@trickjacko because William tries to mix you up with words, while avoiding answering the question being asked, and he always have that fake smile on his face, and he also contradict himself, i dont hate him, he's just not my favorite
@itzahazylife...do you want to know why lennoxs voice is credible? Because he has the right credentials. You have a youtube account and an opinion. And you act as if you are more intelligent than lennox. You dont think that he hasnt heard that stupidity that you are posting? Of course he has. He still believes.
@killforce787878 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@killforce787878 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
there isn't evidence of design. there is evidence of things resulting gradually over time via natural processes..complexity from simplicity. order from chaos. now, it is possible that god exists and created the universe to unfold naturally, but he didn't create everything in the universe as is, in its current form ..the universe developed incrementally.
@itzahazylife Saint Augustine said roughly the same thing in the fourth century. He proposed that God created things in potential only. Sort like how a seed can potentially produce plant under the right conditions....
"but he didn't create everything in the universe as is, in its current form"?
Of course He didn't. Creation was at its peak when the LORD first created Earth. Creation then degraded and began to die naturally due to mankind's fall from God's grace.
so which is it?..God or physics?..because if God didn't create everything in its current form, and if it's not the result of physical laws over billions of years, then u must believe that there's some magical, supernatural method God uses to create.
u may not know the method, but science has extensive knowledge about how the laws of physics result in the structure of everything we see..we understand how gravity collapses large clouds of hydrogen gas into dense gas balls until the temperature reaches 10,000,000 degrees K. at this temperature nuclear fusion causes hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium. this releases the energy we see from the sun..every element in our body is forged in stars..THAT'S the amazing beauty of physics.
that's the amazing beauty of what we know..the hotter a star gets, the more lighter elements are fused into heavier elements..stars even produce iron..the same iron our earth is made of..the same gravity that draws in clouds of hydrogen gas, is the same gravity that draws in chunks of iron into bigger and bigger clumps..these clumps eventually dominate the area in the form of rocky or gas planets. physics resulted in this..there's A LOT of evidence.
- How did we even know that stars produce iron in the first place?
- Our Earth is made up of more than just iron.
- The chances of gravity creating a planet that is perfect for life is a very slim one you do realize.
- "physics resulted in this..there's A LOT of evidence."? That's a very big claim. Since you "got a lot of evidence" then just go straight with it instead of just making the claim.
how do we know stars produce iron?..lol if u were really interested you'd look it up..we know because we do experiments..we know what temperatures it takes for iron to fuse, and we know how hot stars get..they get hot enough to fuse iron..we also can observe nebulas, (giant gas clouds) left over from when a star explodes..there are all types of different elements in these clouds because stars create them before they explode.
of course there is, but the core is mostly iron..i was just using iron as an example of how clouds of gas and particles draw together..iron is just one of them.
"The chances of gravity creating a planet that is perfect for life is a very slim one you do realize."
look how many planets there are..now, if earth was the only planet in the universe, then yeah, u have a point that an intelligence created it..but, there are much more planets than grains of sand on all the earth's beaches..one of those planets would eventually be suitable for life..and there are probably many more planets in the universe that have life.
@itzahazylife Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
"physics resulted in this..there's A LOT of evidence."? That's a very big claim. Since you "got a lot of evidence" then just go straight with it instead of just making the claim."
why don't u do something you've never done before and look it up?..if u are really interested in learning anything about science, why don't u read what experts say?..u are anti-science, yet, everything we've ever learned about nature has been due to science..if u don't like science, don't use modern medicine.
I am not anti-science. I am anti-evolution. BTW, "science" is nowadays only referring to the opinions of so called "experts". Object to it and suddenly you are called "anti-science". I will still use modern medicine. The Bible does not object to it.
@gneisenau321 you don't like "experts" ?? LOL go cure your own deseases then since you don't need docters! yeah make yourself a new car or house while your at it LMFAO! There's a reason those people are called experts, because they studied the subject and they know much more about it then the average person. there opinion is much more important then yours on the subject!
"go cure your own deseases then since you don't need docters!"?
LOL, some of the biggest frauds in this world are doctors anyway. Even my friend's father who is a doctor admits that there are many doctors, even those with degrees, are con artists. Its spelled "diseases" btw.
"reason those people are called experts, because they studied the subject and they know much more about it..."?
Or just use it as an excuse for other people to prefer their opinions over others.
Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
and about stars producing iron..u need to learn about science..the hotter the temperature the more lighter elements will fuse into heavier elements..scientists know these things because they investigate nature!..they dedicate their lives to studying specific things in nature..why don't u go read why scientists believe what they believe?..they are experts..aren't u interested at all?
Now imagine that there are an infinite number of russias and on every one of those russias a man has been placed at a random point and each time given the same task. One of those men are going to find a red coin pretty fucking quickly.
@emil0rable lol it's a physics based hypothetical that has infinate possibilities and we are the observers and i am drunk. very drunk. sorry for any spelling mistakes.
@gabrielcrimson OK. The question still stands. How do you know there are infinite possibilities? If you have no way of knowing, with it being hypothetical, are you then not believing that to be true based on faith alone?
@gabrielcrimson He... a good thing indeed :). So on what do you base your reasonable assumption? It must be based on some sort of observation or logical conclusion right?
I hate this argument for the simple fact that the anthropic principle crushes it.
Why is this argument being brought up by intelligent people is beyond me. The argument contradicts itself; of course the universe is finely tuned how else would it be possible for you to make the claim?
The hidden argument goes more like this; Because the universe HAS to be finely tuned, it must be designed.
@abdullah57habib Granted, the universe has to be finely tuned for us to be having this conversation. That does not comment at all as to why the universe is finely tuned in the first place, which is what the argument is about.
@abdullah57habib I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not sure who said "If the universe isn't finely tuned then god exists." Why is the argument a bad one?
@Jugglable Well if the universe is not finely tuned then we wouldn't be able to exist without a god; therefore we conclude god exists because he is what makes our existence possible since it isn't possible on its own.
@Jugglable Because I've shown you that EVEN if the universe was not finely tuned you would still think god exists. Either way, the conclusion will be ''oh look god exists because of how the universe is''. If it is finely tuned then he exists, if it isn't then he still does.
The atheist must live in a chaotic universe without laws. Robin Collins: “The laws of physics are balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur. Break just one law or change one constant-no universe, no life.” Einstein: the only thing incomprehensible about the universe, it IS COMPREHENSIBLE"
Stephen Wynberg MILITANT atheist & famous theoretical physicist: “Nature seems more beautiful than necessary”. “Its almost irresistible to imagine this beauty was laid out for our benefit.”
@assym2006 Baseless unsubstantiated assertions with ridicule can be made by any fool. Providing informed argument to explain an opinion or reject others requires reason, knowledge, intuition & insight. Fools arent invited to become professors at Oxford university. Atheism is a flawed but not an illogical worldview. If u want to argue its claims u should study some of the debates of Lennox with Dawkins&Hitchens. Pax vobiscum!
belief in god is a baseless unsubstantiated assertion that's why its called faith. Science is results based and self correcting. religion is terrified of being challenged , Science embraces it.
@assym2006 Your faith in Naturalism as possible explanations for the origin of all physical laws & the abstract maths that define them, the origin of a finite rationally intelligible but deathbound universe, of life from nonlife, intelligence from rocks dwarfs my faith in a Creator. Rather than destroy religion or close the gaps, science is increasingly showing that the birth of the universe & the order of creation follows the Biblical texts. Want a list of Nobel scientists who agree?
1) I have no faith, no religion I am an atheist , that is the absence of faith.
sciences is not proving your bibles fantasy claim. The universe was created by a sky fairy for us ? That the earth is 6,00 years old, Adam and eve, the Ark. A man was born of a virgin then he raised from the dead.
All total rubbish, the bible is not even in its original form its a scape book of papers penned by different people years after the events then assembled by early bishops all rubbish. .
@callofduty497 Can I suggest u also read Prof Hugh Ross "Where the universe came from". He gives a frank jargon free account of current cosmology and the accuracy of the Bible in its detail of how it all began.. Stephen Wynberg MILITANT atheist & famous theoretical physicist says it aptly “Nature seems more beautiful than necessary”. “Its almost irresistible to imagine this beauty was laid out for our benefit.” Its only irresistable when a closed mind refuses to acknowledge the obvious.
@assym2006 "1) I have no faith, no religion I am an atheist , that is the absence of faith." Considering science has much to explain about why we have a rationally intelligible universe dont u believe in "material Naturalism" that it may eventually come up with a TOE? A theist only need one universe to explain it, the anti-theist needs to invent a zillion universes (4which there is NO evidence) to account for design,decipherability and fine-tuning. Do u have enough faith in Naturalism?
cont'd Oxford Nobel Prize scientist (&atheist) sir Peter Medawar,'That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer & that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer It is not to science, but to metaphysics, imaginative literature or religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last things.' Since matter & energy is the only game in town metaphysics is has 2b illusory, right?
@dashan091 "I have no faith, no religion I am an atheist" Have u faith in scientism? The opposite of knowledge isnt faith its ignorance. Do u believe in aliens/UFOs or are u ignorant of the facts concerning abductions, space travel etc like me? Without the technology or evidence most people still admit to the possibility of alien intelligence even like the idea. Others couldnt care less. So why is it that the God Question dominates all of human history & culture if theres's no truth to it?
@dashan091 " No, I understood that perfectly. My statement stands, regardless. They are not mutually exclusive. "
- Yup, and the chances of alien life are considerably more than the chances of god existing.. but no one... no one claims to know for a fact that Aliens exist.
So if you're happy to put god in the same category as UFOs.... I'm fine with that.
A simple analogy of why Revelation is not anti-reason:
My Aunt baked a cake for various Nobel prize winners who all gave their individual scientific analysis of the cake except the mathematician who said nothing because there is no Nobel prize for maths. But I just have 1 more question to u all, “why did she make the cake?” Not even by the most profound scientific analysis even a brain scan, can we answer such a simple question. But we can use our reason to see if what she reveals makes sense.
@Roper122 i said "But we can use our reason to see if what she reveals makes sense."
Simple yes because asking and answering questions requires INTELLIGENCE like anything that's DESIGNED.
DAwkins: "The greatest challenge facing science is to explain design in the universe" .You either believe in an eternal Creator OR u believe in the eternity of mindless matter &energy. Do u honesty believe in an infinite regression of past finite physical events? Simple Question, simple answer.
@dashan091 .. Nope you said " Not even by the most profound scientific analysis even a brain scan, can we answer such a simple question ", when in fact you could simply ask her.
Why is this relevant?
Because she exists!! You can ask her.
You cannot show that the universe was created
- let alone that it was designed
- and you certainly can't ask the creator.
You can do all that with the cake!
Oh and questions about infinite regression are arguments from ignorance. : )
@Roper122 "You cannot show that the universe was created" I dont need to, science has shown that the universe is finite in time&space. Hawking: "because of laws like gravity, the universe can&will create itself from nothing". So which is it: gravity or nothing? How do laws create anything? Where did they come from? Why is there an exquisite, abstract math that defines those laws. So u must believe in scientism, that all of reality is explained by physics. Do u have such faith in naturalism?
"questions about infinite regression are arguments from ignorance" ITS SIMPLE u either believe in God OR that matter& energy is eternal. Have u really thought atheism thru? If u claim the latter then u MUST reject mainstream cosmology & explain how there can be an infinite history of past finite physical events. If u reject that as an infinite regression of past events without explanation then u have no credibility. Ignorance for u, is bliss.
@dashan091 .. OK so we've destroyed the cake analogy...let's move on.
" "You cannot show that the universe was created" I dont need to,"
- oh yes you do... you're confusing the beginning of the universe with the fact that it was created by something. " the universe can&will create itself from nothing". How do laws create anything? "
- Read the whole book maybe? I dunno...just a thought.
What is the fine-tuning argument really saying? Maybe if u'd won the lottery u'd probably say how lucky was that but if the same person won it 30 times in a row, authorities would be locking someone up for conspiracy to commit fraud. This is what Fred Hoyle means by the universe having 30 "dials", the most infinitessmal tweeking of any one would mean no universe, no life. Einstein says the world is incomprehensibly comprehensible. Without God he's absolutely right. Do u believe in Scientism?
Oxford Nobel Prize scientist (&atheist) sir Peter Medawar,
'That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer & that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer It is not to science, but to metaphysics, imaginative literature or religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last things.' Since matter & energy is the only game in town metaphysics is has 2b illusory, right?
Medawar also said which I've added to Wikipedia that " in his book "Advice to a Young Scientist" that there is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit on himself & his profession particularly when no declartion is called for, than to declare that science knows or will know the answers to all questions worth asking! Sir Peter added that questions that do not admit a scientific answer should not be assumed to be non-questions. Certain young scientists here please take note!
"Math is the underlying language of the cosmos, not exactly abstract....."
As a mathematician I disagree with this statement. Math has many facets, not all of them immediately applicable to the real world. Algebra and Calculus are prevalent throughout engineering, but what of Abstract Algebra? Real analysis? Complex analysis?
Also, I don't especially feel mathematics is a language inherent in the cosmos. By and large, mathematics was invented by humans.
@OneWithStrange ".. mathematics is a language inherent in the cosmos. By and large, mathematics was invented by humans"
Completely disagree. The universe is defined by complex laws that are underpinned and defined by highy complex maths whose elegence inspires our greatest scientists. Whether man evolved a mind to intelligently decipher these laws in no negates or denies their existence! In fact the equations of gravity defined planetary motion long before man came on the scene.
@tskasa1 "He rejected orthodox religion at a very young age, and he claimed to be an atheist." Many reject religion but arent atheists. You make many unsubstantiated claims without ever providing a quote or reference. Atheists like Medawar & schrodinger r at least honest in saying "Science puts everything in a consistent order but is ghastly silent about everything that really matters to us: beauty color taste, pain or delight, origins, meaning & eternity". What do u believe in? Naturalism?
"I don't especially feel mathematics is a language inherent in the cosmos"
By which I mean it is the only language through which we can truly understand the cosmos. But hey, that is just what physicists and astrophysicists say.
"I guess ur right & ALL the giants of modern science are wrong, right?"
You don't know about Quantum Physics, do you? At the most fundamental of all levels the universe is a random amalgam.
@tskasa1 u r a sad individual arent u, ts? If God is no more likely than a flying teapot why do u waste what little time u have left? How do u feel about alien intelligence? Maths was not invented at least by man. Abtract realities like maths & logic are exempt from science. They have always existed they are non-contingent because God is their source. Hawking says "Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can & will create itself from nothing." But has no idea WHY!
cont'd The universe is defined by complex laws, underpinned and defined by highy complex maths whose elegence inspires our greatest scientists. Whether man evolved a mind to intelligently decipher these laws in no way negates or denies their existence! In fact the equations of gravity defined planetary motion long before man came on the scene. Maths is not an invention of man it is an immaterial reality created by God to define a decipherable universe whose precision & power is awe inspiring
"As a mathematician I disagree with this statement. Math has many facets, not all of them immediately applicable to the real world. "
Except I never meant it in that matter.... I said that math is the underlying language of the cosmos, not the inverse. So my statement still holds true.
"Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can & will create itself from nothing." from Stephen Hawking in "The Grand Design" 2010 What does Hawking mean by "nothing?" Is he implying gravity iseternal in the past or just pre-existed our universe? How do laws create anything? Not to mention how universal immaterial abstract unchanging laws exist at all when physical matter & energy is the only game in town!
Moreover, Lennox points out that mechanisms such as gravity still need an agent, like cause & effect. Newton expected law in nature because he believed in a Law Giver. This is why science exploded in the 16/17th century with Kepler, Pascal, Copernicus, etc all with the same expectations that the universe is rationally intelligible! God is the only plausible explanation why such immaterial laws exists & why they are defined by abstract Maths which boggle the greatest scientific minds
"Moreover, Lennox points out that mechanisms such as gravity still need an agent,"
You mean like...the graviton? Yes, we've known this for decades. All wave phenomena in the universe are accompanied by a partner particle. The same holds true for electromagnetic force (such as light), and even the strong and weak forces.
Newton also believed that the order of the planets was unexplainable and attributed it to God...but he was wrong.
Several decades later, another physicists came up with a Pertubation Theory, a whole new field of mathematics that easily explained the order in the Solar System. And did not need to bring up god even once.
"Kepler, Pascal, Copernicus,"
All of them, along with Newton, knew not even a 1% of what we know today. So your point is an asinine one.
"all with the same expectations that the universe is rationally intelligible!"
And...it isn't. One quick delve at either of the two theories of relativity (especially the general theory, however), or even a tiny glance at Quantum Theory and String Theory will prove it to be the exact opposite. Fundamentally the universe acts randomly. EXTREMELY randomly. Fundamentally, the universe is ENTIRELY random, and exists in an eternal, perpetual, state of quantum uncertainty (randomness)
@tskasa1 "the universe is not rationally intelligible." you jest??
I guess ur right & ALL the giants of modern science are wrong, right? Paul Davies physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist : “The impression of design and fine-tuning in the universe is over-whelming.”
Ric Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry: It is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned for life.
cont'd Robin Collins: “The laws of physics are balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur. Break just one law or change one constant-no universe, no life.” Einstein: the only thing incomprehensible about the universe, it IS COMPREHENSIBLE" Stephen Wynberg MILITANT atheist & famous theoretical physicist: “Nature seems more beautiful than necessary”. “Its almost irresistible to imagine this beauty was laid out for our benefit.”
I guess ur in a chaotic universe with no laws or life?
@tskasa1 so if all these Nobel laureates are correct & the universe is designed then u have 3 explanations: chance, necessity or design, right? Even Dawkins admits design. On BTW, I forgot Alex Vilenkin, Russian cosmologist "With the proof now in place, current cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe.There is no escape: we have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." pax!
Show me ANY scientific paper where they state that the universe IS designed. They say that the universe shows aspect of being designed. Then again, so doest most life, but we KNOW that ALL life evolved to the point to where it is today and was not designed. Just because something LOOKS designed DOESN'T mean that it IS.
"Break just one law or change one constant-no universe, no life.”"
Robert Collins...the philosopher, not the scientist?
"Stephen Wynberg"
Again, just because something LOOKS to be designed DOESN'T mean it IS. You're making a big leap there, taking a "definitely" from a "maybe". Not to mention that aesthetics are (at least partially) a product of what we experience, so it makes sense....
@tskasa1 u really r a deeply disturbed little boy! "physicists are the ones who are saying that the universe isn't rational" I guess Einstein Newton Galileo Smoot Penzias Davies was wrong in saying it was comprehensible and/or fine-tuned. On a MACRO level The universe is RATIONALLY INTELLIGIBLE. That is why we base time & travel on the stars. No doubt as a material naturalist u dont believe Vilenkin who said "cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe."
"They are immaterial realities because they cant be seen, held or put in a test tube or subjected to science."
Applied mathematics can't be tested or subjected to science? Wow, engineers and physicists would REALLY like to have a word with you, as if math did not function correctly, neither would math and physics.
"Erwin Shrodinger"
Okay, great, you quote mined yet another scientist. What do things such as ethics which and aesthetics have to do with science to begin with?
"God is the only plausible explanation why such immaterial laws exists"
And how, exactly, are these laws immaterial? Explain this for me.
"why they are defined by abstract Maths which boggle the greatest scientific minds"
Math isn't really abstract. Math can be (and actively is) applied to the material universe to both exploit it (the very basis of engineering), or explain it (physics/chemistry). Math is the underlying language of the cosmos, not exactly abstract.....
@tskasa1 dud u miss those subjects at school- abstract maths and logic? Science presupposes logic & maths which themselves cant be tested by the scientific method. They are immaterial realities because they cant be seen, held or put in a test tube or subjected to science. Erwin Shrodinger, famous quantum physicist: "Science puts everything in a consistent order but is ghastly silent about everything that matters to us: ethics, beauty color taste, pain & delight, origins, meaning & eternity.
"the universe is designed then u have 3 explanations: chance, necessity or design, right?"
Except that the universe isn't designed. Furthermore, there are methods, as I have pointed out several times, through which a universe can give rise to itself if given the right initial conditions.
@tskasa1 Sorry saying the universe is not fined tuned or designed proves nothing Modern science shows all the preconditions and physical constants fit within life-permitting values. So what is your explanation- chance or necessity? Do u have enough faith in chance or do u believe the universe necessarily exists? I quote >10scientists who draw a different conclusion than all & u can say I'm mine quoting. So what irrational scientist supports ur claim the universe is irrational?
All very true, however, had the universe been any other way we simply would not be here to ask the question.
We have formed because of the universe, it is not a case of we were trying to form and wow.....how lucky were we that this happened. This is a non argument.
Probably best if theists stick to ontological arguments
@meucunt1 What is the fine-tuning argument really saying?? Maybe if u'd won the lottery u probably say how lucky was that but if the same individual won it 30 times in a row, authorities would be locking someone up for conspiracy to commit fraud. This is what Fred Hoyle means by the universe having 30 dials, the most infinitessmal variation of any one would mean no universe, no life. Einstein says the world is incomprehensibly comprehensible. Without God he's right. Do u believe in Scientism?
@dashan091 Yes I believe in scientism, as in it exists. Do I agree with scientism? No. Where no empirical evidence exists it is simply inadequate. I do believe that on certain questions scientists are closing gaps while opening new windows. The fine tuning argument exists because of science, in 100 years if science has a full understanding of all of the forces in nature and it becomes apparent that the universe as it exists is actually inevitable, your god will simply occupy another arena.
"I believe, I do not assert the ...existence of this being"
is directly contradicted by:
"I'm not saying the existence of life proves the existence of God, rather the existance of the Universe itself implies the existence of an intelligent being with power and precision beyond our understanding."
Asserting and believing are not mutually exclusive. For example, I both assert and believe that one can do both.
Many things have the potential to become "finely-tuned," be it life or the Universe or a stone carving. Take a simple event that occurs near-spontaneously. This event occurring may limit the probability of another event, which in turn limits another, and so on. If you take it to a long enough chain and observe in retrospect, the end result appears perfectly chiseled or even intentional when in fact it may not well have been. This is incorrect thinking, especially in regards to evolution.
Lennox places an undue amount of attention on how small the odds are that life (human or not) can develop in a stable form. It's bogus because the existence of life does not imply the existence of God in any way. Lennox, for whatever reason, is seemingly unaware that he hasn't made that connection, or that it is even necessary.
Firstly, it's not relating to the existence of life, rather the existance of the Universe itself. Second of all, the connection is obvious. If a Universe is so finely accurate and precise to even exist, it is therefore obvious that the Universe must have a higher purpose and whatever created that higher purpose must have been intelligent beyond our imaginations or knowledge.
@ogirv101 Firstly, the universe may be one of many; secondly, the universe may be one of a cycle of many; thirdly, as OneWithStrange says, the existewnce of life does not imply the existence of god in any way; and fourthly, the universe is just as it is, no explanation. There is nothing in the universe that suggest a point to it, let alone a "higher purpose".
One of many? Evidence for this hypothesis? It is not cyclical, George Ellis, Roger Penrose, and Stephen Hawkings prove it incorrect during the 1970s. I'm not saying the existence of life proves the existence of God, rather the existance of the Universe itself implies the existence of an intelligent being with power and precision beyond our understanding. The Universe is, no explanation? There must be.
@ogirv101 "One of many?" String theory and M-theory have a lot to say (mathematically) about that. "It is not cyclical" The Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg may prove you wrong in his work for a unified theory in physics. "The Universe is, no explanation? There must be." Yes, there is, it's just beyond our present understanding. Intelligence is human, it has evolved. You project it to an imaginary being and you endow him with typically human qualities, raised to a maximum level. It's imaginary.
Mathematically? You mean theoretcally, because they still haven't "invented" the correct math needed to advance in string theory. Furthermore,, this is complete speculation, there is not one iota of observable or empirical evidence for any of these theories. Idc if he's a nobel laureate, appeal to authority fallacy, and the unified theory has nothing to do with M-theory. I also do accept that it is not available to human understanding empriically, but we can deduce it.
BTW I like your strawmen argument, you did not give an accurate protrayal of my beliefs. Fist, you claim he is imaginary, you must prove this characteristic you are claiming. Furthermore, I do not equate any human qualities towards God, and you reiterate the word imaginary like if you're using reason to support yourself... You are merely doing what logicians call, appeal to ridicule fallacy.
@ogirv101 String theory has the best mathematics of the physical theories.
Mine is not a strawman argument. I didn't say 'imaginary friend', ridiculing you. I use 'imaginary' candidly, because it is. Prove me wrong! You can't, because, to use your words, "this is complete speculation, there is not one iota of observable or empirical evidence" for your 'intelligent being', while for the physical theories, there is. This 'intelligent being' is just an abstraction, reified into a real 'being'.
Define best when it barely fits scientific criteria? Explain best when scientists have not developed the correct math yet? Where is one little bit of empirical evidence? Best physical theory? Explain to me why it's the best? You fail to show this? Furthermore, you're the one claiming God is imaginary; he who makes the claim must prove it, the onus is on you. I make no claim of God, you do.
@ogirv101 It's you who asserts "the existence of an intelligent being with power and precision beyond our understanding", and I say it's imaginery, because you don't give concrete evidence for it. I don't have time now to talk about the modern theories in physics about the universe, but they are in the public domain for everybody to study. I suggest you do that.
I believe, I do not assert the existence the existence of this being. You on the other hand assert that this being is "imaginary". Furthermore, I have studied them, I see is flaws, as a minor in scientific philsoophy, I understand the scientific criteria. M-theory and String theory are lagging behind due to failure in developing proper mathematics, and one big flaw is that THERE IS NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE!
@ogirv101 Then what is the "OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE" for the "intelligent being with power and precision beyond our understanding" that you say "is implied by the existence of the Universe"?
That during te Big Bang through the deunificationof the four fundamental forces, the ratio of energy between electromagnetism and gravity is precise to 1:10^40. This is as precise as taking a dime marking it with other dimes which are lined up all over North America and stacked to the moon (Do this a million times), and picking that marked dime. Which is but one constant which is that precise.
@dewinthemorning Everything that happens in the universe has a purpose. Everything is connected via gravity. Think about the role played by the smallest component of an ecosystem, the moon's control over our weather patterns, the role of mountains in the nutrient cycle. Everything has a purpose even earthquakes tornadoes, & tsunamis.BTW, u may need to invent a zillion universes to explain design, a theist only needs one. "The heavens declare the glory of God & earth reveals his handiwork" Ps 55.
@dashan091 "Everything that happens in the universe has a purpose." No, it doesn't! And, anyway, how can a happening of smth have a purpose? Only humans can have a 'purpose'! Things happen in the universe because of the primary forces. But the particular things that exist, are not presupposed by these forces. They presuppose that galaxies can form, but not the particular galaxies that exist. Because of these primary forces, a world like ours can exist, but not the particular things in our world.
@OneWithStrange Then what does? Are u a material naturalist? What is naturalism? A set of universal immaterial unchanging laws that define a rationally intelligible universe with independent life-permitting physical constants. Then doesnt that raise the question of how do immaterial realities exist in a universe that is supposedly all matter & energy? Agency and mechanism are 2 different realities. Would u find an architect by an analysis of a building or the author in the words of a book?
@tskasa1 Assertions are not arguments. Arguments consist of premises, inferences & conclusions, just so next time u might like to say something worthwhile. BTW, is your car fine-tuned by intelligence or was it a stroke of amazing good fortune having been assembled by a tornado that went thru a wrecking yard of disassembled parts?
"is your car fine-tuned by intelligence or was it a stroke of amazing good fortune having been assembled by a tornado that went thru a wrecking yard of disassembled parts?"
A car can't reproduce, adapt, and improve through successive generations, whereas ALL life can. So your point is worthless.
Also, stop using the tornado argument...it makes you look stupid as it is completely and utterly ignorant of everything evolution says and misrepresents it. Evolution is not random.
@tskasa1 Derrr! Its called an analogy. Before u start with life u have to contend with abstract LAWS. They dont reproduce or adapt "A car can't reproduce,.." That's the point!! You only have 2 choices matter & energy have produced everything by mindless processes & must be eternal or something outside of time that is eternal brought everything into existence, a finite time ago. The universe will be in cosmic ruin a finite time from now. BTW Evolution's about RANDOM mutations, get educated LOSER!
"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin, Russian cosmologist. To believe all the physical constants arranged themselves into absurdly narrow life-permitting values is about as like as a monkey sitting at a type-writer punching out the human genome code or Shakespeares King Lear. Do u have that amount of faith in naturalism? (luck)
Quote mine as many cosmologists as you please, it shall do you no good.
"To believe all the physical constants arranged themselves into absurdly narrow life"
You DO know that essentially EVERY SINGLE physical constant, particle, and fundamental force in the universe emerged from the same basic particle, right? That they all derived from essentially one kind of particle successively, right?
And I'm not even taking Superstring Theory into account, it would just make my job even easier.
Regardless, my point is that the position you are presenting is an extremely false one. In inflationary cosmology, fine tuning is not very much of a problem because you only need to get a few, very basic initial conditions right and you get an entire universe that functions.
It's also a fallacy called a FALSE analogy. You are comparing two things that are FUNDAMENTALLY different. And not just barely either, but DRASTICALLY.
"They dont reproduce or adapt "A car can't reproduce,.." That's the point!!"
But living things CAN.
"You only have 2 choices"
Another false dichotomy? Seriously?
"must be eternal"
Well, not matter. But energy? Potentially, there's nothing to say it isn't.
Mindless Process=/=Impossible, or even improbable. EVERY atom above Hydrogen and Helium in the universe was, and stil lis, produced via a mindless process. Through Quantum Mechanics, there are possible ways to form a universe from "nothing" (so long as certain, VERY specific initial conditions are met, such as that the net energy is the same both at the beginning and at the end, which is true of this universe).
@tskasa1 "VERY specific initial conditions are met, such as that the net energy is the same both at the beginning and at the end.." Where did these initial conditions originate? The universe is NOT a closed system nor can matter or energy be ETERNAL in the past. Such a static state was assumed by atheists to deny creation. We all know that an infinite regression of past finite events is philosophically, logically & scientifically ABSURD. Read Vilenkin, PC Davies, George Lamaitre.
You DO know that the initial condition I was referring to was that the net energy of the universe has to be zero, right? And you DO understand that the net energy of the universe today is still zero, right? And you DO understand that the net energy of the universe shall forever remain zero, right?
"The universe is NOT a closed system"
Wrong actually. The universe as a whole is the ONLY closed system in existence.
"nor can matter or energy be ETERNAL in the past."
Matter? No. It decays and falls back into energy. Energy, however, does no such thing.
"We all know that an infinite regression of past finite events is philosophically, logically & scientifically ABSURD."
You mean...the same kind of infinite regression necessary to explain the origins of your god and creator? Again, if you are to make a logically consistent argument, your God MUST have an explainable cause as well.
"Such a static state was assumed by atheists to deny creation."
Actually, a steady state universe was actually held up by many theists as well. It's far from an atheistic idea. Not to mention that the VAST majority of atheists actually agree with the Big Bang. I do not believe in a steady state universe myself, however, I am doing away with your false dichotomies and showing how they are demonstrably wrong.
It is perfectly possible that the energy that composed the Big Bang had existed for eternity and will continue to do so. As far as we know energy does not, nor does it even have the capability to, decay as matter does. It DOES disperse, but it doesn't decay and fall apart.
Again, I am not an adherent of this, nor are the VAST majority of both atheists and scientists; but it remains a perfectly reasonable possibility.
"something outside of time that is eternal brought everything into existence,"
So...to explain limited complexity in the universe you bring about an INFINITELY complex being that exists outside of the boundaries of the universe? Your argument contradicts itself. You say A can't be explained naturally because it's too complex, so you create B which is an INFINITELY complex being, to explain the DRASTICALLY less complex A.
Furthermore, if you MUST insist that all things MUST have a cause, then you must also provide one for your infinitely complex being. Or else you are committing yet another logical fallacy called Special Pleading.
"The universe will be in cosmic ruin a finite time from now"
And it may reemerge or give birth to a new one, we don't know...at least not right now. However, we DO know that all energy in the universe is constant and won't go anywhere.
....No. PART of evolution is random mutations. It is what differentiates animals and leads to speciation. HOWEVER, the VAST majority of evolution is Natural Selection which is a NON random process. Random mutation is only a tiny, relatively rare, part of evolution (~99% of mutations do essentially nothing). Exaggeration of traits through subsequent generations (mandated through genetics), and Natural Selection play MUCH bigger roles.
@jormorecast analogies to work must have something in common with what ur trying to compare. No doubt u think that God & fairies, aliens and flying teapots have common ground?
@zenqimaster Maybe but unfortunately there are hundred of parameters that have to be exactly the values they are for not only life but the universe itself to exist. e.g. the mass ratio of neutron to proton has to to be exactly right otherwise we would have a universe of Hydrogen gas or neutron stars. Could u hit a golf ball on to the same blade of grass 100 times in a row. This is the probability needed to ensure the universe is rationally intelligible & able to support life. Study the science!
Yes, God most certainly is an arrogant prick, but that is besides the point.
God doesn't care for his creation or else he wouldn't have commanded genocides and ethnocides against them. As well as for them to be murdered and stoned for trivial offenses. If God is caring, justify the Great Flood of Noah.
@tskasa1 - If God new the way the world would be without the flood and it was far worse than how it would be with/after the flood would that justify it?
in other words - If God has saved us from a far more horrific world than the 1 we all know and has saved us from much greater attrocities than has happened. If more people have better lives than had there not been a flood by far, would that justify it?
If it is true, We dont know how the world would have been without a flood . . .
Are you saying that an allmighty, omnipotent, omniscient, infinitely wise and just supreme being had no better way to purify the world from evil than to flood it and kill not only evil people, but millions upon millions of innocent babies, children, and unborn children?? Not to mention the billions upon billions of life forms that it killed? Do you not see a problem in this??
"If more people have better lives than had there not been a flood by far, would that justify it?"
'Ye old, "Kill one, save a million" philosophy, eh? Except in this case it's....well...big. Really big. And includes the murder of countless innocents. Again, do you not see a problem in this? Not only is God using a completely and utterly immoral method to achieve his ends, he is using one completely and utterly idiotic given his...well, you know, whole supreme-ness..thingy?
Then again...this is the same God that created humans knowing we'd betray him and such. As well as foresaw everything that would have happened including all the genocides, ethnocides, rapes, murders, etc,., etc., etc (including the ones he'd throw in himself, just for the hell of it). Essentially meaning that either God did it for the lulz or is just one really, really, really big asshole. For, you know, creating a creation he knew was doomed and extremely flawed and would "rebel".
"We dont know how the world would have been without a flood . . ."
Exactly. We have no empirical basis to claim that the world would have been any worse. In fact, it might even have turned out better as long periods of chaos and destruction usually lead to periods of enlightenment, learning, knowledge, wisdom, and relative peace. And I'm being generous here.
Essentially, saying it WOULD have been worse is an argument from ignorance.
@tskasa1 - your last point first, that can easily be turned around to say that It WOULD have been better is also an arguement from ignorance. You have already pointed to God being omnipotent, omniscient etc, scripturally he is also many other things including the ultimate judgement etc. It is also scriptural that the reasons for the flood include the world being full of violence, noah was the only blameless man on earth at the time . . . Would be worse scenario is now less ignorant?
"your last point first, that can easily be turned around to say that It WOULD have been better is also an arguement from ignorance."
Except that I am not stating that that WOULD have happened. I am saying it is an equally, if not more probable situation. I was arguing that it is impossible to know what would have happened and that the opposite could easily have also happened. As such, the point is mute.
"You have already pointed to God being omnipotent,"
I also pointed out to how it was unlikely and that even if he were, his actions henceforth were extremely wicked for one as such. Also contradicting the scriptures.
"It is also scriptural that the reasons for the flood include the world being full of violence, noah was the only blameless man on earth at the time . . ."
Does include millions upon millions of innocent children and unborn babies? Just to name the casualties from one species??
"noah was the only blameless man on earth at the time"
I know I'm nittpicking, but it was also stated later on in the bible that there was no such thing as a perfect man. Meaning, no.
@tskasa1 - Hi! nittpicking is possibly the right term I think. Blameless in the eyes of God (having been forgiven) and blameless entirely are two different meanings of the same word.
Back to the point I questioned. Including scriptural knowledge of God and of the situation it is more probable that the world would have been much worse.
Interesting thoughts reference your babies comments so please give me a moment to type before responding.
"of the situation it is more probable that the world would have been much worse."
Again, we cannot say that. We are given a very vague retrospect of what happens. We are actually given very little specifics. Furthermore, the Biblical God needs not much of a reason to call people vile and evil and order them killed for it, simply being a pagan, nonbeliever, or desserter of the faith was enough to allow that. As such, any henceforth argument is ultimately an argument from ignorance.
"We can say that given the scriptural knowledge of God. Just, fair, mercifull etc. "
Ahh, he most certainly is in certain parts of the bible. However, in other parts of the bible he is also...well...for lack of a better word a prick. The biblical God seems to fluctuate between the two. At times merciful and even kind and fair and just. At other times, however, he also makes extremely vulgar and evil comments.
@tskasa1 - have you looked at that chronolgically. As the covenants change so does the way in which God seeks vengence etc (he is also vengeful as you know). As does the way sin is attoned for etc.
"As the covenants change so does the way in which God seeks vengence, etc."
Yes, this is true (I honestly have a problem with this as it also implies inuniversality). But many of these acts are also not acts of vengence per se. They are more like acts of favoritism or to pay off his people (such as the various genocides and ethnocides occupying Cannan).
@tskasa1 - (covenants) possibly, but history has shown, many cases of acts such as killing babies as sacrifice to fertility gods in these nations histories. Which is clearly multi tasking. Vengence, and settling his ppl. He also tells the hebrews not to attack certain people. Long time ago, hard to know too much. but again this is a question of opinion of God.
i like John lennox but i cant stand william lane craig
zipitup75 2 months ago
@zipitup75 why?
trickjacko 1 month ago
@trickjacko because William tries to mix you up with words, while avoiding answering the question being asked, and he always have that fake smile on his face, and he also contradict himself, i dont hate him, he's just not my favorite
zipitup75 1 month ago
@itzahazylife...do you want to know why lennoxs voice is credible? Because he has the right credentials. You have a youtube account and an opinion. And you act as if you are more intelligent than lennox. You dont think that he hasnt heard that stupidity that you are posting? Of course he has. He still believes.
killforce787878 5 months ago 20
@killforce787878 LOL. Good point.
MPaulHolmes 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@killforce787878 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@killforce787878 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
there isn't evidence of design. there is evidence of things resulting gradually over time via natural processes..complexity from simplicity. order from chaos. now, it is possible that god exists and created the universe to unfold naturally, but he didn't create everything in the universe as is, in its current form ..the universe developed incrementally.
itzahazylife 7 months ago
@itzahazylife Saint Augustine said roughly the same thing in the fourth century. He proposed that God created things in potential only. Sort like how a seed can potentially produce plant under the right conditions....
AegeanKing 6 months ago
@itzahazylife
"but he didn't create everything in the universe as is, in its current form"?
Of course He didn't. Creation was at its peak when the LORD first created Earth. Creation then degraded and began to die naturally due to mankind's fall from God's grace.
gneisenau321 3 months ago
@gneisenau321
so which is it?..God or physics?..because if God didn't create everything in its current form, and if it's not the result of physical laws over billions of years, then u must believe that there's some magical, supernatural method God uses to create.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
@itzahazylife
God "spoke" it into existence. I don't know the method's name or how it works but God sure did do an amazing job.
gneisenau321 3 months ago
@gneisenau321
u may not know the method, but science has extensive knowledge about how the laws of physics result in the structure of everything we see..we understand how gravity collapses large clouds of hydrogen gas into dense gas balls until the temperature reaches 10,000,000 degrees K. at this temperature nuclear fusion causes hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium. this releases the energy we see from the sun..every element in our body is forged in stars..THAT'S the amazing beauty of physics.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
@gneisenau321
that's the amazing beauty of what we know..the hotter a star gets, the more lighter elements are fused into heavier elements..stars even produce iron..the same iron our earth is made of..the same gravity that draws in clouds of hydrogen gas, is the same gravity that draws in chunks of iron into bigger and bigger clumps..these clumps eventually dominate the area in the form of rocky or gas planets. physics resulted in this..there's A LOT of evidence.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
@itzahazylife
I got to say this:
- How did we even know that stars produce iron in the first place?
- Our Earth is made up of more than just iron.
- The chances of gravity creating a planet that is perfect for life is a very slim one you do realize.
- "physics resulted in this..there's A LOT of evidence."? That's a very big claim. Since you "got a lot of evidence" then just go straight with it instead of just making the claim.
gneisenau321 3 months ago
@gneisenau321
how do we know stars produce iron?..lol if u were really interested you'd look it up..we know because we do experiments..we know what temperatures it takes for iron to fuse, and we know how hot stars get..they get hot enough to fuse iron..we also can observe nebulas, (giant gas clouds) left over from when a star explodes..there are all types of different elements in these clouds because stars create them before they explode.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
"Our Earth is made up of more than just iron."
of course there is, but the core is mostly iron..i was just using iron as an example of how clouds of gas and particles draw together..iron is just one of them.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
"The chances of gravity creating a planet that is perfect for life is a very slim one you do realize."
look how many planets there are..now, if earth was the only planet in the universe, then yeah, u have a point that an intelligence created it..but, there are much more planets than grains of sand on all the earth's beaches..one of those planets would eventually be suitable for life..and there are probably many more planets in the universe that have life.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itzahazylife Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
"physics resulted in this..there's A LOT of evidence."? That's a very big claim. Since you "got a lot of evidence" then just go straight with it instead of just making the claim."
why don't u do something you've never done before and look it up?..if u are really interested in learning anything about science, why don't u read what experts say?..u are anti-science, yet, everything we've ever learned about nature has been due to science..if u don't like science, don't use modern medicine.
itzahazylife 3 months ago
@itzahazylife
I am not anti-science. I am anti-evolution. BTW, "science" is nowadays only referring to the opinions of so called "experts". Object to it and suddenly you are called "anti-science". I will still use modern medicine. The Bible does not object to it.
gneisenau321 3 months ago
@gneisenau321 you don't like "experts" ?? LOL go cure your own deseases then since you don't need docters! yeah make yourself a new car or house while your at it LMFAO! There's a reason those people are called experts, because they studied the subject and they know much more about it then the average person. there opinion is much more important then yours on the subject!
TheCriticalThinkTank 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCriticalThinkTank
"go cure your own deseases then since you don't need docters!"?
LOL, some of the biggest frauds in this world are doctors anyway. Even my friend's father who is a doctor admits that there are many doctors, even those with degrees, are con artists. Its spelled "diseases" btw.
"reason those people are called experts, because they studied the subject and they know much more about it..."?
Or just use it as an excuse for other people to prefer their opinions over others.
gneisenau321 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
@gneisenau321
and about stars producing iron..u need to learn about science..the hotter the temperature the more lighter elements will fuse into heavier elements..scientists know these things because they investigate nature!..they dedicate their lives to studying specific things in nature..why don't u go read why scientists believe what they believe?..they are experts..aren't u interested at all?
itzahazylife 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itzahazylife
"the hotter the temperature the more lighter elements will fuse into heavier elements"?
Really? Because the last time I checked, things always break down under extreme heat.
"why don't u go read why scientists believe what they believe?..they are experts..aren't u interested at all?"?
I am interested, but I can't say that I agree with everything they say.
gneisenau321 3 months ago
Now imagine that there are an infinite number of russias and on every one of those russias a man has been placed at a random point and each time given the same task. One of those men are going to find a red coin pretty fucking quickly.
gabrielcrimson 10 months ago
@gabrielcrimson You are correct in your assertion. However, I have to ask how you know there were an infinite number of russians to begin with?
emil0rable 9 months ago
@emil0rable lol it's a physics based hypothetical that has infinate possibilities and we are the observers and i am drunk. very drunk. sorry for any spelling mistakes.
gabrielcrimson 9 months ago
@gabrielcrimson OK. The question still stands. How do you know there are infinite possibilities? If you have no way of knowing, with it being hypothetical, are you then not believing that to be true based on faith alone?
emil0rable 9 months ago
@emil0rable I know what you're saying, I don't but it's not simply faith based. It's reasonable assumption. sober again , yaaaay.
gabrielcrimson 9 months ago
@gabrielcrimson He... a good thing indeed :). So on what do you base your reasonable assumption? It must be based on some sort of observation or logical conclusion right?
emil0rable 9 months ago
Ok, that's not proof of gods existence!!!
theonlywayisgay 10 months ago
I hate this argument for the simple fact that the anthropic principle crushes it.
Why is this argument being brought up by intelligent people is beyond me. The argument contradicts itself; of course the universe is finely tuned how else would it be possible for you to make the claim?
The hidden argument goes more like this; Because the universe HAS to be finely tuned, it must be designed.
abdullah57habib 11 months ago
@abdullah57habib Granted, the universe has to be finely tuned for us to be having this conversation. That does not comment at all as to why the universe is finely tuned in the first place, which is what the argument is about.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Jugglable Look at it this way:
If the universe is finely tuned then god exists.
If the universe isn't finely tuned then god exists.
Which ever universe we live in, we will always conclude that God exists because this argument is a bad one.
abdullah57habib 11 months ago
@abdullah57habib I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not sure who said "If the universe isn't finely tuned then god exists." Why is the argument a bad one?
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Jugglable Well if the universe is not finely tuned then we wouldn't be able to exist without a god; therefore we conclude god exists because he is what makes our existence possible since it isn't possible on its own.
abdullah57habib 11 months ago
@abdullah57habib And where exactly have you shown the fine tuning argument is a bad one?
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Jugglable Because I've shown you that EVEN if the universe was not finely tuned you would still think god exists. Either way, the conclusion will be ''oh look god exists because of how the universe is''. If it is finely tuned then he exists, if it isn't then he still does.
Do you see the problem with this argument now?
abdullah57habib 11 months ago
@abdullah57habib "Because I've shown you that EVEN if the universe was not finely tuned you would still think god exists."
Let's say I grant that. That does not comment at all on the premises or the logical validity of the fine tuning argument.
Jugglable 11 months ago
@Jugglable How so?
abdullah57habib 11 months ago
@Jugglable I agree--if you showed the fine-tuning argument didn't work I'd still believe in God.
But that doesn't mean one way or the other that it's a good or bad argument.
Jugglable 11 months ago
The atheist must live in a chaotic universe without laws. Robin Collins: “The laws of physics are balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur. Break just one law or change one constant-no universe, no life.” Einstein: the only thing incomprehensible about the universe, it IS COMPREHENSIBLE"
Stephen Wynberg MILITANT atheist & famous theoretical physicist: “Nature seems more beautiful than necessary”. “Its almost irresistible to imagine this beauty was laid out for our benefit.”
dashan091 1 year ago
this guy talks utter bollocks. There is no god
assym2006 1 year ago
@assym2006 Baseless unsubstantiated assertions with ridicule can be made by any fool. Providing informed argument to explain an opinion or reject others requires reason, knowledge, intuition & insight. Fools arent invited to become professors at Oxford university. Atheism is a flawed but not an illogical worldview. If u want to argue its claims u should study some of the debates of Lennox with Dawkins&Hitchens. Pax vobiscum!
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
belief in god is a baseless unsubstantiated assertion that's why its called faith. Science is results based and self correcting. religion is terrified of being challenged , Science embraces it.
assym2006 1 year ago
@assym2006 Your faith in Naturalism as possible explanations for the origin of all physical laws & the abstract maths that define them, the origin of a finite rationally intelligible but deathbound universe, of life from nonlife, intelligence from rocks dwarfs my faith in a Creator. Rather than destroy religion or close the gaps, science is increasingly showing that the birth of the universe & the order of creation follows the Biblical texts. Want a list of Nobel scientists who agree?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
1) I have no faith, no religion I am an atheist , that is the absence of faith.
sciences is not proving your bibles fantasy claim. The universe was created by a sky fairy for us ? That the earth is 6,00 years old, Adam and eve, the Ark. A man was born of a virgin then he raised from the dead.
All total rubbish, the bible is not even in its original form its a scape book of papers penned by different people years after the events then assembled by early bishops all rubbish. .
assym2006 11 months ago
@callofduty497 Can I suggest u also read Prof Hugh Ross "Where the universe came from". He gives a frank jargon free account of current cosmology and the accuracy of the Bible in its detail of how it all began.. Stephen Wynberg MILITANT atheist & famous theoretical physicist says it aptly “Nature seems more beautiful than necessary”. “Its almost irresistible to imagine this beauty was laid out for our benefit.” Its only irresistable when a closed mind refuses to acknowledge the obvious.
dashan091 11 months ago
@dashan091 " “Its almost irresistible to imagine this beauty was laid out for our benefit.”
- ALMOST.. the key word is ALMOST
You may as well quote Darwin saying that the eye seems impossible.
Steven Weinberg is a Nobel Prize winning Physicist, he does not agree with fine tuning argument.
Does that prove anything? Nope.
But Robin Collins' opinion proves even less.
Fine tuning is simply an attempt at the design argument...
it doesn't work on earth... and it doesn't work in space.
Roper122 11 months ago
@assym2006 "1) I have no faith, no religion I am an atheist , that is the absence of faith." Considering science has much to explain about why we have a rationally intelligible universe dont u believe in "material Naturalism" that it may eventually come up with a TOE? A theist only need one universe to explain it, the anti-theist needs to invent a zillion universes (4which there is NO evidence) to account for design,decipherability and fine-tuning. Do u have enough faith in Naturalism?
dashan091 11 months ago
cont'd Oxford Nobel Prize scientist (&atheist) sir Peter Medawar,'That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer & that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer It is not to science, but to metaphysics, imaginative literature or religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last things.' Since matter & energy is the only game in town metaphysics is has 2b illusory, right?
dashan091 11 months ago
@dashan091
Quote "A theist only need one universe to explain it" and a giant invisible sky fairy.
assym2006 11 months ago
@dashan091 "I have no faith, no religion I am an atheist" Have u faith in scientism? The opposite of knowledge isnt faith its ignorance. Do u believe in aliens/UFOs or are u ignorant of the facts concerning abductions, space travel etc like me? Without the technology or evidence most people still admit to the possibility of alien intelligence even like the idea. Others couldnt care less. So why is it that the God Question dominates all of human history & culture if theres's no truth to it?
dashan091 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dashan091 " No, I understood that perfectly. My statement stands, regardless. They are not mutually exclusive. "
- Yup, and the chances of alien life are considerably more than the chances of god existing.. but no one... no one claims to know for a fact that Aliens exist.
So if you're happy to put god in the same category as UFOs.... I'm fine with that.
Otherwise you just answered your own question.
Roper122 11 months ago
@assym2006 nice proof, I'm sold..oh wait you gave 0 proof that there is no God.FAIL.
signofthehammer 4 months ago
A simple analogy of why Revelation is not anti-reason:
My Aunt baked a cake for various Nobel prize winners who all gave their individual scientific analysis of the cake except the mathematician who said nothing because there is no Nobel prize for maths. But I just have 1 more question to u all, “why did she make the cake?” Not even by the most profound scientific analysis even a brain scan, can we answer such a simple question. But we can use our reason to see if what she reveals makes sense.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 " I just have 1 more question to u all, “why did she make the cake?” "
--- Here's a scientific way of finding out... ask her.
Simple.
Nice try though.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 i said "But we can use our reason to see if what she reveals makes sense."
Simple yes because asking and answering questions requires INTELLIGENCE like anything that's DESIGNED.
DAwkins: "The greatest challenge facing science is to explain design in the universe" .You either believe in an eternal Creator OR u believe in the eternity of mindless matter &energy. Do u honesty believe in an infinite regression of past finite physical events? Simple Question, simple answer.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 .. Nope you said " Not even by the most profound scientific analysis even a brain scan, can we answer such a simple question ", when in fact you could simply ask her.
Why is this relevant?
Because she exists!! You can ask her.
You cannot show that the universe was created
- let alone that it was designed
- and you certainly can't ask the creator.
You can do all that with the cake!
Oh and questions about infinite regression are arguments from ignorance. : )
Again.. nice try.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 "You cannot show that the universe was created" I dont need to, science has shown that the universe is finite in time&space. Hawking: "because of laws like gravity, the universe can&will create itself from nothing". So which is it: gravity or nothing? How do laws create anything? Where did they come from? Why is there an exquisite, abstract math that defines those laws. So u must believe in scientism, that all of reality is explained by physics. Do u have such faith in naturalism?
dashan091 1 year ago
"questions about infinite regression are arguments from ignorance" ITS SIMPLE u either believe in God OR that matter& energy is eternal. Have u really thought atheism thru? If u claim the latter then u MUST reject mainstream cosmology & explain how there can be an infinite history of past finite physical events. If u reject that as an infinite regression of past events without explanation then u have no credibility. Ignorance for u, is bliss.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 .. OK so we've destroyed the cake analogy...let's move on.
" "You cannot show that the universe was created" I dont need to,"
- oh yes you do... you're confusing the beginning of the universe with the fact that it was created by something. " the universe can&will create itself from nothing". How do laws create anything? "
- Read the whole book maybe? I dunno...just a thought.
Learn about Quantum physics.. just an idea.
The laws of physics are observations.
Easy.
Roper122 1 year ago
What is the fine-tuning argument really saying? Maybe if u'd won the lottery u'd probably say how lucky was that but if the same person won it 30 times in a row, authorities would be locking someone up for conspiracy to commit fraud. This is what Fred Hoyle means by the universe having 30 "dials", the most infinitessmal tweeking of any one would mean no universe, no life. Einstein says the world is incomprehensibly comprehensible. Without God he's absolutely right. Do u believe in Scientism?
dashan091 1 year ago
Oxford Nobel Prize scientist (&atheist) sir Peter Medawar,
'That there is indeed a limit upon science is made very likely by the existence of questions that science cannot answer & that no conceivable advance of science would empower it to answer It is not to science, but to metaphysics, imaginative literature or religion that we must turn for answers to questions having to do with first and last things.' Since matter & energy is the only game in town metaphysics is has 2b illusory, right?
dashan091 1 year ago
Medawar also said which I've added to Wikipedia that " in his book "Advice to a Young Scientist" that there is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit on himself & his profession particularly when no declartion is called for, than to declare that science knows or will know the answers to all questions worth asking! Sir Peter added that questions that do not admit a scientific answer should not be assumed to be non-questions. Certain young scientists here please take note!
dashan091 1 year ago
"Math is the underlying language of the cosmos, not exactly abstract....."
As a mathematician I disagree with this statement. Math has many facets, not all of them immediately applicable to the real world. Algebra and Calculus are prevalent throughout engineering, but what of Abstract Algebra? Real analysis? Complex analysis?
Also, I don't especially feel mathematics is a language inherent in the cosmos. By and large, mathematics was invented by humans.
OneWithStrange 1 year ago
@OneWithStrange ".. mathematics is a language inherent in the cosmos. By and large, mathematics was invented by humans"
Completely disagree. The universe is defined by complex laws that are underpinned and defined by highy complex maths whose elegence inspires our greatest scientists. Whether man evolved a mind to intelligently decipher these laws in no negates or denies their existence! In fact the equations of gravity defined planetary motion long before man came on the scene.
dashan091 1 year ago
@physicistprime
"by the way correct me if i am wrong the first man to apply perturbation teory to quantum mechanica was schrodinger and he was deeply religious man"
Actually, he wasn't. He rejected orthodox religion at a very young age, and he claimed to be an atheist.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "He rejected orthodox religion at a very young age, and he claimed to be an atheist." Many reject religion but arent atheists. You make many unsubstantiated claims without ever providing a quote or reference. Atheists like Medawar & schrodinger r at least honest in saying "Science puts everything in a consistent order but is ghastly silent about everything that really matters to us: beauty color taste, pain or delight, origins, meaning & eternity". What do u believe in? Naturalism?
dashan091 1 year ago
@OneWithStrange
"I don't especially feel mathematics is a language inherent in the cosmos"
By which I mean it is the only language through which we can truly understand the cosmos. But hey, that is just what physicists and astrophysicists say.
"I guess ur right & ALL the giants of modern science are wrong, right?"
You don't know about Quantum Physics, do you? At the most fundamental of all levels the universe is a random amalgam.
tskasa1 1 year ago
by the way correct me if i am wrong the first man to apply perturbation teory to quantum mechanica was schrodinger and he was deeply religious man
physicistprime 1 year ago
tskasa, when newton discovered the laws of gravity he attributed that to God
why perturbation theory is different
every mathematical concept applied to the universe is a sign of design
you are biased and you are going in circles
physicistprime 1 year ago
@physicistprime
"when newton discovered the laws of gravity he attributed that to God"
And he was wrong.
"why perturbation theory is different"
Because pertubation theory shows that you don't need God to explain the order of the solar system, it was perfectly self-sustainable.
"every mathematical concept applied to the universe is a sign of design"
OR, more likely, it is because physics was INVENTED to apply mathematics to the universe.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 u r a sad individual arent u, ts? If God is no more likely than a flying teapot why do u waste what little time u have left? How do u feel about alien intelligence? Maths was not invented at least by man. Abtract realities like maths & logic are exempt from science. They have always existed they are non-contingent because God is their source. Hawking says "Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can & will create itself from nothing." But has no idea WHY!
Gravity
dashan091 1 year ago
cont'd The universe is defined by complex laws, underpinned and defined by highy complex maths whose elegence inspires our greatest scientists. Whether man evolved a mind to intelligently decipher these laws in no way negates or denies their existence! In fact the equations of gravity defined planetary motion long before man came on the scene. Maths is not an invention of man it is an immaterial reality created by God to define a decipherable universe whose precision & power is awe inspiring
dashan091 1 year ago
@physicistprime
"you are biased and you are going in circles"
Oh, the irony....
"As a mathematician I disagree with this statement. Math has many facets, not all of them immediately applicable to the real world. "
Except I never meant it in that matter.... I said that math is the underlying language of the cosmos, not the inverse. So my statement still holds true.
tskasa1 1 year ago
IF it was different, things would be different. Wow, this proves nothing.
gregrutz 1 year ago
"Because there are laws such as gravity, the universe can & will create itself from nothing." from Stephen Hawking in "The Grand Design" 2010 What does Hawking mean by "nothing?" Is he implying gravity iseternal in the past or just pre-existed our universe? How do laws create anything? Not to mention how universal immaterial abstract unchanging laws exist at all when physical matter & energy is the only game in town!
dashan091 1 year ago
Moreover, Lennox points out that mechanisms such as gravity still need an agent, like cause & effect. Newton expected law in nature because he believed in a Law Giver. This is why science exploded in the 16/17th century with Kepler, Pascal, Copernicus, etc all with the same expectations that the universe is rationally intelligible! God is the only plausible explanation why such immaterial laws exists & why they are defined by abstract Maths which boggle the greatest scientific minds
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
"Moreover, Lennox points out that mechanisms such as gravity still need an agent,"
You mean like...the graviton? Yes, we've known this for decades. All wave phenomena in the universe are accompanied by a partner particle. The same holds true for electromagnetic force (such as light), and even the strong and weak forces.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
"Newton"
Newton also believed that the order of the planets was unexplainable and attributed it to God...but he was wrong.
Several decades later, another physicists came up with a Pertubation Theory, a whole new field of mathematics that easily explained the order in the Solar System. And did not need to bring up god even once.
"Kepler, Pascal, Copernicus,"
All of them, along with Newton, knew not even a 1% of what we know today. So your point is an asinine one.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
"all with the same expectations that the universe is rationally intelligible!"
And...it isn't. One quick delve at either of the two theories of relativity (especially the general theory, however), or even a tiny glance at Quantum Theory and String Theory will prove it to be the exact opposite. Fundamentally the universe acts randomly. EXTREMELY randomly. Fundamentally, the universe is ENTIRELY random, and exists in an eternal, perpetual, state of quantum uncertainty (randomness)
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "the universe is not rationally intelligible." you jest??
I guess ur right & ALL the giants of modern science are wrong, right? Paul Davies physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist : “The impression of design and fine-tuning in the universe is over-whelming.”
Ric Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry: It is increasingly clear to modern science that the universe was exquisitely fine-tuned for life.
dashan091 1 year ago
cont'd Robin Collins: “The laws of physics are balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur. Break just one law or change one constant-no universe, no life.” Einstein: the only thing incomprehensible about the universe, it IS COMPREHENSIBLE" Stephen Wynberg MILITANT atheist & famous theoretical physicist: “Nature seems more beautiful than necessary”. “Its almost irresistible to imagine this beauty was laid out for our benefit.”
I guess ur in a chaotic universe with no laws or life?
dashan091 1 year ago
@tskasa1 so if all these Nobel laureates are correct & the universe is designed then u have 3 explanations: chance, necessity or design, right? Even Dawkins admits design. On BTW, I forgot Alex Vilenkin, Russian cosmologist "With the proof now in place, current cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe.There is no escape: we have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." pax!
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
"so if all these Nobel laureates are correct"
Show me ANY scientific paper where they state that the universe IS designed. They say that the universe shows aspect of being designed. Then again, so doest most life, but we KNOW that ALL life evolved to the point to where it is today and was not designed. Just because something LOOKS designed DOESN'T mean that it IS.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
"Break just one law or change one constant-no universe, no life.”"
Robert Collins...the philosopher, not the scientist?
"Stephen Wynberg"
Again, just because something LOOKS to be designed DOESN'T mean it IS. You're making a big leap there, taking a "definitely" from a "maybe". Not to mention that aesthetics are (at least partially) a product of what we experience, so it makes sense....
"Ric Smalley"
Again, the chemist...and not the physicist?
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
And...physicists are the ones who are saying that the universe isn't rational. So..yeah....
Also, arguments from authority mean nothing in science...
"Einstein"
The same Einstein who denied quantum physics for his entire life because it disagreed with his philosophical views of the universe? Yeah, no.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 u really r a deeply disturbed little boy! "physicists are the ones who are saying that the universe isn't rational" I guess Einstein Newton Galileo Smoot Penzias Davies was wrong in saying it was comprehensible and/or fine-tuned. On a MACRO level The universe is RATIONALLY INTELLIGIBLE. That is why we base time & travel on the stars. No doubt as a material naturalist u dont believe Vilenkin who said "cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe."
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
"Science presupposes logic"
Because science shows that SOME things in the universe DO behave rationally. It's not a pressuposition as much as it is an actual observation.
"maths"
Again, are applied to the universe to better understand it, and it has been shown that it works.
"which themselves cant be tested by the scientific method"
Maths can't be tested by the scientific method, but they have their own system of proofs within mathematics.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
"They are immaterial realities because they cant be seen, held or put in a test tube or subjected to science."
Applied mathematics can't be tested or subjected to science? Wow, engineers and physicists would REALLY like to have a word with you, as if math did not function correctly, neither would math and physics.
"Erwin Shrodinger"
Okay, great, you quote mined yet another scientist. What do things such as ethics which and aesthetics have to do with science to begin with?
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
"God is the only plausible explanation why such immaterial laws exists"
And how, exactly, are these laws immaterial? Explain this for me.
"why they are defined by abstract Maths which boggle the greatest scientific minds"
Math isn't really abstract. Math can be (and actively is) applied to the material universe to both exploit it (the very basis of engineering), or explain it (physics/chemistry). Math is the underlying language of the cosmos, not exactly abstract.....
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 dud u miss those subjects at school- abstract maths and logic? Science presupposes logic & maths which themselves cant be tested by the scientific method. They are immaterial realities because they cant be seen, held or put in a test tube or subjected to science. Erwin Shrodinger, famous quantum physicist: "Science puts everything in a consistent order but is ghastly silent about everything that matters to us: ethics, beauty color taste, pain & delight, origins, meaning & eternity.
.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
"the universe is designed then u have 3 explanations: chance, necessity or design, right?"
Except that the universe isn't designed. Furthermore, there are methods, as I have pointed out several times, through which a universe can give rise to itself if given the right initial conditions.
"Even Dawkins admits design."
Oh, please DO show me this.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 Sorry saying the universe is not fined tuned or designed proves nothing Modern science shows all the preconditions and physical constants fit within life-permitting values. So what is your explanation- chance or necessity? Do u have enough faith in chance or do u believe the universe necessarily exists? I quote >10scientists who draw a different conclusion than all & u can say I'm mine quoting. So what irrational scientist supports ur claim the universe is irrational?
dashan091 1 year ago
All very true, however, had the universe been any other way we simply would not be here to ask the question.
We have formed because of the universe, it is not a case of we were trying to form and wow.....how lucky were we that this happened. This is a non argument.
Probably best if theists stick to ontological arguments
meucunt1 1 year ago
@meucunt1 What is the fine-tuning argument really saying?? Maybe if u'd won the lottery u probably say how lucky was that but if the same individual won it 30 times in a row, authorities would be locking someone up for conspiracy to commit fraud. This is what Fred Hoyle means by the universe having 30 dials, the most infinitessmal variation of any one would mean no universe, no life. Einstein says the world is incomprehensibly comprehensible. Without God he's right. Do u believe in Scientism?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 Yes I believe in scientism, as in it exists. Do I agree with scientism? No. Where no empirical evidence exists it is simply inadequate. I do believe that on certain questions scientists are closing gaps while opening new windows. The fine tuning argument exists because of science, in 100 years if science has a full understanding of all of the forces in nature and it becomes apparent that the universe as it exists is actually inevitable, your god will simply occupy another arena.
meucunt1 1 year ago
"I believe, I do not assert the ...existence of this being"
is directly contradicted by:
"I'm not saying the existence of life proves the existence of God, rather the existance of the Universe itself implies the existence of an intelligent being with power and precision beyond our understanding."
Asserting and believing are not mutually exclusive. For example, I both assert and believe that one can do both.
OneWithStrange 1 year ago
Many things have the potential to become "finely-tuned," be it life or the Universe or a stone carving. Take a simple event that occurs near-spontaneously. This event occurring may limit the probability of another event, which in turn limits another, and so on. If you take it to a long enough chain and observe in retrospect, the end result appears perfectly chiseled or even intentional when in fact it may not well have been. This is incorrect thinking, especially in regards to evolution.
OneWithStrange 1 year ago
Lennox places an undue amount of attention on how small the odds are that life (human or not) can develop in a stable form. It's bogus because the existence of life does not imply the existence of God in any way. Lennox, for whatever reason, is seemingly unaware that he hasn't made that connection, or that it is even necessary.
OneWithStrange 1 year ago
@OneWithStrange
What we can observe says otherwise.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
Explain?
OneWithStrange 1 year ago
@OneWithStrange
Existence seems to have been designed with the intention of I.L. existing on earth.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@OneWithStrange:
Firstly, it's not relating to the existence of life, rather the existance of the Universe itself. Second of all, the connection is obvious. If a Universe is so finely accurate and precise to even exist, it is therefore obvious that the Universe must have a higher purpose and whatever created that higher purpose must have been intelligent beyond our imaginations or knowledge.
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101 Firstly, the universe may be one of many; secondly, the universe may be one of a cycle of many; thirdly, as OneWithStrange says, the existewnce of life does not imply the existence of god in any way; and fourthly, the universe is just as it is, no explanation. There is nothing in the universe that suggest a point to it, let alone a "higher purpose".
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning:
One of many? Evidence for this hypothesis? It is not cyclical, George Ellis, Roger Penrose, and Stephen Hawkings prove it incorrect during the 1970s. I'm not saying the existence of life proves the existence of God, rather the existance of the Universe itself implies the existence of an intelligent being with power and precision beyond our understanding. The Universe is, no explanation? There must be.
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101 "One of many?" String theory and M-theory have a lot to say (mathematically) about that. "It is not cyclical" The Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg may prove you wrong in his work for a unified theory in physics. "The Universe is, no explanation? There must be." Yes, there is, it's just beyond our present understanding. Intelligence is human, it has evolved. You project it to an imaginary being and you endow him with typically human qualities, raised to a maximum level. It's imaginary.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning:
Mathematically? You mean theoretcally, because they still haven't "invented" the correct math needed to advance in string theory. Furthermore,, this is complete speculation, there is not one iota of observable or empirical evidence for any of these theories. Idc if he's a nobel laureate, appeal to authority fallacy, and the unified theory has nothing to do with M-theory. I also do accept that it is not available to human understanding empriically, but we can deduce it.
ogirv101 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning:
BTW I like your strawmen argument, you did not give an accurate protrayal of my beliefs. Fist, you claim he is imaginary, you must prove this characteristic you are claiming. Furthermore, I do not equate any human qualities towards God, and you reiterate the word imaginary like if you're using reason to support yourself... You are merely doing what logicians call, appeal to ridicule fallacy.
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101 String theory has the best mathematics of the physical theories.
Mine is not a strawman argument. I didn't say 'imaginary friend', ridiculing you. I use 'imaginary' candidly, because it is. Prove me wrong! You can't, because, to use your words, "this is complete speculation, there is not one iota of observable or empirical evidence" for your 'intelligent being', while for the physical theories, there is. This 'intelligent being' is just an abstraction, reified into a real 'being'.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning:
Define best when it barely fits scientific criteria? Explain best when scientists have not developed the correct math yet? Where is one little bit of empirical evidence? Best physical theory? Explain to me why it's the best? You fail to show this? Furthermore, you're the one claiming God is imaginary; he who makes the claim must prove it, the onus is on you. I make no claim of God, you do.
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101 It's you who asserts "the existence of an intelligent being with power and precision beyond our understanding", and I say it's imaginery, because you don't give concrete evidence for it. I don't have time now to talk about the modern theories in physics about the universe, but they are in the public domain for everybody to study. I suggest you do that.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning:
I believe, I do not assert the existence the existence of this being. You on the other hand assert that this being is "imaginary". Furthermore, I have studied them, I see is flaws, as a minor in scientific philsoophy, I understand the scientific criteria. M-theory and String theory are lagging behind due to failure in developing proper mathematics, and one big flaw is that THERE IS NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE!
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101 Then what is the "OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE" for the "intelligent being with power and precision beyond our understanding" that you say "is implied by the existence of the Universe"?
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning:
That during te Big Bang through the deunificationof the four fundamental forces, the ratio of energy between electromagnetism and gravity is precise to 1:10^40. This is as precise as taking a dime marking it with other dimes which are lined up all over North America and stacked to the moon (Do this a million times), and picking that marked dime. Which is but one constant which is that precise.
ogirv101 1 year ago
@dewinthemorning Everything that happens in the universe has a purpose. Everything is connected via gravity. Think about the role played by the smallest component of an ecosystem, the moon's control over our weather patterns, the role of mountains in the nutrient cycle. Everything has a purpose even earthquakes tornadoes, & tsunamis.BTW, u may need to invent a zillion universes to explain design, a theist only needs one. "The heavens declare the glory of God & earth reveals his handiwork" Ps 55.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091 "Everything that happens in the universe has a purpose." No, it doesn't! And, anyway, how can a happening of smth have a purpose? Only humans can have a 'purpose'! Things happen in the universe because of the primary forces. But the particular things that exist, are not presupposed by these forces. They presuppose that galaxies can form, but not the particular galaxies that exist. Because of these primary forces, a world like ours can exist, but not the particular things in our world.
dewinthemorning 1 year ago
@OneWithStrange Then what does? Are u a material naturalist? What is naturalism? A set of universal immaterial unchanging laws that define a rationally intelligible universe with independent life-permitting physical constants. Then doesnt that raise the question of how do immaterial realities exist in a universe that is supposedly all matter & energy? Agency and mechanism are 2 different realities. Would u find an architect by an analysis of a building or the author in the words of a book?
dashan091 1 year ago
The universe is not fine tuned.... Fine tuning is a concept invented by scientists to fit their own scientific models.....
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 Assertions are not arguments. Arguments consist of premises, inferences & conclusions, just so next time u might like to say something worthwhile. BTW, is your car fine-tuned by intelligence or was it a stroke of amazing good fortune having been assembled by a tornado that went thru a wrecking yard of disassembled parts?
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
"is your car fine-tuned by intelligence or was it a stroke of amazing good fortune having been assembled by a tornado that went thru a wrecking yard of disassembled parts?"
A car can't reproduce, adapt, and improve through successive generations, whereas ALL life can. So your point is worthless.
Also, stop using the tornado argument...it makes you look stupid as it is completely and utterly ignorant of everything evolution says and misrepresents it. Evolution is not random.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 Derrr! Its called an analogy. Before u start with life u have to contend with abstract LAWS. They dont reproduce or adapt "A car can't reproduce,.." That's the point!! You only have 2 choices matter & energy have produced everything by mindless processes & must be eternal or something outside of time that is eternal brought everything into existence, a finite time ago. The universe will be in cosmic ruin a finite time from now. BTW Evolution's about RANDOM mutations, get educated LOSER!
dashan091 1 year ago
"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin, Russian cosmologist. To believe all the physical constants arranged themselves into absurdly narrow life-permitting values is about as like as a monkey sitting at a type-writer punching out the human genome code or Shakespeares King Lear. Do u have that amount of faith in naturalism? (luck)
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
"Alexander Vilenkin, Russian cosmologist."
Quote mine as many cosmologists as you please, it shall do you no good.
"To believe all the physical constants arranged themselves into absurdly narrow life"
You DO know that essentially EVERY SINGLE physical constant, particle, and fundamental force in the universe emerged from the same basic particle, right? That they all derived from essentially one kind of particle successively, right?
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
And I'm not even taking Superstring Theory into account, it would just make my job even easier.
Regardless, my point is that the position you are presenting is an extremely false one. In inflationary cosmology, fine tuning is not very much of a problem because you only need to get a few, very basic initial conditions right and you get an entire universe that functions.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
"Its called an analogy."
It's also a fallacy called a FALSE analogy. You are comparing two things that are FUNDAMENTALLY different. And not just barely either, but DRASTICALLY.
"They dont reproduce or adapt "A car can't reproduce,.." That's the point!!"
But living things CAN.
"You only have 2 choices"
Another false dichotomy? Seriously?
"must be eternal"
Well, not matter. But energy? Potentially, there's nothing to say it isn't.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
"produced everything by mindless processes"
Mindless Process=/=Impossible, or even improbable. EVERY atom above Hydrogen and Helium in the universe was, and stil lis, produced via a mindless process. Through Quantum Mechanics, there are possible ways to form a universe from "nothing" (so long as certain, VERY specific initial conditions are met, such as that the net energy is the same both at the beginning and at the end, which is true of this universe).
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 "VERY specific initial conditions are met, such as that the net energy is the same both at the beginning and at the end.." Where did these initial conditions originate? The universe is NOT a closed system nor can matter or energy be ETERNAL in the past. Such a static state was assumed by atheists to deny creation. We all know that an infinite regression of past finite events is philosophically, logically & scientifically ABSURD. Read Vilenkin, PC Davies, George Lamaitre.
dashan091 1 year ago
@dashan091
"Where did these initial conditions originate?"
You DO know that the initial condition I was referring to was that the net energy of the universe has to be zero, right? And you DO understand that the net energy of the universe today is still zero, right? And you DO understand that the net energy of the universe shall forever remain zero, right?
"The universe is NOT a closed system"
Wrong actually. The universe as a whole is the ONLY closed system in existence.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
"nor can matter or energy be ETERNAL in the past."
Matter? No. It decays and falls back into energy. Energy, however, does no such thing.
"We all know that an infinite regression of past finite events is philosophically, logically & scientifically ABSURD."
You mean...the same kind of infinite regression necessary to explain the origins of your god and creator? Again, if you are to make a logically consistent argument, your God MUST have an explainable cause as well.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
"Such a static state was assumed by atheists to deny creation."
Actually, a steady state universe was actually held up by many theists as well. It's far from an atheistic idea. Not to mention that the VAST majority of atheists actually agree with the Big Bang. I do not believe in a steady state universe myself, however, I am doing away with your false dichotomies and showing how they are demonstrably wrong.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
It is perfectly possible that the energy that composed the Big Bang had existed for eternity and will continue to do so. As far as we know energy does not, nor does it even have the capability to, decay as matter does. It DOES disperse, but it doesn't decay and fall apart.
Again, I am not an adherent of this, nor are the VAST majority of both atheists and scientists; but it remains a perfectly reasonable possibility.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
"something outside of time that is eternal brought everything into existence,"
So...to explain limited complexity in the universe you bring about an INFINITELY complex being that exists outside of the boundaries of the universe? Your argument contradicts itself. You say A can't be explained naturally because it's too complex, so you create B which is an INFINITELY complex being, to explain the DRASTICALLY less complex A.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
Furthermore, if you MUST insist that all things MUST have a cause, then you must also provide one for your infinitely complex being. Or else you are committing yet another logical fallacy called Special Pleading.
"The universe will be in cosmic ruin a finite time from now"
And it may reemerge or give birth to a new one, we don't know...at least not right now. However, we DO know that all energy in the universe is constant and won't go anywhere.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@dashan091
"BTW Evolution's about RANDOM mutations,"
....No. PART of evolution is random mutations. It is what differentiates animals and leads to speciation. HOWEVER, the VAST majority of evolution is Natural Selection which is a NON random process. Random mutation is only a tiny, relatively rare, part of evolution (~99% of mutations do essentially nothing). Exaggeration of traits through subsequent generations (mandated through genetics), and Natural Selection play MUCH bigger roles.
tskasa1 1 year ago
Using the same example that Lennox uses with the coins, how many coins would you need to represent a "god" capable of making this fine tuned world?
jormorecast 1 year ago
@jormorecast analogies to work must have something in common with what ur trying to compare. No doubt u think that God & fairies, aliens and flying teapots have common ground?
dashan091 1 year ago
Comment removed
jormorecast 1 year ago
I think that after 14 billion years (rounded up), there would have to be somewhere that produced life, even at 1 in 10^40 chances.
zenqimaster 1 year ago
@zenqimaster Maybe but unfortunately there are hundred of parameters that have to be exactly the values they are for not only life but the universe itself to exist. e.g. the mass ratio of neutron to proton has to to be exactly right otherwise we would have a universe of Hydrogen gas or neutron stars. Could u hit a golf ball on to the same blade of grass 100 times in a row. This is the probability needed to ensure the universe is rationally intelligible & able to support life. Study the science!
dashan091 1 year ago
athiests run the comments on youtube and it PISSES ME OFF!!!
bookydani 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"dashan091 If God did create life, why did he do it? What purpose does it serve?"
To bring Glory to Himself. To show how big He is and how small we are, yet He sees the sparrow fall. A caring Creator.
leftysrevolution 1 year ago
@leftysrevolution "To bring Glory to Himself. To show how big He is and how small we are, yet He sees the sparrow fall. A caring Creator."
Why is God a "he"?
Why does God need to show how "big" he is, who is he trying to impress?
How does God get "BIg" when its supposed to be an omnipotent being?
according to you God is arrogant and thats not a desirable character trait, indeed there are humans that are better than that.
Sidowse 1 year ago
@leftysrevolution
Yes, God most certainly is an arrogant prick, but that is besides the point.
God doesn't care for his creation or else he wouldn't have commanded genocides and ethnocides against them. As well as for them to be murdered and stoned for trivial offenses. If God is caring, justify the Great Flood of Noah.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 - If God new the way the world would be without the flood and it was far worse than how it would be with/after the flood would that justify it?
in other words - If God has saved us from a far more horrific world than the 1 we all know and has saved us from much greater attrocities than has happened. If more people have better lives than had there not been a flood by far, would that justify it?
If it is true, We dont know how the world would have been without a flood . . .
FINTY79 1 year ago
@FINTY79
Are you saying that an allmighty, omnipotent, omniscient, infinitely wise and just supreme being had no better way to purify the world from evil than to flood it and kill not only evil people, but millions upon millions of innocent babies, children, and unborn children?? Not to mention the billions upon billions of life forms that it killed? Do you not see a problem in this??
tskasa1 1 year ago
@FINTY79
"If more people have better lives than had there not been a flood by far, would that justify it?"
'Ye old, "Kill one, save a million" philosophy, eh? Except in this case it's....well...big. Really big. And includes the murder of countless innocents. Again, do you not see a problem in this? Not only is God using a completely and utterly immoral method to achieve his ends, he is using one completely and utterly idiotic given his...well, you know, whole supreme-ness..thingy?
tskasa1 1 year ago
@FINTY79
Then again...this is the same God that created humans knowing we'd betray him and such. As well as foresaw everything that would have happened including all the genocides, ethnocides, rapes, murders, etc,., etc., etc (including the ones he'd throw in himself, just for the hell of it). Essentially meaning that either God did it for the lulz or is just one really, really, really big asshole. For, you know, creating a creation he knew was doomed and extremely flawed and would "rebel".
tskasa1 1 year ago
@FINTY79
Anywho, now done with my rant, I move on:
"We dont know how the world would have been without a flood . . ."
Exactly. We have no empirical basis to claim that the world would have been any worse. In fact, it might even have turned out better as long periods of chaos and destruction usually lead to periods of enlightenment, learning, knowledge, wisdom, and relative peace. And I'm being generous here.
Essentially, saying it WOULD have been worse is an argument from ignorance.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 - your last point first, that can easily be turned around to say that It WOULD have been better is also an arguement from ignorance. You have already pointed to God being omnipotent, omniscient etc, scripturally he is also many other things including the ultimate judgement etc. It is also scriptural that the reasons for the flood include the world being full of violence, noah was the only blameless man on earth at the time . . . Would be worse scenario is now less ignorant?
FINTY79 1 year ago
@FINTY79
"your last point first, that can easily be turned around to say that It WOULD have been better is also an arguement from ignorance."
Except that I am not stating that that WOULD have happened. I am saying it is an equally, if not more probable situation. I was arguing that it is impossible to know what would have happened and that the opposite could easily have also happened. As such, the point is mute.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@FINTY79
"You have already pointed to God being omnipotent,"
I also pointed out to how it was unlikely and that even if he were, his actions henceforth were extremely wicked for one as such. Also contradicting the scriptures.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@FINTY79
"It is also scriptural that the reasons for the flood include the world being full of violence, noah was the only blameless man on earth at the time . . ."
Does include millions upon millions of innocent children and unborn babies? Just to name the casualties from one species??
"noah was the only blameless man on earth at the time"
I know I'm nittpicking, but it was also stated later on in the bible that there was no such thing as a perfect man. Meaning, no.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 - Hi! nittpicking is possibly the right term I think. Blameless in the eyes of God (having been forgiven) and blameless entirely are two different meanings of the same word.
Back to the point I questioned. Including scriptural knowledge of God and of the situation it is more probable that the world would have been much worse.
Interesting thoughts reference your babies comments so please give me a moment to type before responding.
FINTY79 1 year ago
@FINTY79
"of the situation it is more probable that the world would have been much worse."
Again, we cannot say that. We are given a very vague retrospect of what happens. We are actually given very little specifics. Furthermore, the Biblical God needs not much of a reason to call people vile and evil and order them killed for it, simply being a pagan, nonbeliever, or desserter of the faith was enough to allow that. As such, any henceforth argument is ultimately an argument from ignorance.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 - We can say that given the scriptural knowledge of God. Just, fair, mercifull etc.
FINTY79 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FINTY79
"We can say that given the scriptural knowledge of God. Just, fair, mercifull etc. "
Ahh, he most certainly is in certain parts of the bible. However, in other parts of the bible he is also...well...for lack of a better word a prick. The biblical God seems to fluctuate between the two. At times merciful and even kind and fair and just. At other times, however, he also makes extremely vulgar and evil comments.
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 - have you looked at that chronolgically. As the covenants change so does the way in which God seeks vengence etc (he is also vengeful as you know). As does the way sin is attoned for etc.
FINTY79 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FINTY79
"have you looked at that chronolgically."
Yes I have.
"As the covenants change so does the way in which God seeks vengence, etc."
Yes, this is true (I honestly have a problem with this as it also implies inuniversality). But many of these acts are also not acts of vengence per se. They are more like acts of favoritism or to pay off his people (such as the various genocides and ethnocides occupying Cannan).
tskasa1 1 year ago
@tskasa1 - (covenants) possibly, but history has shown, many cases of acts such as killing babies as sacrifice to fertility gods in these nations histories. Which is clearly multi tasking. Vengence, and settling his ppl. He also tells the hebrews not to attack certain people. Long time ago, hard to know too much. but again this is a question of opinion of God.
FINTY79 1 year ago