What is your best evidence for a god?

[viole]

Yes that is also a good argument for God………….naturalists are forced to deny ether the first law or the second law of thermodynamics…….. ether energy was created or entropy was reversed

when was energy created (the total amount of energy in the universe is probably zero) and entropy reversed? By the way, since the direction of time, aka the arrow of time, is driven by entropy increase, to ask when entropy decreased might be difficult to answer, anyway.

and, if you knew modern thermodynamics and Boltzmann, you should know that entropy always increase, except when it does not. And that is obvious, given its statistical character.

Ergo, the naturalist has nothing to explain.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Please read about Agrippa's Trilemma.

Well, and? I don’t think it is the current state of affairs, but I could say: yes, there is at least one fact that requires an infinite chain of explanations.

what is the problem? Infinitophobia?

ciao

- viole

 

[leroy]

My main point is that you can't because we have no idea of the context, so, for example, we don't know if there is any "chance" at all in the values of the constants and we don't know if our "universe" is all there is or if there is a bigger context.

None of that is relevant, if I go to another planet (perhaps in another universe) and I find a book fool of meaningful words and sentences in English, I would conclude “design” …… if you tell me “but there are other universes” I would still keep my conclusion of design……….wouldn’t you?

However, if you add a guess (that the universe was created by a god), then you must reduce the probability because you've added the guess. We have "the universe exists with these characteristics" versus "the universe exists with these characteristics and was created by (a specific) god". The second is a subset of the first, so the probability must be less.

By your logic, we know Stonehenge exists..............if you add a guess (it was designed) then yo must reduce the probability because youve added the guess. We have Stonehenge exists with these characteristics versus Stonehenge exists with this characteristics and was created by (a specific) tribe. the second is a subset of the first , so the probability must be less.


Do you honestly don’t see any flaws in you logic?.......... obviously given the existence of a designer who intended to create a FT universe overcomes any statistical improbability………….. the probability of buying a coke at Wal-Mart by chance is probably 1 in 20,000 because there are so many products, but if your intention is to buy a coke, then the probabilities become almost 1 in 1……………intent removes any statistical improbability






}

 

[leroy]

when was energy created (the total amount of energy in the universe is probably zero) and entropy reversed? By the way, since the direction in time is driven by entropy increase, to ask when entropy decreased might be difficult to answer, anyway.

and, if you knew modern entropy and Boltzmann, you should know that entropy always increase, except when it does not. And that is obvious, given its statistical character.

Ergo, the naturalist has nothing to explain.

ciao

- viole

Ether energy was created (or came in to being) at some point or energy has always existed

The first is impossible according to the laws of nature (first law oft thermodynamics) the second is also impossible (second law of thermodynamics)

So the only alternatives are ether science is wrong (the laws are wrong) or there is/was something supernatural that violated the laws of nature.

So your alternatives are accepting the supernatural or become a science denier? Which one do you choose?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, and? I don’t think it is the current state of affairs, but I could say: yes, there is at least one fact that requires an infinite chain of explanations.

what is the problem? Infinitophobia?

ciao

- viole

That you can't observe infinity, so it is not evidence of an objective fact. Infinity is a subjective idea imagined in the brains of some humans and thus subjective, so it is not science. It is at best philosophy.

 

[Heyo]

Sure, there are other possible explanations, but my suggestion is that intelligent design is the best explanation, … do you have any other explanation in mind? Why do you think that explanation you have in mind is better than design?

There are a number of competing hypothesis.

1. There is no fine tuning. The constants of nature are what they are by necessity, we just haven't found the connections.
2., 3., 4. Multiverse hypothesis. Either parallel, sequential or virtual (Simulation hypothesis).
5. We were just lucky.

I won't call any of those "better" or put a probability to it but the simple possibility that any of them might be true makes all of them, including the god hypothesis, mere options. One would have to exclude all others to show with certainty that only one is true.

Sure, the argument doesn’t lead to my own favorite God, but it does narrow the alternatives….. and I would suggest that there are other independent arguments that narrow it down even more, such that “Christian God” becomes the best explanation.

That is like saying “well transitional fossils do lead to universal common ancestry, but not to evolution by natural selection”…. But I would assume that you would have additional arguments that make NS more plausible than other “theories” (Lamarckism for example)

I would really like to see anyone try to argue from a deos to a theos. I tried multiple time to start such a debate but nobody would step up.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I would really like to see anyone try to argue from a deos to a theos. I tried multiple time to start such a debate but nobody would step up.

I can do it, but it is not evidence or anything. It is a thought construct and nothing else. But I can argue it, if you would like to play that.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ratiocinator]

By your logic, we know Stonehenge exists..............if you add a guess (it was designed) then yo must reduce the probability because youve added the guess. We have Stonehenge exists with these characteristics versus Stonehenge exists with this characteristics and was created by (a specific) tribe. the second is a subset of the first , so the probability must be less.

If it was nothing but a blind guess, that would be right but we have lots of context and evidence with regard to human artefacts in general and Stonehenge in particular. There is nothing equivalent for universes and any supposed god(s), you're just guessing from no information.

If you think the universe is 'special' in some way (complex, improbable, whatever), then a god that conceives of the universe and creates it must be even more 'special'. You're going in the wrong direction if you are looking for an explanation for "find tuning" or improbability.

 

[MNoBody]

You call it being "rude", I call it being honest.
It's not an insult. What you said on the topic was a completely misrepresentation of reality. Clearly you have very false idea in your head of what you believe evolution etc is all about.

So, it's a misrepresentation rooted in ignorance.

That's not an insult. I'm ignorant about lots of things and when I display that ignorance, I don't feel insulted when people point it out. In fact, I rejoice in it as it is an opportunity to learn.

See, I prefer to have a correct understanding of the subjects I speak about. So if I'm wrong about something, I actually WANT people to point it out.




Odd how you feel insulted when someone points out to you that you are in error.



You call it "picking a fight", I call it "doing you a favor" and giving you an opportunity to learn.
To me, that's a good thing.


Oh well........

well turn your favors elsewhere, as they are not appreciated.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ether energy was created (or came in to being) at some point or energy has always existed

The first is impossible according to the laws of nature (first law oft thermodynamics) the second is also impossible (second law of thermodynamics)

Energy isn't stuff that "comes into being", it's a quantity that is conserved because the laws of physics don't change over time, just like momentum is conserved because they don't change from place to place (Noether's theorem). The two combine in special relativity, so each reference frame will see both conservation laws but will not agree about what is energy and what is momentum. It isn't well defined at all in general relativity (Conservation of Energy - Relativity).

Entropy is a complicated question when applied to the universe but was definitely low near the big bang - there are multiple hypotheses to choose from.

So the only alternatives are ether science is wrong or there is/was something supernatural that violated the laws of nature.

Science is definitely incomplete. This appears to be an instance of the Incredible Shrinking God of the Gaps.

 

[Heyo]

I can do it, but it is not evidence or anything. It is a thought construct and nothing else. But I can argue it, if you would like to play that.

Regards
Mikkel

From a Deos to Your God

 

[leroy]

There are a number of competing hypothesis.

1. There is no fine tuning. The constants of nature are what they are by necessity, we just haven't found the connections.
2., 3., 4. Multiverse hypothesis. Either parallel, sequential or virtual (Simulation hypothesis).
5. We were just lucky.

Yes there are many options, and given that we have limited knowledge and can’t tell with certainty which option is the correct, we have to do our best and pick the best option based on the evidence and arguments that we have.

For example any explanation that invokes chance/multiverse/anthropic principle etc. can be refuted by the Boltzmann brain paradox………. It would be inconsolably more likely that the observations that we make are just illusions, dreams, hallucinations etc. and that in reality we live in a simpler universe, (say a universe with just 1 planet and 1 star) … at this moment you are just having a strange dream where the universe is complex, in a few moment you will wake up and say “wow I had the most absurd dream ever”

In fact a universe with 1 star and 1 planet is unnecessarily too complex, all you need is a Boltzmann brain……….. So any chance/multiverse/anthropic principle etc hypothesis forces you to conclude that you are a Boltzmann brain.

Physical necessity explanations even in principle don’t succeed in removing the need of a designer, they only push the designer one step back.


At least form the point of view of an agnostic (perhaps God there is a God perhaps there isn’t…. there is a 50% 50% chance) design seems to be the best explanation, after all we know that designers can calibrate values so that they can get the intended values……….. if you deny agnosticism , then you must have god positive arguments against the existence of God

I would really like to see anyone try to argue from a deos to a theos. I tried multiple time to start such a debate but nobody would step up.

Well for example consider the argument from the resurrection…. If Jesus rose from the dead, wouldn’t that strongly support Christianity over deism or other religions?

 

[ratiocinator]

At least form the point of view of an agnostic (perhaps God there is a God perhaps there isn’t…. there is a 50% 50% chance) design seems to be the best explanation, after all we know that designers can calibrate values so that they can get the intended values……….. if you deny agnosticism , then you must have god positive arguments against the existence of God

First, there aren't just two possibilities, there are an vast number of different possible gods and other supernatural stories we could make up. Even if there were only two you'd still need to justify the 50:50. Either I have an invisible dragon in my garage or I don't. That doesn't mean the probability is 50:50.

And you're still trying to explain something improbable or "fine tuned" with something even more improbable or "fine tuned". You're just basically special pleading. Everything needs to be explained until you arrive at your god which magically doesn't need explaining, it can just exist for no reason at all...

 

[Heyo]

Yes there are many options, and given that we have limited knowledge and can’t tell with certainty which option is the correct, we have to do our best and pick the best option based on the evidence and arguments that we have.

For example any explanation that invokes chance/multiverse/anthropic principle etc. can be refuted by the Boltzmann brain paradox………. It would be inconsolably more likely that the observations that we make are just illusions, dreams, hallucinations etc. and that in reality we live in a simpler universe, (say a universe with just 1 planet and 1 star) … at this moment you are just having a strange dream where the universe is complex, in a few moment you will wake up and say “wow I had the most absurd dream ever”

I consider theism as a form of multiverse hypothesis, at least those who describe god as "out of space and time". So this suffers all the consequences you just described. And remember that "out of space and time" was an ad hoc explanation to get out of the pinch that no evidence can be found in space and time, so going back doesn't help.

In fact a universe with 1 star and 1 planet is unnecessarily too complex, all you need is a Boltzmann brain……….. So any chance/multiverse/anthropic principle etc hypothesis forces you to conclude that you are a Boltzmann brain.

Physical necessity explanations even in principle don’t succeed in removing the need of a designer, they only push the designer one step back.


At least form the point of view of an agnostic (perhaps God there is a God perhaps there isn’t…. there is a 50% 50% chance) design seems to be the best explanation, after all we know that designers can calibrate values so that they can get the intended values……….. if you deny agnosticism , then you must have god positive arguments against the existence of God

I do deny agnosticism. It is just a watered down version of Agnosticism which I subscribe to.

 

[leroy]

If it was nothing but a blind guess, that would be right but we have lots of context and evidence with regard to human artefacts in general and Stonehenge in particular. There is nothing equivalent for universes and any supposed god(s), you're just guessing from no information.

If you think the universe is 'special' in some way (complex, improbable, whatever), then a god that conceives of the universe and creates it must be even more 'special'. You're going in the wrong direction if you are looking for an explanation for "find tuning" or improbability.

Why would God have to be more “special” (what do you mean by special in the first place?)…………..but in any case humans are “more special” than the Stonehenge, but that doesn’t nullify the hypothesis that humans created the Stonehenge. .-…..

....
So obviously if you start with the assumption that the existence of God is extremely unlikely then I understand why the FT (or other arguments) are not good enough……. But I would challenge that initial assumption……… why is the existence of God extremely unlikely? What evidence/argument drove you to that conclusion?

But if you start with a 50% 50% chance…… then it seems obvious that ID is the best explanation for FT

 

[leroy]

Science is definitely incomplete. This appears to be an instance of the Incredible Shrinking God of the Gaps.

Is there any potential evidence or discovery, that would convince you that God exists ? It seems to me that any argument could be dismissed as “ its just a God of the gaps”

 

[ratiocinator]

...why is the existence of God extremely unlikely? What evidence/argument drove you to that conclusion?

As far as evidence goes, there simply isn't any. Logically if you argue that the universe is unlikely or improbable because if it were any different then we wouldn't exist, then exactly the same reasoning would apply to any god that created it.

As I said, you're just using special pleading. Why do you insist that we need to explain the universe with a god, but then don't apply the same sort of logic to the god itself? Why would that god exist, rather than another, or no gods, many gods or nothing at all? It's entirely arbitrary because it's just what you want to believe.

God doesn't answer the basic mystery of why things exist and are the way they are, it just moves the problem.

 

[leroy]

First, there aren't just two possibilities, there are an vast number of different possible gods and other supernatural stories we could make up. Even if there were only two you'd still need to justify the 50:50. Either I have an invisible dragon in my garage or I don't. That doesn't mean the probability is 50:50.[

Well 50% 50% seems the default answer, I think there are good reasons to think that there is not an invisible dragon in your house which is why I am justified to move the 50% 50% ……….. do you have any good reason to think that the existence of God is improbable?

And you're still trying to explain something improbable or "fine tuned" with something even more improbable or "fine tuned". You're just basically special pleading. Everything needs to be explained until you arrive at your god which magically doesn't need explaining, it can just exist for no reason at all...

God is not finely tuned (at least according to the Christian concept of God)……….. but whether if God requires a cause or not is irrelevant, you still have to provide an explanation for the FT of the universe and explain why is it better than God…………… whether if you have an explanation for your explanation or not is irrelevant and can be left as an open question

 

[leroy]

I consider theism as a form of multiverse hypothesis, at least those who describe god as "out of space and time". So this suffers all the consequences you just described. And remember that "out of space and time" was an ad hoc explanation to get out of the pinch that no evidence can be found in space and time, so going back doesn't help.
I do deny agnosticism. It is just a watered down version of Agnosticism which I subscribe to.

Its not an adhoc

We know that designers with intentions can do stuff regardless of any statistical improbability………. The odds of you randomly buying a coke at Wal-Mart are 1 in 20,000 because there are probably 20,000 different products in the store, but if your intention is to buy that coke, then it doesn’t matter how many products are there, you would still buy the coke with a near 100% certainty

In the case of multiverses, you are more likely to be an observer in a simpler universe that is simply having a strange dream in this moment.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well 50% 50% seems the default answer...

Why? There are an almost limitless number of stories we could make up about the way things are and your god only occurs in a tiny fraction of them, so the probability that you're right is tiny. It's nothing more than a blind guess.

but whether if God requires a cause or not is irrelevant, you still have to provide an explanation for the FT of the universe and explain why is it better than God……………

No I don't. The existence of an unknown (why the universe appears "fine tuned") doesn't make your blind guess any more probable than any other. There are multiple scientific hypotheses that might explain it and all have the advantage over a god in that they are at least based on what we already know. But any blind guess at all is just as (im)probable as your god.