Atheists Favorite Argument

[ataraxia]

Must exist no. Probably exist yes.

Probability ratios usually come with a numerator and a denominator. So you are saying the probability of so many physical laws being fine tuned for life, let alone complex intelligent life, is very low- on the order of... what? 1/trillions and trillions, right? In fact, if you really think about it, it may be on the order of 1/infinity- IOW, basically zero.

And that makes sense. I get it. It's a compelling argument. Scientists as smart as recently as Stephen Hawking were very impressed by these low odds of these "fine tuning for life" arguments.

But here is what we are finding: we don't really know the size of the numerator in that ratio. First of all, we don't know if there is other life elsewhere even in our own solar system- let alone other solar systems in our galaxes, or even in the more than 2 TRILLION galaxies in the visible universe- each containing at least hundreds of billions of stars. And all this is not to mention that we don't even know how many galaxes exist outside of our visible universe. We know there is stuff out there beyond our visible horizon due to the supraluminal expansion of space after the big bang. So what if there are infinite other universes entirely outside our own? What if there are an infinite number of universes popping into and out of existence throughout space/time? What if all these other universes all had physical laws of their own, with their own physical constants and laws? We are talking about an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of physical laws and their combinations. Couldn't that eventually lead to places and times in this multiverse where the combination of constants were all just right to create intelligent life which would then be left wondering what are the odds of those constants being just right for them to exist?

So although the denominator in that ratio is basically infinite, you can see that the numerator in that ratio could also be potentially infinite. So then we are dividing infinity by infinity. What does that give us mathematically? It gives us a mathematically undefined quantity. That's why we just don't know.

In fact, recent developments in M theory, which Stephen Hawking elaborates on in his book "The Grand Design", does just exactly that. In fact, that is why even someone who was as initially impressed with these fine tuning arguments like Hawking, finally declared toward the end of his final book: "“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

The Grand Design: Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow: 8580001054193: Amazon.com: Books

Buy The Grand Design on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

www.amazon.com

__________________________________

(cont'd next post)

 

[ataraxia]

But even assuming we want to stay impressed with these fine tuning arguments, there's another problem with the theistic position:

Most theists, when they use such ontologic arguments for the existence of God, aren't just saying it as an interesting scientific hypothesis. I mean very few people would say that that hypothesis can be definitively ruled out; not even some of the world's most staunch self-described atheists like Richard Dawkins:



But these folks remain still very staunchly anti-religious and anti-theist. Why?

Because most theists are not satisfied with keeping this as just a weird scientific hypothesis that we are not able to investigate just yet. They want to tell us such a God exists, and that therefore must necessarily mean that this is THE God they were introduced to in the particular family and culture they happened to be born to, and wants from us exactly the things that their most current interpretations of their scriptures: things like that this God became flesh 2000 years ago and wants us only to believe so we can be saved; or maybe he wants us to believe AND learn to behave; or maybe it's just that we must learn to behave and belief is not as important; or maybe it means that we should pray 5 times a day toward Mecca and keep our women veiled for modesty; maybe slavery is OK by him; maybe it's not; maybe he is OK with war on unbelievers and infidels; maybe he is not; etc, etc...

How do we even know this grand-designer God is not some capricious God, creating a half-baked universe and laughing at us trying to make sense of it? Or it could be a novice God, creating this rather dysfunctional universe as just a practice run? It could be an evil psychopath God, creating a universe with so much pain and suffering for the sentient beings in it because he enjoys watching the pain. It could be the God of the gnostics, at war with the real God. Or it could just be a series of Shinto gods. Who knows?

But the folks who argue the most forcibly for such a God always seem to assume that even if they can prove the existence of such a God, that must necessarily mean we have to accept THEIR God, and what THEY tell us this God wants from us.


So you can see why the existence of this God just becomes a Trojan horse, under whose guise they will unload all their latest opinions, cultural biases, etc... on everyone else; and not because they want to use reason or rational debate to establish rational ethical and moral norms, but because we must just blindly obey their God because that's just what he commands- Abraham and Isaac style. After all, what interest would they have in proving the existence of such a God if all those commands we must follow did not necessarily follow or we would still be debating and trying to use rationality and moral sentiments to guide our ethics, morality, and cultural differences? It's clear that the intense interest in trying to prove the existence of such a God is not just because of a purely scientific/academic curiosity like "do parallel universes exist?" There's a lot more to it. And after several thousand years of the supposed existence of such a God being used cudgel people over the head, I think most non-believers have had enough.

(cont'd next post)

 

[DrewPaul]

Wait, why is that? You could just then say the creator created those, too. Or even that their creation was necessary to produce the universes where life exists. Using all of the same, alleged "evidence".

What a knuckle head. You asked me what would evidence against the existence of a Creator look like then you turn around and disagree with it. Are you becoming a believer now?

The existence of other universes of varying characteristics would explain how the existence of one universe with the right conditions for life to exist obtained. However if all the other universes also caused life to exist that would be evidence they were intentionally created. The theory is that the majority of universes would be lifeless.

 

[ataraxia]

(cont'd from my previous post):

So if you want to know how these self-proclaimed "atheists" can still be so anti-religious and anti-clerical, now you know.

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, but the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish (Muslim) church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church... All National institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Paine

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison

"Mingling religion with politics may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America….As an engine of power it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.”
_Thomas Paine

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"They [the Christian clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn... eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

 

[watsup]

Fine-tuning only tells us that our Universe has some of the necessary physical conditions for life. It doesn’t tell us whether life will actually form in every nook and cranny of the Universe.7

Again, so what?

I'm not identifying any deity or God in particular. I'm submitting evidence it was intentionally caused as opposed to mother nature, mindless forces, serendipity and happenstance of an infinitude of universes.

Opinion based on basically nothing.

 

[watsup]

The FSM is just like the belief it was caused by mindless forces without plan, i

As opposed to your figment of imagination. Sorry, but I’ll take the former.

 

[Airyaman]

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.

OK...the universe exists. What of it?

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.

"Claim" and "belief"...when are we going to get to "evidence"?

F3. The universe is fine-tuned for life.

Is it? Seems only one planet is so far, and who can show, with evidence, that this planet is "fine-tuned" for life? Rather, life came about, whatever the actual origins.

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.

Evidence? There is no "evidence" in this. Life exists on planet Earth. The only thing that is evidence of is that life exists on planet Earth.

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.

These supposed "laws" are based on observations made by humans. That they exist is only evidence of their existence, nothing more.

Not sure what this thread is meant to convey. Your claims of "evidence" are nothing more than the tired argument that these things exist, so there must have been a designer. I don't see it at all.

 

[watsup]

However if all the other universes also caused life to exist that would be evidence they were intentionally created.

More opinion without evidence.

 

[DrewPaul]

Probability ratios usually come with a numerator and a denominator. So you are saying the probability of so many physical laws being fine tuned for life, let alone complex intelligent life, is very low- on the order of... what? 1/trillions and trillions, right? In fact, if you really think about it, it may be on the order of 1/infinity- IOW, basically zero.

And that makes sense. I get it. It's a compelling argument. Scientists as smart as recently as Stephen Hawking were very impressed by these low odds of these "fine tuning for life" arguments.



So although the denominator in that ratio is basically infinite, you can see that the numerator in that ratio could also be potentially infinite. So then we are dividing infinity by infinity. What does that give us mathematically? It gives us a mathematically undefined quantity. That's why we just don't know.

In fact, recent developments in M theory, which Stephen Hawking elaborates on in his book "The Grand Design", does just exactly that. In fact, that is why even someone who was as initially impressed with these fine tuning arguments like Hawking, finally declared toward the end of his final book: "“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

The Grand Design: Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow: 8580001054193: Amazon.com: Books

Buy The Grand Design on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

www.amazon.com

__________________________________

(cont'd next post)

Hi Ataraxia,

I respect well thought out responses even if I don't agree.

Probability ratios usually come with a numerator and a denominator. So you are saying the probability of so many physical laws being fine tuned for life, let alone complex intelligent life, is very low- on the order of... what? 1/trillions and trillions, right? In fact, if you really think about it, it may be on the order of 1/infinity- IOW, basically zero.

I'm quoting scientists who say that yes.

But here is what we are finding: we don't really know the size of the numerator in that ratio. First of all, we don't know if there is other life elsewhere even in our own solar system- let alone other solar systems in our galaxes, or even in the more than 2 TRILLION galaxies in the visible universe- each containing at least hundreds of billions of stars. And all this is not to mention that we don't even know how many galaxes exist outside of our visible universe. We know there is stuff out there beyond our visible horizon due to the supraluminal expansion of space after the big bang. So what if there are infinite other universes entirely outside our own? What if there are an infinite number of universes popping into and out of existence throughout space/time? What if all these other universes all had physical laws of their own, with their own physical constants and laws? We are talking about an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of physical laws and their combinations. Couldn't that eventually lead to places and times in this multiverse where the combination of constants were all just right to create intelligent life which would then be left wondering what are the odds of those constants being just right for them to exist?

Most of the data I cited is from scientists who reject the idea of a creator and subscribe to multiverse. They don't reject the idea the universe is fine-tuned for life. In fact its one reason for mutiverse theory. I agree if true we live in one of an infinitude of universes of varying characteristics makes the existence of one or more life permitting universes to exist more probable...at least in theory. Technically its possible to flip a legitimate coin heads a thousand times in a row. Do I believe it can happen? No. Secondly the existence of other coin flippers (even an infinitude) has no effect on the odds of one flipper flipping heads a thousand times. I would believe the flipper rigged it somehow. Even if I couldn't prove it I'd believe it was rigged...so would you : ).

 

[DrewPaul]

(cont'd from my previous post):

So if you want to know how these self-proclaimed "atheists" can still be so anti-religious and anti-clerical, now you know.

I'm not offering any ideas on who the Creator is. Could be a scientist from another universe. Or some suggest our reality is a cosmic simulation on some highly advanced computer. I simply believe our existence was intentionally caused by who is a theological question.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I'm not identifying any deity or God in particular. I'm submitting evidence it was intentionally caused as opposed to mother nature, mindless forces, serendipity and happenstance of an infinitude of universes.



The FSM is just like the belief it was caused by mindless forces without plan, intent of an engineering degree.

Atheism is a lack of theism. Atheists are folks who have yet to find any evidence of any deities in particular compelling.

Your "evidence" that intelligent life was intentionally created is likewise not compelling. It also doesn't require theism. One intelligent design idea is that humans were designed by reptilian aliens from a faraway planet by experimenting with the DNA of Earth's primates.

Of course this presents the obvious problem of recreating the very problem it was meant to solve, as does any intelligent design idea. If you start with the premise that intelligent life must have been designed by intelligent life, it means the designer themself must also have been designed. And the designer of the designer. And then it's turtles all the way down.

Your idea of evidence is what is known as confirmation bias. If you pick a random number from 1 to TREE(3), you would end up with some number. If you then ascribe some special ad hoc significance to that number because it happened to be the number you ended up with, and then realize how ridiculously improbable it was for you to happen to get that particular number, it might lead you to the fallacious conclusion that it must be the work of Allah.

Also, our universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. The vast majority of our universe is a very hostile environment, with only one unimaginably insignificant speck that can support life as far as we know. In a universe that was actually designed to be fine-tuned for life, life would be as abundant as hydrogen. Ours barely supports it at all.

 

[DrewPaul]

How do we even know this grand-designer God is not some capricious God, creating a half-baked universe and laughing at us trying to make sense of it? Or it could be a novice God, creating this rather dysfunctional universe as just a practice run? It could be an evil psychopath God, creating a universe with so much pain and suffering for the sentient beings in it because he enjoys watching the pain. It could be the God of the gnostics, at war with the real God. Or it could just be a series of Shinto gods. Who knows?

But the folks who argue the most forcibly for such a God always seem to assume that even if they can prove the existence of such a God, that must necessarily mean we have to accept THEIR God, and what THEY tell us this God wants from us.

I don't know. I'm not making the case for a kindly benevolent God who loves people and just wants a good day for all. The Creator might be a crusty old bastard for all I know. I still think the universe and our existence was intentionally caused. I don't believe in kindly benevolent mother nature either.

 

[Galactic Spin]

What a knuckle head. You asked me what would evidence against the existence of a Creator look like then you turn around and disagree with it.

Yes, your answer was poor and not well thought out. Like your thread. I once again had to point out your error in determining something as evidence.

While that may be evidence "to you", it is not actually evidence, for the reasons I stated.

Was I supposed to powder your ass and give you some warm milk and a participation trophy? Sorry, nobody told me.

You gave a poor answer to the question. In doing so you continued to make the same basic error that is the only foundation of this thread.

 

[watsup]

I'm not offering any ideas on who the Creator is.

Of course you’re not, because that would totally ruin your entire simplistic narrative about a “designer”.

 

[watsup]

I don't know. I'm not making the case for a kindly benevolent God who loves people and just wants a good day for all. The Creator might be a crusty old bastard for all I know. I still think the universe and our existence was intentionally caused. I don't believe in kindly benevolent mother nature either.

“I think” meaning it’s just an opinion, nothing more.

 

[Lursa]

So you don't deny I'm offering evidence you just find it unconvincing...fine. I'm very skeptical our existence was due to mindless forces that didn't give a damn if we existed. If that were the case I don't believe we'd be talking about this.

That's not evidence. 'It's very unlikely" is not evidence it didnt happen. Even extremely unlikely things happen. Over trillions/billions of years...the odds get better.

 

[Lursa]

I'm demonstrating there is evidence in favor of the claim our existence was intentionally caused and the claim there isn't any evidence is false. Once you agree the rambling will stop.

No you havent, you havent even proven that there was any entity to intentionally cause or create anything.

(And skip the circular "logic" for that one.)

 

[Galactic Spin]

The existence of other universes of varying characteristics would explain how the existence of one universe with the right conditions for life to exist obtained. However if all the other universes also caused life to exist that would be evidence they were intentionally created

These two statements are both false.

Declaring something as evidence does not make it evidence.

A valid argument is required. And you don't have one.

The only argument you have mustered was specious nonsense, as clearly demonstrated.

 

[DrewPaul]

Also, our universe is not "fine-tuned" for life. The vast majority of our universe is a very hostile environment, with only one unimaginably insignificant speck that can support life as far as we know. In a universe that was actually designed to be fine-tuned for life, life would be as abundant as hydrogen. Ours barely supports it at all.

I responded to this objection on the previous page.

Atheism is a lack of theism. Atheists are folks who have yet to find any evidence of any deities in particular compelling.

Fair enough. Usually the claim there is no evidence.

Your "evidence" that intelligent life was intentionally created is likewise not compelling. It also doesn't require theism. One intelligent design idea is that humans were designed by reptilian aliens from a faraway planet by experimenting with the DNA of Earth's primates.

That would still be a theistic cause of our existence. But that wouldn't cause the universe to exist.

Of course this presents the obvious problem of recreating the very problem it was meant to solve, as does any intelligent design idea. If you start with the premise that intelligent life must have been designed by intelligent life, it means the designer themself must also have been designed. And the designer of the designer. And then it's turtles all the way down.

Any naturalistic cause would also have to be turtles all the way down. As I recall from my most hated subject algebra if you have two like terms on either side of an equation you can cross them out. Secondly in our observation naturalistic forces never self initiate. They only act when acted upon. What caused the first action that resulted in all other actions? Intelligent beings can self initiate an action.

Your idea of evidence is what is known as confirmation bias. If you pick a random number from 1 to TREE(3), you would end up with some number. If you then ascribe some special ad hoc significance to that number because it happened to be the number you ended up with, and then realize how ridiculously improbable it was for you to happen to get that particular number, it might lead you to the fallacious conclusion that it must be the work of Allah.

Confirmation bias also occurs when you're correct about something. In that case its not bias its the truth.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out and prefer information that supports our preexisting beliefs. As a result, we tend to ignore any information that contradicts those beliefs.

I don't deny there is evidence against my claim. Evolution is a good example. I'm not ignoring what you or any serious responder has to say. I'm not claiming theism is a fact its an opinion.

 

[DrewPaul]

No you havent, you havent even proven that there was any entity to intentionally cause or create anything.

(And skip the circular "logic" for that one.)

I didn't say there was proof. There is evidence no matter how long you hold your breath or say there isn't.

 

[Lursa]

I didn't say there was proof. There is evidence no matter how long you hold your breath or say there isn't.

What evidence that there is some entity that could have created the universe? Not 'the odds', actual evidence that scientists have posited as serious theories. And 'evidence,' not 'suppositions,'...just 'spit balling possibilities' isnt evidence.

 

[DrewPaul]

Declaring something as evidence does not make it evidence.

Stating a fact that makes a claim more probable than not is evidence. Its always been evidence whether you agree or not. You are welcome to say it doesn't persuade you or offer facts you believe counter it.

 

[DrewPaul]

What evidence that there is some entity that could have created the universe? Not 'the odds', actual evidence that scientists have posited as serious theories. And 'evidence,' not 'suppositions,'...just 'spit balling possibilities' isnt evidence.

Start with the OP on page one.

 

[reinaert]

Its simple but beyond your grasp despite my spoon feeding. I can't go lower than 5th grade comprehension. For instance, for you to claim the universe was unintentionally caused by natural mindless forces to be true the universe has to exist. Yes or no please. The fact the universe exists is evidence it was caused by natural forces. Do you acknowledge if the universe didn't exist your claim would be falsified?


No and it's not do to me failing to spoon feed you. I wrote.

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.

The mere existence of the universe is evidence of either claim therefore of little use. But its still a fact that makes either claim more probable than if not.

A circumstantial case it built by several facts

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.

Are you stating here the existence of the universe doesn't make your claim it was unintentionally caused more probable than it if didn't exist?

You have hardly demonstrated existential verity.

 

[Lursa]

Start with the OP on page one.

You keep writing that. Here: I have. Dont ask it again.

Now please answer my question.