- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
- Messages
- 26,362
- Reaction score
- 10,648
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
They're especially hard to drop when no one is capable of giving you a coherent reason to drop them.
Favorite arguments are very difficult to drop. Its like losing a dear friend.
It happened, therefore it was intended?That's the problem though. Why would the myriad of conditions necessary for our existence obtain by forces with no intent to do so? The answer is they wouldn't.
Could it have? Can physics work differently than it does?It could have turned out different.
That's the problem though. Why would the myriad of conditions necessary for our existence obtain by forces with no intent to do so? The answer is they wouldn't.
Who are you to claim that intent is a necessary component.That's the problem though. Why would the myriad of conditions necessary for our existence obtain by forces with no intent to do so? The answer is they wouldn't. It could have turned out different. If scientists told us any wide range of characteristics slopped together would result in stars, galaxies, planets, solar system and ultimately life it would be game over. I'd believe them. We'd have a very reasonable natural explanation. I don't believe scientists were hoping to find a universe on the razors edge between condensing into black holes or thin matter and nothing more. In multiverse theory they believe the overwhelming majority of universes are void and lifeless.
That's the problem though. Why would the myriad of conditions necessary for our existence obtain by forces with no intent to do so? The answer is they wouldn't. It could have turned out different. If scientists told us any wide range of characteristics slopped together would result in stars, galaxies, planets, solar system and ultimately life it would be game over. I'd believe them. We'd have a very reasonable natural explanation. I don't believe scientists were hoping to find a universe on the razors edge between condensing into black holes or thin matter and nothing more. In multiverse theory they believe the overwhelming majority of universes are void and lifeless.
The "universe" in which we live is obviously NOT "fine-tuned for life". What are the odds of a supernatural being capable of creating a universe and all the life forms that exist within it, having existed eternally?F3. The universe is fine-tuned for life. For the belief the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist it must be in a configuration that allows life to exist. No one can claim intelligent life had to exist. No one would predict or expect mindless forces minus any plan or intent cause life to exist. This evidence is so powerful it's the basis of multiverse theory.
Not at all...
Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse
Experts in probability have spotted a logical flaw in theorists’ reasoningwww.scientificamerican.com
However, as scientists have studied the fundamental principles that govern our universe, they have discovered that the odds of a universe like ours being compatible with life are astronomically low. We can model what the universe would have looked like if its constants—the strength of gravity, the mass of an electron, the cosmological constant—had been slightly different. What has become clear is that, across a huge range of these constants, they had to have pretty much exactly the values they had in order for life to be possible. The physicist Lee Smolin has calculated that the odds of life-compatible numbers coming up by chance is 1 in 10^229.
By the way he's an atheist and believe this is one of an infinitude of universes. The low probability of this universe convinces them there are an infinitude of universes. He's not the only one one Martin Rees (atheist, prestigious scientist) wrote a book 'Just Six Numbers'. Again his calculations are similar and his conclusion the same. We live in a multiverse. There are some scientists who have written papers theorizing our existence and reality is a simulation on a computer.
When confronted with the odds they recognize the idea mother nature just fortuitously got it right is non-starter.
Last line of the OPNo my belief didn't conjure facts f1-f4 to exist.
Now if by the bolded you meant the 4 "facts" then it is poorly worded as it appears to imply that the belief of theism is evidence.Theism is a belief, an opinion. This doesn't prove we owe our existence to a Creator. It is evidence. that favors that belief.
Meh. My only position - one which has little to do with favor, or preference - is that I wouldn't worship your cosmic monster even if it showed up in person and tried to bribe me with chocolate and immortality.Is the claim there is no evidence, facts, data or any reason at all to believe the existence of the universe and intelligent life was intentionally caused to occur. This claim is essential to atheism because by ruling theism out as a possibility, there is no need to defend the counter claim the universe and intelligent life occurred by happenstance.
Evidence comes in two flavors, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. A video of a suspect with a knife about to stab someone is direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence an inference from the facts must be drawn. Normally a spaghetti stain on a shirt of a suspect wouldn't be evidence of anything unless they found spaghetti in the victims stomach. In that case the stain makes it more probable the suspect is guilty.
Evidence are facts that support or make a contention more or less probable than minus said fact. Evidence alone is not proof. There are three general levels of proof. Scientific proof. Very rigorous usually meaning a conclusive experiment can be performed by other scientists with the same results. Criminal proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt with direct or circumstantial evidence. Finally there is in civil cases a mere preponderance of evidence in favor of a claim is all that's needed.
No one really knows why (or how) the universe came into existence or why it resulted in intelligent humans existing. It is a low a information question. There is no direct evidence of how or why it came to exist. We could look at it like detectives do at a crime scene and figuratively put yellow tape up around the entire universe. Anything in the universe is potential evidence.
F1. The universe exists. This is a foundational fact. If the universe didn't exist neither claim would be true. This fact is evidence of either claim.
F2. Intelligent life exists. This is a foundational claim of theism. Theists believe the universe was intentionally caused and designed for intelligent life. Mindless naturalistic forces don't have to cause any life or intelligent life.
F3. The universe is fine-tuned for life. For the belief the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist it must be in a configuration that allows life to exist. No one can claim intelligent life had to exist. No one would predict or expect mindless forces minus any plan or intent cause life to exist. This evidence is so powerful it's the basis of multiverse theory.
F4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
Theism is a belief, an opinion. This doesn't prove we owe our existence to a Creator. It is evidence. that favors that belief.
You're gonna need some detailed facts to back this claim up.That's not true.
F3. The universe is fine-tuned for life.
Part in bold. That is what you actually have, not proof.Right. Atheists lack the belief theists have that the the universe was intentionally caused to exist. However they usually say the reason they lack belief is because they allege their is no evidence our existence was intentionally caused. That's not true. They can say its not convincing evidence, its crappy evidence. They can say it doesn't persuade them or they can claim to have better evidence it was naturalistic forces all the way down.
You didn't. You have regurgitated fringe philosophy, based on poor definitions and circular illogic, that has been stomped out repeatedly before you ever started this thread.I didn't want to overwhelm you with more than you can handle.
You have been through another thread in which your claim for f3 was never established as a fact, more just another religious fantasy. Bit dishonest to start another thread now claiming it to be a fact.There isn't any direct evidence. You have to infer it from facts F1-F4. And you don't have to believe it or be persuaded...it is circumstantial evidence which is all we have. Its all we have for dark matter and dark energy.
This is what I expect...denial. You have nothing left.They're especially hard to drop when no one is capable of giving you a coherent reason to drop them.
Are you saying the existence of the universe, stars, planets and life have no bearing on this question of whether it was intentionally caused?Opinion isn't evidence. None of these facts are actually evidence for a creator. Like, I can say "Dr. Pepper exists," but that's not evidence that Odin is real. It's a fact, but it's not relevant to this question.
It's weird to talk about "intent" for life to exist. Physics has no intent.
Oh boy. Not this terrible illogic again. How many times does it have to be obliterated for you to stop using it?Are you saying the existence of the universe, stars, planets and life have no bearing on this question of whether it was intentionally caused?
It is not what they have left. It is what they started with. Denial that you have any evidence worth looking at.This is what I expect...denial. You have nothing left.
Why would they believe something without factual evidence? Your OP list is just a bunch of convenient suppositions, not actual evidence.
Could it have? Can physics work differently than it does?
It happened, therefore it was intended?
No obliteration occurred from your responses. Ranting and raving just make you look silly.Oh boy. Not this terrible illogic again. How many times does it have to be obliterated for you to stop using it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?