is therefore not necessarily true

Not necessarily true but more then likely true, plus the science community tend to see it as an axiom now.

The leap from 3 to 4 is taken on blind faith alone with no basis in observed data or reason.

There is no point 4 in Kalams cosmological argument. There never has been. You have added it here. Why have you done that. Surely it is dishonest?

Classical argument

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

Kal

Do you want me to debunk your other points in your OP?

Yes, of course, however, let's first start with you debunking Kalams Cosmological Argument first as you have not done it here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What objections might be raised against this argument? Premise (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause seems obviously true— at the least, more so than its denial. Yet a number of atheists, in order to avoid the argument’s conclusion, have denied the first premise. Sometimes it is said that sub-atomic physics furnishes an exception to premise (1), since on the sub-atomic level events are said to be uncaused. In the same way, certain theories of cosmic origins are interpreted as showing that the whole universe could have sprung into being out of the sub-atomic vacuum. Thus the universe is said to be the proverbial “free lunch.”

This objection, however, is based on misunderstandings. In the first place, not all scientists agree that sub-atomic events are uncaused. Many physicists today are quite dissatisfied with this view (the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation) of sub-atomic physics and are exploring deterministic theories like those of David Bohm. Thus, sub-atomic physics is not a proven exception to premise (1).

Second, even on the traditional, indeterministic interpretation, particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum; they do not come from nothing. 8 Third, the same point can be made about theories of the origin of the universe out of a primordial vacuum. 9 Popular magazine articles touting such theories as getting “something from nothing” simply do not understand that the vacuum is not nothing, but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws. Philosopher of science Robert Deltete accurately sums up the situation: “There is no basis in ordinary quantum theory for the claim that the universe itself is uncaused, much less for the claim that it sprang into being uncaused from literally nothing.”
WLC

What William Lane Craig utterly fails to do, of course, is realize that such objections still render his first premise as a mere hypothesis based on a lack of information. He's making a claim and building an argument upon that claim, but cannot demonstrate or determine that the initial claim is correct. His only response to the objection is "well, they COULD be wrong", which doesn't deal with the simple fact that you cannot build an argument based entirely on an unproven or unprovable premise. You cannot dismiss objections on the grounds of potentiality when the claim you are making absolutely depends on certainty. Therefore, premise 1 is still flawed.

 

[ruffen]

Yes, of course, however, let's first start with you debunking Kalams Cosmological Argument first as you have not done it here.

I have debunked the idea that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is somehow a "proof" that the Universe needs a cause.

I didn't say that 1 or 2 or 3 are false, they are just not necessarily true. You cannot assess the probability of the Universe coming into existence uncaused.

Besides, if Kalam is to be used as an argument for God's existence, a typical idea is that uncaused things cannot exist, and the Universe exists, therefore the Universe must have been caused. But if the cause is God, then God must exist, and therefore God must have a cause for its existence by the same reasoning. And if God can exist uncaused or have caused its own existence, then why shouldnt we be able to say the same abut the Universe - that the Universe exists uncaused or caused itself to exist?

 

[Serenity7855]

I'll try to keep it short, but there's a lot to say, so here we go.

The Universe is described by a lot of parameters, for example:
- the strength of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear force
- the mass of various elementary particles
- the speed of light
- the amount of dark matter vs dark energy vs normal matter vs radiation
- the speed of the expansion of the Universe
- the presence and abundance and suitability for life in the Universe
etc

The claim is that, for example, if the relationship between the four know natural forces were much different from what they are, molecules and chemistry and complex structures could not form. Or that if the amount of dark energy was much larger, the Universe would expand too rapidly for large-scale structures to form. There are many claims like this, and it can indeed seem like all parameters must be what they are for the Universe to look the way it looks.

To claim that any parameter in the Universe is fine-tuned, is to claim that you know what the probability distribution of every parameter is.

It is to claim that of all possible values, you know what possible values are, and how likely the actual value is within that range.

For example, as long as you don't know how likely our Universe's specific weak-nuclear-force-strength is among the possible values it could have had, you cannot say that the current value is unlikely or fine tuned.

And, as long as you don't know which other value ranges of each constant that could still have produced a Universe suited for life advanced enough to ponder this question, you get even further away from claiming that it is fine tuned.

Would life be able to form if light speed was any different from what it is? What is the probability that the light speed happened to get the value it has? Is "God" or "random" the only two options? What may be the underlying cause for the speed of light being just what it is? Is there a cause for this, or would any value be equally probable, requiring a fine-tuner to get it just right?


I'll give an example of a non-random universal parameter. Pi. It's 3.14159....etc. One could claim that if Pi was anything different, say 3.5 or 2.8, then the circumference of a circle would not add up in relation to its diameter. Therefore circles and spheres would be impossible, therefore Earth could not be round, it would have gaps and holes or overlapping terrain, and therefore life could not exist in a Universe where Pi was 3.5 or 2.8. Therefore, it must be God's work that Pi is exactly what it is, because if it was random, the probability of it getting exactly this infinite non-recurring decimal value, would be infinitely small.

BUT - Pi is not the cause of circles and spheres. It is a result. The reason for Pi being what it is, is a simple geometric relationship. It is not possible to conceive any Universe where Pi could be anything different from what it is. So Pi is not fine-tuned to create spherical objects in space. The probability of Pi being exactly what it is, is 100%.


To claim that you know that any parameter or constant in the Universe is fine tuned, is to claim that you know the underlying cause, so that you know whether it is random or a simple necessary geometric result of some 1-dimensional superstrings or whatever. As long as we don't know the underlying cause or mechanism that made each constant what it is, we cannot claim that it is fine tuned.


It's like the puddle lying in a ditch and figuring out that the ditch is fine-tuned for its existence. If the ditch had any other shape, it would not fit the puddle as we know it. The chance that any random ditch shape should exactly fit the puddle, is so slim that the ditch must be intelligently fine-tuned to fit the puddle perfectly.


So to recap, to claim that any parameter in the Universe is fine tuned is to claim that:
- you know the underlying mechanism or cause of the value
- you know that this mechanism is either random or fine-tuned, and not similar to the geometric necessity of Pi being what it is
- you know what range of values it possibly could have had
- you know the probability distribution within that range
- you know which subrange within that range could have supported intelligent life
- you know the probability distribution of which possible/probable values of that parameter would most likely have been able to support intelligent life (ie. if the value that would be most suited for life is the most probable value, or an unlikely value)
- you therefore know that the value, if not-fine-tuned-by-an-intelligent-being, would have an extremely small or zero probability of happening in a natural Universe


I don't think you can claim to know any of these things, so claiming the Universe must be fine-tuned by an intelligent being, is completely unsubstantiated.

I'd also like to add that this is now debunked regardless of any multipe Universes existing, BUT if many Universes exist and their values for each parameter vary, then we shouldn't be surprised that our Universe is among those that do support our existence in it. But as multiple Universes are not substantiated, my argument does not require the existence of other Universes.



The point is that we cannot claim that anything is fine-tuned when we don't know anything about the possible or probable values of each parameter, the underlying causes for their value, or what values are needed to support intelligent life.

Well, that was easy. God is omnipotent and omniscient. He knows everything, including the parameters you refer to.

 

[ruffen]

So let's say that the Kalam argument is true, so the Universe must have had a cause. How is this an argument supporting God's existence or any religious intuition?

 

[ruffen]

Well, that was easy. God is omnipotent and omniscient. He knows everything, including the parameters you refer to.

Of course, if God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, then this can explain the values of parameters.

However, the values of parameters cannot be used to explain or prove the existence of God.

 

[Serenity7855]

So let's say that the Kalam argument is true, so the Universe must have had a cause. How is this an argument supporting God's existence or any religious intuition?

It is not. All it does is include him in the theory, or, should I say, the possibility of some form of intelligence.

 

[Serenity7855]

Of course, if God exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, then this can explain the values of parameters.

However, the values of parameters cannot be used to explain or prove the existence of God.

If fining tuning took place, and I believe it did, for it to be accomplished correctly and with such precision would require an entity, not dissimilar to a God, therefore, we know that our world sits on a knife edge of existences because someone, or thing, put us there. The probability that just one of those conditions just fell into place is so astronomical that to give it credence would be insane, and that is without all of the other conditions that are required to sustain life being in position at the right time. That those values of the parameters have been used demonstrates that someone knows them "could it be a God?"

 

[Serenity7855]

I have debunked the idea that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is somehow a "proof" that the Universe needs a cause.

You are, therefore, suggesting that it is possible that the big bang was uncaused. That would be a supernatural event as no such phenomenon exists in the natural world. It still indicates that a God could be responsible for bringing the universe into existence, indeed, more so. To accept that premise is to accept that the magician's white rabbit could have conceivably just appeared in his hat without him causing it. Or that Jesus really did perform miracles during his ministry.

I didn't say that 1 or 2 or 3 are false, they are just not necessarily true. You cannot assess the probability of the Universe coming into existence uncaused.

Occam's Razor

Besides, if Kalam is to be used as an argument for God's existence, a typical idea is that uncaused things cannot exist, and the Universe exists, therefore the Universe must have been caused. But if the cause is God, then God must exist, and therefore God must have a cause for its existence by the same reasoning. And if God can exist uncaused or have caused its own existence, then why shouldnt we be able to say the same abut the Universe - that the Universe exists uncaused or caused itself to exist?

Kalams cosmological argument should not be used to determine the existence of a God it should be used to show, in accordance to our natural perception of the universe, that the universe was caused to exist. When you can satisfactorily satisfy yourself that is correct you can then ask the question who or what caused it to come into existence.

This has already been discussed earlier in the thread. Sometimes people will say, as you have, “But if the universe must have a cause, then what is God’s cause?” But this question reveals an inattentiveness to the formulation of the argument. The first premise does not state Whatever exists has a cause, but rather Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The difference is important. The insight that lies at the root of premise (1) is that being cannot come from nonbeing, that something cannot come from nothing. God, since He never began to exist, would not require a cause, for He never came into being. Nor is this special pleading for God, since this is exactly what the atheist has always claimed about the universe: that it is eternal and uncaused. The problem is that the atheist’s claim is now rendered untenable in light of the beginning of the universe.
WLC

 

[Serenity7855]

What William Lane Craig utterly fails to do, of course, is realize that such objections still render his first premise as a mere hypothesis based on a lack of information. He's making a claim and building an argument upon that claim, but cannot demonstrate or determine that the initial claim is correct. His only response to the objection is "well, they COULD be wrong", which doesn't deal with the simple fact that you cannot build an argument based entirely on an unproven or unprovable premise. You cannot dismiss objections on the grounds of potentiality when the claim you are making absolutely depends on certainty. Therefore, premise 1 is still flawed.

Whenever new theories are formulated scientists use known laws to construct them. They do not include fairies or leprechauns because they are not known to exist. William Lane Craig uses reasoning, based on known phenomenon, to formulate his metaphysical theories. That means that the theory is entirely possible and reasonable and conforms to Occam's Razor. It is philosophy, an ancient discipline that has served us very well for many years. It is disrespectful to dismiss him as you do.

He is not making a claim, he is philosophising using known science. It is a method that has been used in all scientific breakthroughs since science began to exist.

It is funny how Atheists dismiss the possibility of the existence of a God just because they cannot see the evidence, or don't want to see it, yet they are willing to believe that the universe came into existence uncaused. By magic, as it were. Do you know why they do that? Because to accept it means that God could exist and they will wriggle and writhe, deceive and lie, blow and bluster, as much as is necessary, rather then accept what is the most likely truth. It would mean that they would have to admit that they were wrong. That requires a lowering of pride. What they fail to see is that whether caused or uncaused, it still renders the same conclusion, that is, the possibility of a God. Atheists get angry because they are fighting a lost cause. As time progresses and science becomes more advanced the world will see that this is all the result of diety. It is God's science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

He is not making a claim he is philosophising using known science. It is a method that has been used in all scientific break throughs since science began to exist.

Wrong. He is not engaging in a philosophy - he is asserting the truth of a claim based on a set of premises. While science can use such forms of logic to propose a hypothesis, that is all they are; hypotheses. And a hypothesis is not recognized as a fact until it is demonstrated to be so. Until then, it is merely a assumption drawn from inference that may or may not be correct. That is all the cosmological argument is, at best. At worst, it is a poorly constructed and conceived argument drawn from fundamental misconceptions (and ignorance) of how physical laws work on both a universal and quantum level.

It is funny how Atheists dismiss the possibility of the existence of a God because they cannot see the evidence, or don't want to see it, yet they are willing to believe that the universe came into existence uncaused.

Where have I ever dismissed the possibility of a God?

By magic, as it were. Do you know why they do that? Because to accept it means that God could exist and they will Wriggle and writhe, deceive and lie, blow and bluster, as much as is necessary, rather then accept what is the most likely truth.

Why do you have to resort to these cheap insults when backed into a corner? Is it because you're trying to distract from all the times your arguments fall down, or just attempting desperately to distract from all the lies you've told?

What they fail to see is that, caused or uncaused, still renders the same conclusion, the possibility of a God. Atheists get angry because they are fighting a lost cause. As time progresses and science becomes more advanced the world will see that this is all the result of diety. It is God's science.

Ignorant and arrogant assumptions don't strengthen your argument.

 

[outhouse]

William Lane Craig uses reasoning

.

:biglaugh:

Oh please tell us more

 

[outhouse]

It is funny how Atheists dismiss the possibility of the existence of a God just because they cannot see the evidence,
.

Being educated on the subject more so then most theist, we see all the evidence clearly.


The evidence points to men creating deities in mythology. Only man writes about and defines gods.


The COMPLETE lack of scientific evidence points to a man made concept.



The book you use as a source, have no historical or scientific credibility, and thus, it is easy to fall back to a logical explanation for the mythology before us.

 

[outhouse]

it is possible that the big bang was uncaused. That would be a supernatural event

No.

That would not be correct, supernatural is saying invisible yellow ducky controls everything. Not knowing a cause is ignorance, not a supernatural explanation. :slap: