Whenever a body of data (fine-tuning) is much more surprising under one hypothesis (atheism) than another (theism), the data counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which it is least surprising. A life-permitting universe further provides strong evidence of theism over the "brute fact hypothesis" (the universe has to be like this for life to exist). It should also be said that science provides just one aspect of evidence for theism, alone it's not being used as proof beyond ANY doubt
a Political Analogy:Your choice is between candidate A & B.A is analogous to God & B to the non-theistic hypothesis. People have had doubts about both candidate A and B. (Analogous to situation before evidence of fine-tuning).
New and serious problems come to light with candidate B – e.g., strong evidence of lying and fraud. (Analogous to the new evidence of fine-tuning.) u choose A since the fine-tuning evidence shows B is way more implausible than we might have previously thought.
The God of the Gaps retort: There is no claim being made that theism is a scientific hypothesis.Rather, it is a metaphysical hypothesis. Scientific explanations always invoke laws and initial conditions, but they cannot themselves explain why the most fundamental laws and initial conditions exist & have the values they do. One must either accept these as a brute fact or offer another non-scientific or metaphysical kind of explanation. Why & for what purpose Vs meaningless & blind chance.
“Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are rare, &even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them. Atheist Geoffrey Burbidge, of the University of California, complains "my fellow astronomers are rushing off to join ‘the 1st Church of Christ of the Big Bang"
“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There's no conflict between science& religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery" JTaylor, Nobel Prize in physics.
Ultimate chaos is the logical result of blind forces, mindless processes & chance. It is a science ender. On the other hand, if the universe is orderly, predictable, knowable or as Einstein put it, “comprehensible “it exudes intelligence. If there is not design that is intelligible, there is no possibility for science of any kind. We don’t get unintelligible intelligibility. "It is amazing how fiercely atheists oppose intelligence when the design inference is so overwhelming." Dr. S Meyer
“Beginning in the 1960s, scientists began to notice a strange connection among a number of coincidences in physics. It turns out that many mysterious values and relationships in physics could be explained by one overriding fact: Such values had been necessary for the creation of life. The physicist Robert Dicke was the first to draw attention to this relationship.The scientist John Wheeler, a prestigious practitioners of cosmology, became interested in the idea in the 1960s. cont'd
Then, at Wheeler’s urging, Cambridge University astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter presented the observation in full-blown form at the Copernican Festivities (celebrating the 500th birthday of Nicolaus Copernicus).”
Carter coined the term “anthropic principle” (also sometimes referred to as “anthropic fine tuning”) to describe this concept.Anthropic fine-tuning is a big topic that has been explored extensively, but the basic idea is easy to grasp.
@ParadoxEternal "Not only are all the conditions for any living being to exist on a knife-edge but the universe itself is on a knife-edge" PC Davies agnostic astrophysicist.
The problem isn’t about lack of evidence for design but simply a suppression or wilful neglect of the evidence. It may be possible for a hardened sceptic to look down upon the evil & suffering on earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.
Let's review the science again: "In order for life to exist ANYWHERE in the universe, the force of gravity must be 1x10 to the 40th power times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. It’s essential that the force of gravity be incredibly weak compared to the other three forces of physics." “If the rate of expansion 1 sec after the
big bang had been smaller by even 1 part in10 to 120th power, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” So chance or design?
Correct answer: We don't know, nor do we know if those are the only options. I've suggested at least one alternative that you've not acknowledged. And that's not even including the multiverse hypothesis which, while it has no supportive evidence, has not been falsified either (just like your god hypothesis).
@BailiffQuimby Consider a hypothetical:- imagine physicists discovering a TOE saying all these so called independent constants & preconditions had to be the values they are by some version of "physical necessity". The chance of them NOT having these values is only 1 x 10 to120th power. Would I be right in saying well "we still dont know" for certain. it could still be remotely possible that a Designer did it, ok? This is the hopelessly absurd position that atheism is now taking..
The multiverse theory(s) r popular among some atheists to refute the design argument. Some fail to see the big difference between actual physics & hypothetical models. Those who embrace these models have just been misled, largely by mistaking the maths used to describe reality, as actual reality itself. The problem is one of conceptual distinction which is why the Philosophy of Science is such an important subject. But dont tell Hawking who wants to abandon it in pursuit of knowledge
@Gericho49 "Some fail to see the big difference between actual physics & hypothetical models."
This is likely true. But I have demonstrated that I do not fail to understand this distinction.
"The problem is one of conceptual distinction which is why the Philosophy of Science is such an important subject."
There's a difference between traditional philosophy, which is primarily bulls***, and "philosophy of science," understanding how scientific methodology relates to our conclusions.
@BailiffQuimby "There's a difference between traditional philosophy, which is primarily bulls*** "
If ur going to demean the 1000s of professors & students since Plato et al who have made the subject their life's work, u will need more than an unsubstantiated opinion & insults.
Please indicate with examples otherwise we would have to conclude u just ridicule facts that are inconvenient to your ideology.
@Gericho49 "imagine physicists discovering a TOE saying all these so called independent constants & preconditions had to be the values they are by some version of "physical necessity".
It's an interest hypothetical, but a false analogy. First, saying that a 1 part in 10^120 change would've re-collapsed the universe is not the same as saying there's only a 1 in 10^120 chance that the universe could have formed. Secondly, it ignores your false dichotomy of chance vs. design...
@BailiffQuimby false analogy?" u need to check what an analogy is, friend! A different explanation for an observed fact is NOT an analogy. Moreover, "the universe would have almost certainly formed/collapsed" is NOT my conclusion. What part of ( Prof. R Collins: “The constants of of physics are balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur.... change one constant -not only no life but no universe, .) DO U NOT UNDERSTAND?
:It is not the same as saying .. the universe could have formed"
The only rational explanation for why ALL these independent constants have the knife-edge values is by choice- a profoundly omniscient Designer! An atheist once said to me the chance of the universe being like it is, is 1:1. As u say 100%, I totally agree b/c it was created that way. The emergence of a life permitting world is made possible if not inevitable by the highly complex laws&constants builtin to the very fabric of nature
@Gericho49 "The only rational explanation for why ALL these independent constants have the knife-edge values is by choice- a profoundly omniscient Designer!"
Correction: The only explanation you can think of for why these constants (they're not all independent, btw) have their current values is a profoundly omniscient designer. The explanation is not rational, nor can you demonstrate that it is the only one.
@BailiffQuimby "The only explanation you can think of for why these constants..."
Correction: I have listed 3 explanations(didnt watch the video did u?) Science is about drawing hypothesis & making plausible predictions. No scientist I know of, has come up with a materiatistic or natural explanation. Teleological argument is one of many for God's existence. Paradoxically!the number of deniers hopelessly obessessed with trying to prove (to themselves) there is no God is another.
@Gericho49 "u need to check what an analogy is, friend!"
Last I checked, it was a comparison between two situations illustrating a similar relationship. Like if you compared my denials of your chance vs. design argument to your hypothetical denial, of physical necessity, were it proven.
"Moreover, "the universe would have almost certainly formed/collapsed" is NOT my conclusion."
No, your conclusion is "...therefore there's a god." That's the part I'm objecting to.
@BailiffQuimby "Last I checked, it was a comparison between two situations illustrating a similar relationship"
Please explain how two competing explanations for the SAME scientific observation is an analogy?.
Analogies are attempts to transfer information from one subject to a DIFFERENT subject. Come on Buffy, admit that u goofed on this one! We all make mistakes only closedminded egotists wont admit it! I suspect u may be in the latter category.
@Gericho49 "What part of ( Prof. R Collins: “The constants of of physics are balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur.... change one constant -not only no life but no universe, .) DO U NOT UNDERSTAND?"
I understand all of it, and have demonstrated that I understand all of it. All I'm saying is that your conclusion: "therefore god" is not a logical syllogism to this. It's a preconception that you're using to fill in an unknown.
For an argument to be valid it just.has to be more plausible than the negative. Even if science discovers a "Fundamental law" to account for fine-tuning&design it just moves the fine-tuning up one level, to that of the postulated physical law itself.
Of all the abstract laws and parameters of physics that conceivably could have been logically necessary, it seems highly improbable that it would be those that are life-permitting.
Consider quantum physicist John Polkinghorne "there are SIX apparently fundamental constraints in nature whose values have to be very close to their presently observed values if any intelligent, carbon-based life is to come into being anywhere in the universe. In some cases these values have to be astonishingly accurate: e.g, lambda, the expansion rate of the universe in relativity, has to be a factor of 10 to the 120th power smaller than such an explanation would have considered natural."
The atheist has 3 choices he can say 1. "the universe just is & needs no explanation, 2. "accept that it may "appear" fine-tuned but then look for a purely natural explanation like chance (at unimaginable odds), 3. he can dream up theories about infinite universes, one of which has to be like ours. The "non option" is to accept that mindless matter couldnt create a rationally intelligible universe b/c that would destroy his blind faith in "scientism" that everything is physical matter &energy.
@Gericho49 regardless of any logical inconsistencies that arise with it. I've never claimed that a god doesn't exist. I'm just saying you can't assume one does just to answer a question that we lack the evidence to answer with any certainty. Moreover, I think deep down you know this is true, as you present yourself as a fairly intelligent guy - but your attachment to your god answer and the idea of being right in this debate is much more important than your regard for truth.
@BailiffQuimby " I've never claimed that a god doesn't exist"
I think one of the most compelling arguments paradoxically is that man cannot live without God. There are many different worldviews that most of us can live in blissful ignorance of, but God as the likely source of ultimate meaning & reality is not one of them. Growing up In a family of 8 my life was a profoundly religious experience, long before I ever became a senior government scientist to marvel in awe at His methodology.
@BailiffQuimby "I've been doing a great job of it for 34 years"
Perhaps the millions of deniers in cyberspace hopelessly obsessed with trying to give their meaningless lives(Russell's claim not mine) some purpose, debating the non-existence of a transcendent reality that paradoxically gives them meaning hope & destiny might disagree with you.
“There are those who have seen sufficient evidence but suppress the truth in unrighteousness…They exchange the truth for a lie.” Romans Chap.1
I acknowledged this in my first post. That is why I equated it with your god hypothesis. No demonstrable evidence.
"2) contradict each other"
And your definition of god doesn't contradict itself? Everything was created by a being - the being is part of 'everything'. Obviously, if either hypothesis it true, then these contradictions would be resolved in any of a number of ways, likely with a simple matter of semantics. Still no different than your God hypothesis.
@BailiffQuimby I tore ur "who designed the designer" to threads & no response.
1) u admit there's zero, zip zitch evidence for multiverses & dare me to prove them false.
2) u admit that these fanciful theories r contradicting but then throw in a red herring about the definition of God? How u conclude that from God as Creator , source & the essence of all being is beyond me. Sorry but matter cant be eternal in the past. Infinity is no where to be found in reality (D. Hilbert)
@Gericho49 "I tore ur "who designed the designer" to threads & no response."
You didn't tear anything to anything. You tried to subvert the argument by defining your god to be the one exception to a rule you claim applies to everything else in existence. And I did respond. I said you can't define god into existence.
@BailiffQuimby ur bigotry &bias clouds ur judgment. Ur silly red redding comeback has nothing to do with the design argument. Watch the video p1) all the evidence points to fine-tuning p2 the 3 explanations are a)chance b)physical necessity or 3)design. All science is based on cause & effect. There can only be one uncaused cause. That cause must be eternal & exist apart from the effect. There cant be "infinite regression of past finite physical events" conclusion time was created: Gen 1:1
@Gericho49 "u admit there's zero, zip zitch evidence for multiverses & dare me to prove them false."
No, I said that there being no evidence for multiverses makes them equivalent to your god hypothesis. Please read what I type, and not what you imagine that I type. Thank you.
@BailiffQuimby I waste my time arguing with a close minded bigot. The problem isn’t about lack of evidence for design but simply ur suppression & wilful neglect of the evidence. There is an abundance of scientific evidence for fine-tuning (none of which u've challenged) unlike multiverse theories which is pure fantasy. The closeminded atheist demands a God-free universe so he cant admit to design b/c the logical & most plausible explanation is for a Designer.
Baffy, I cant make u accept the citations of the most eminent scientists (including atheists agnostics) for fine-tuning. But dont try to claim they are arguments from authority.
Yes I do know what the latter is:
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors: 1.The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject. 2.A consensus exists among legitimate experts on that subject.
Please explain what evidence & conclusions I have presented that have been challenged by other experts
@Gericho49 "u admit that these fanciful theories r contradicting but then throw in a red herring about the definition of God?"
No red herring. Your definition of god is self-contradictory. That doesn't mean he is impossible - just that if he exists, we have to refine our definition. Same with your complaints about the contradictions between multiverses.
@BailiffQuimby "Your definition of god is self-contradictory." What definition of God might that be?
If u want to believe in an infinite regression of past finite physical events dont let logic or modern cosmology get in your way. u then contradict urself by suggesting matter is finite in the past. What then created all matter time & space. Hawking recently said "laws like gravity" did. 1. Where do abstract laws come from? 2. laws are prescripture & cant cause anything, right?
@BailiffQuimby How is belief in a diety who "consciously created the universe with intent &design" be "self-contradictory"? Any semi-literate ape would be capable of a more intelligent rebuttal than that!
Even worse is to suggest that God is "past finite physical event" Baffy, matter cant be eternal but if something exists now something (non-matter) must have always existed. It's pointless arguing with a baffoon. Please go back to the dark dungeons of cyberspace where all gods of atheism gather.
@BailiffQuimby So this is your best knockdown intellectual "God slayer". “If the universe is designed then who designed the Designer”
In trying to disprove the existence of God, this self-contradictory question has to assume there is at least one god to deny any god exists. Since God by definition is the eternal uncaused cause, then created or “designed” gods is an oxymoron. Most importantly, one doesnt need to know the nature of a designer to recognize an object or event as designed
Consider a depot of unknown machinery, a Mars mission might discover. Would we have to know the name or nature of who put it there? Would we have to know what the machinery actually does to differentiate it from a pile of rocks or can we recognise it as designed & actually make the connection? Only an argument from ignorance would say, "let's wait for a naturalistic explanation OR "it just is" OR in a zillion universe we might expect to find one just like it. Such is the blind faith of atheism.
u claimed I didnt consider the "multiverse" theory(s). So I replied that if u actually watch my video u'll see that I had. Clearly u hadnt watched the video & are now being totally dishonest! Furthermore u now say I hadnt rebutted those hypothetical theories. But I listed 6 problems none of which u have challenged nor any of the conclusions by Davies, Hawking. But of course quoting scientists who should know is "an argument from authority" Damn right they are! Isnt evolution such a case?
@Gericho49 "nor any of the conclusions by Davies, Hawking."
Authority again. And Hawking's conclusions weren't that the universe required a designer. You just added that in. In fact, Hawking has recently declared the exact opposite - that there is no need to invoke anything supernatural to explain the universe in his latest book. I assume you already knew that and just quote-mined what you wanted?
"Hawking's conclusions weren't that the universe required a designer. You just added that in"
Actually no I added in the conclusions of numerous award winning scientists! What do u think Hawking meant by "monkeys sitting at typewriters" analogy? In Hawkings 1st book "A Brief History of Time" he declared that the discovery of a unified theory of physics could help us to “know the mind of God.” His latest book has been severely criticised by Roger Penrose, his former coworker.
@Gericho49 "His latest book has been severely criticised by Roger Penrose, his former "
Was there justification behind the criticism? Why not try getting to the actual arguments and not just relying on famous scientists' names? What's actually wrong with Hawking's conclusions from his new book?
@BailiffQuimby There's a YT video of Roger Penrose Debunking Stephen Hawkings' New Book The Grand Design. Go listen but I know u wont!
As a self-proclaimed expert of logical argumention u probably wont find a problem with his claim that "science has replaced philosophy in the quest for knowledge."
If ur going to keep repeat the same old meaningless unsubstantiated claims about lack of evidence, arguments from authority etc, be prepared to be blocked in future
No faith is required to reject a belief. Faith is only required to accept one without evidence. And I'm not doing that. Accusing atheism of requiring faith is to demonstrate that you don't understand what atheism is. I'm not claiming that there are no gods. I'm just saying you haven't convinced me that a god exists. Nothing more than that.
@BailiffQuimby Pardon? Atheism is absolute blind faith in "naturalism" Its like what Prof. Peter Atkins claims "all questions worth asking can or will be answered by science" = "scientism". Is this really ur belief too? Perhaps u also agree with him when he said "why questions are silly questions."? Then why are u here asking why should I believe in God. Do u also believe the philosophical claim from Hawking who said, "science has replaced philosophy in the quests for knowledge"?
@Gericho49 "Do u also believe the philosophical claim from Hawking who said, "science has replaced philosophy in the quests for knowledge"?"
I'll be honest with you, I don't believe raw philosophy without a scientific basis has any merit at all. Are we all brains in a jar? It's possible. But who cares? The universe acts as if we are real people being and doing exactly what we appear to be being and doing. So the most practical belief is that this is the case.
@Gericho49 "So this is your best knockdown intellectual "God slayer". “If the universe is designed then who designed the Designer”"
Nope. My best knockdown is that there is no demonstrable evidence.
"In trying to disprove the existence of God"
...which I'm not actually trying to do. I'm just saying that your argument FOR god is flawed. Classic argument from ignorance. We don't know how something happened, so it must have been god.
@BailiffQuimby Nice non-response to my total dismantling of your "who designed the designer" rubbish Now we're back to where u started "there's is no evidence". What demonstrable evidence for God whould u expect?- a lifeless universe of noxious gases & bind forces or one exquisitely designed, obeying the most absurdly complex immutable laws & math formulae? If the universe has no purpose how are u (as a absurdly unlikely cosmic accident) able to say it has no purpose?
@Gericho49 "Since God by definition is the eternal uncaused cause..."
by a definition that we wrote. You can't define something into existence.
"then created or “designed” gods is an oxymoron."
Okay, then I am defining the universe as "everything which exists." By that definition, if your god exists, then it's part of the universe, and therefore can't have created it from nothing. See the problem with this kind of argument?
@BailiffQuimby "I am defining the universe as "everything which exists"
You can define it as anything u like. Perhaps some supporting evidence might help ur cause or would that be an argument from authority? How could an immaterial reality be part of PHYSICAL matter? Likewise, where would I find a molecule of hope, wisdom truth, joy hatred or love? Where in the universe would I find the universal immaterial laws of science?
For God's sake give up while ur not beyond redemption.
CS Lewis made an astute observation that an openminded sceptic may be briefly swayed by a good theological argument for God's existence. But what will deeply trouble the miltant atheist is the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion that look to theistic rather than naturalistic explanations from their science. “Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming rare & even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them." Atheist cosmologist Geoffrey Burbidge,
Can I suggest those who want to comment on this video, please actually watch it & try to understand the process that has lead to the overwhelming scientific consensus that our universe is indeed fined tuned and on a "knife edge". Then ask yourself what is the most plausable explanation for that design. Please peruse the questions & answers for any queries you may have & keep any further comments relevant to the topic under discussion.
To reword your request of commenters: Please blindly accept every claim in my video, then presume that the universe is designed, and then conclude that a god must exist. Isn't that the exact opposite of how science works?
@BailiffQuimby This is how science works = My arguments are based on the observations & conclusions of the most eminent scientists today.They REJECT chance & physical necessity I'm asking u to refute THEIR findings but u cant. If supremo atheist Dawkins says "the greatest challenge facing scientists today is to explain the "apparent" design in the universe" then I'm assuming NOTHING! Please give examples of where the video quotes are misconstrued or misinterpretated?
Prof.Frank Tipler ( Math’ Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some 20years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never imagined that one day I would be writing a book to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I've been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
@BailiffQuimby I have no idea what reply u are referring to. If your comment is sincere & relevant to the context of this video, I have no problem with that. What I do not tolerate are unsubstantiated & unsupported opinions, diatribes or insults that show the poster has not even bothered to view let alone understand the video. If u want to challenge the conclusions of current cosmology & astrophysicists, I await with baited breath.
cont'd e.g. Prof. Paul Davies, theoretical physicist: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.' "
2. And from John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
Please consider the 3 possible explanations: chance, physical necessity or design. Which one suggests our universe is a "put-up job"?
S.Hawking in this video concludes that the rate of expansion after the big Bang had to be extraordinary near the value it is, for galaxies & stars to form & maintain their orbits. Other astrophysicists have calculated this is equivalent to shooting a dart across the universe & hitting a target the size of a dime.Atheists must accept on blind faith that all these independent constants & values came about by chance or believe in a T.O.E will eventually be found. Which is it, design or luck?
@emailpobox666 Then u believe in an infinite past? Hilbert, one of the greatest mathemeticians of the 20th century said, “The infinite,as in infinite past time is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite…is solely that of an idea…”
In 2003, physicists Vilenkin, Borde, and Guth corroborated to formulate a proof that demonstrates that infinite past time is not feasible.
@Gericho49 There are theories of time that extend into multiple dimensions . You look at time as a line they see it as a bubble. Who is right.? I don't know My son doesn't kn ow and he's an asrophysicist. But I'm not the one trying to prove a magic man created the uiverse am I
The facts that a biased ideology will want to deny is that the consensus of modern science supports design & fine-tuning, a finite past ( from cosmology & philosophical absurdity of an infinite past), the need for an uncaused 1st cause and most likely a life they dont want to be accountable. But of course the universe just is like it is, otherwise we would be here to talk about. Then they have to explain why the God question haunts their every waking moment.
@Gericho49 "The facts that a biased ideology will want to deny is that the consensus of modern science supports design & fine-tuning, a finite past " Arguemtn from authority because you wish not to address the answers i gave in response to your questions
@Gericho49 By the way there are theories of time that extend into multiple dimensions. So rather than time being a line it's a bubble. I know your precious "proofs" hep you justify your faith . Accept that in the end it's ALL FAITH
@emailpobox666 There are theories about zillions of universes as well as unicorns to explain the beauty & wonder of our exquisitely designed corner of the world we find ourselves in. It's extremely easy to deal in fanciful hypothetical events, much more difficult to explain experimentally testible ones. It's the blind faith that atheists resort to in the form of conflicting hypotheticals to explain away the unexplainable, that is so tragic, its almost funny.
@emailpobox666 Ah so is that an admission that we have at least one universe that is exquisitely fined tuned that cannt be explained by naturalism? I'm glad the overwhelming scientific evidence has finally penetrated those firing neurons. Atheists hypocritically demand evidence but are forced to invent at least 9 conflicting multiverse theories to appease their biased ideology based on pure fantasy. I only need one observable, existing universe to explain Design.
Science was supposed to bury God b/c it was supposedly based on reason and facts. Now we have atheism resorting to blind faith in hypothetical events and theism quoting science to explain God. Wonderful isnt it!
"The more I penetrate science the more I believe in God" Albert Einstein..Indeed it is!
@emailpobox666 In my case, I always find arguments from authority particularly compelling especially when it reflects the consensus of current scientific research.
On the same basis a small mind or "pobox" should reject the theory of evolution no? Oh I forgot that may actually agree with your biased ideology. Unless u try to account for all the abstract laws built in to the very fabric of nature that ensures that evolution is not a mistake?
The quote from Charles Darwin at 3:56 gives the impression that he ( as he says) "deserves to be called a Theist". However when you read the very next paragraph ( that you have not added), he quite clearly and incontrovertably states the exact opposite. This is quote mining of the highest order Gericho.
@bonnie43uk Its NOT quote minging at all. Darwin is one of many scientist I quoted who concluded from evidence: ".....extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity." Whether he meant to say "I deserve to be called a theist" and then detracted is irrelevant. No doubt he has had time to think about it since!
If u have watched ALL the video & could only criticise a 150 yr old quote, maybe I am getting thru. What I have done in this video is look at ALL the evidence and the 3 possible explanations (hardly begging the question). Search as I may, the best atheism can come up with is "The universe just is.." and "of course the universe is fined-tuned, we wouldnt be here if it wasnt. If those explanations satisfy u, then no more needs to be said. See next vid' Mind/matter problem
@emailpobox666 Not at all, perhaps u just read the title and wrote your comment. Many sceptics do! Please listen to all the quotes especially from several agnostic scientists who conclude "the evidence for fine-tuning is overwhelming" Even atheist numero uno Richard Dawkins concedes the "universe appears designed". Only blind faith in science called "scientism" would assume there may someday be a purely naturalistic explanation. "Science of the Gaps" perhaps?
@Gericho49 Dude you have to make the assumption that the purpose/goal of the universe is life then you say that life wouldn't exist if it wasn't fine tuned. Begging the question if I ever heard it
@emailpobox666 Pardon? I have assumed NOTHING. Can I suggest u actually watch the video this time, particular the statement "what the fine-tuning argument is NOT claiming" which starts at 0.26 seconds
@emailpobox666 Please tell me what I have assumed in this argument:
p1 Modern science (not me) has deduced there are too many pre-conditions & independent physical constants that have to be the values they are for the universe to exist in anything like its present state.
p2 Those values are extremely unlikely to come about by chance or necessity
@Gericho49 pre-conditions assume there are conditions ."those values are extremely unlikely to come about by chance or necessity" You have nothing to compare this universe to so are incapable of makig this statemnet"our finite universe exudes intelligibility & design." No it does not it is obvious only because the way the human mind works seeking patternes even when theyr aren't any"
@emailpobox666 By ur own admission, u "dont give a crap" what Nobelists & eminent scientists conclude ("theyre just arguments from authority") about the absurdly narrow range, the 4 major physical constants need to be. Since u reject the conclusions of Einstein, LaMaitre, Penzias, Smoot, Crick, Davies. Plank, Shrodinger, Smoot, Crick Collins & numerous others its pointless trying to argue with a closeminded bigot. Please stick to atheism 101 for Dummies.
@emailpobox666 "pre-conditions assume there are conditions" Can u really think of anything that comes into existence that doesnt requires a cause or pre-conditions to define that existence? Why u cant accept the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion is obvious b/c of your closeminded, biased ideology! Funny how science was supposed to bury God a100yrs ago, but now declares "the glory of God in the things he has made, so that they are without excuse." Rom 1:20
@emailpobox666 I listed not 1 but 3 possible explanations.NO scientist I know of, has come out in support of chance or physical necessity. You reject the third option of design b/c that implies an actual designer. And the best u can do now is throw in the red herring of "which designer"? What about "who designed the designer of that designer" Created gods is an oxymoron. There can only be 1 ETERNAL, uncaused cause who created existence from non-existence. Cant deal with that?
@Gericho49 the fine tuning arguemnt begs the question and assumes that the universe was designed to produced life and then goes on to use this assumption to say if anythign was different the universe would not porduce life it then slaps a MADE IN GOD stiker on it
Making claims without supporting evidence is what I've come to expect, Should I take ur opinion or the conclusions of some of the brillant scientific minds today"
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. . . The impression of design is overwhelming.” –Physicist Paul Davies, mentioned previously. If anyone wants to support chance or necessity, please do!
For those actually wanting an extensive review of Teleogical debate from all sides I recommend a somwhat technical paper by Prof. Robin Collins W W W . commonsenseatheism . com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf
@Chuck1863 Ah, the old schoolboy jibe? Sorry created gods is an oxymoron. God by definition is the ETERNAL 1st cause & prime mover, the one who creates existence from non-existence, "man from the dust of the earth" & made the universe rationally intelligible. Any being greater than God would itself be God. The male ego replaces God creating his own idols like power, prestige, sex gambling, porn sport drugs etc. And yes I too dont believe in any of the created gods that u do or dont believe in.
@Gericho49 Since God looks designed but was not designed, it's obvious that not everything that looks designed actually was designed. The universe might be another such example, make God unnecessary.
@Chuck1863 Well that hypothesis fails on several accounts.
1) the universe is not infinite in the past (BB theory) 2) even fanciful multiverse theories fail on the absurdity of an infinite regression of past finite events or causes . 3) every effect needs a cause. & all things that come into existence need a cause outside of the effect
4.there must be an ultimate uncaused 1st cause & eternal reality that brought all time, matter & space into existence (Hawking/Penrose theorem)
At its core, the teleological argument is a huge argument from ignorance though. It goes to elaborate lengths to make the statement "I have no idea how this happened, therefore my pet religion is true". This is perhaps especially astonishing given that everything that's called "fine tuning" seems to be nothing more than various forms of equilibrium.
@Gnomefro Please actually watch the video for a change, rather then troll for "religious topics" and drop banal comments without challenging the evidence. In the video I quote many atheists, agnostics & philosophers who all agree that the universe appears designed.The question is, is it by chance, physical necessity or design itself? Also give a scholarly citation on equilibrium so that ur opinions are more substantive than merely a rejection of facts that are inconvenient to your ideology.
The last study had a mere 7% theists among the elite scientists of the US. This really is an astonishing figure and almost an inverse of the population at large. Not that this means that scientists are right, but it does mean that there is no force driving scientists to theism. If anything, the relationship must be in the opposite direction
@Gnomefro Wrong !!! Spreading lies does nothing for your credability. Unlike the very selective study done by an all atheist NAS board in 1997, the LATEST study According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year (2011), a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not
Moreover in 2007 Elaine Ecklund, and Christopher Scheitle questioned 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology from 21 elite U.S. research universities.(unlike the NAS survey) more than 75% of professors contacted actually completed the survey. Only 31.2% expressed atheism & only 15% thought that science and religion were always in conflict. About half expressed some form of religious affiliation
@Gericho49 "a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe..."
Disregarding the whole context of this line of reasoning being fallacy of argument from authority, I would add in that, while your statistic may be accurate regarding all scientists, you will find lower and lower percentages of believers as you get into the more physical scientists. ie: the more you know about the intricate workings that the teleological argument rely on, the less likely you are to believe.
@BailiffQuimby On that reasoning, are the 31.2% arguing from authority when they claim to believe in atheism.
The E&S survey revealed an interesting stat, that those who said they did not believe in God did so, not b/c of their science, but for family & social (lifestyle?) reasons.
Though I have none, If u find any scholarly citations that the evidence shows the universe is NOT fine-tuned I'm happy to listen. Unsubstantiated opinions are cheap however, & prove nothing.
@Gericho49 "On that reasoning, are the 31.2% arguing from authority when they claim to believe in atheism."
I can't speak for other atheists and their motives. But I can tell you that one doesn't "believe in atheism". Atheism is the rejection of a belief, not a belief itself. You may be genuinely confused here, so I'll explain. An atheist does not have a belief that no gods exist (some do, but that's beyond the scope of atheism).... TBC
@BailiffQuimby We all have worldviews even atheists. Theyre based on what we DO believe not what we dont. It's about how we make sense of this world, why we're here asking if there's a purpose.to life & the universe. Such questions says Nobelist, Sir Peter Medawar are metaphysical & no advancement of science are capable of answering. Thats why throwing in red herrings about fairies or unicorns are such trivial nonsense. LIkewise for "who designed the designer"
Yes, but a worldview is not defined by a lack of belief in a god, or lack of belief in leprechauns or any other mythical creatures. The closest you might get is, for example, many atheists are also skeptics, and skepticism might be a basis for a worldview.
@BailiffQuimby A worldview is defined as how we make sense of our world & our place in it. It is about how we view or understand ultimate reality. Atheists attempt to make sense of human nature, consciousness, morality, meaning & destiny (ontological questions) in terms of a bunch of selfish genes whose sole purpose is procreation.
See my video the soul as the source & essence of human nature & identity.
@Gericho49 "Such questions says Nobelist, Sir Peter Medawar are metaphysical & no advancement of science are capable of answering. "
...which would lead me to the conclusion that they are unanswerable questions. If science can't confirm a philosophical answer as correct, how else would you ever confirm it as correct? (I've a rather sour taste for philosophy in general, forgive me if that's too apparent)
@BailiffQuimby "Sour taste" indeed! I suggest u google "scientism" u may well agree with Hawking who unwittingly made a philosophical claim that "science has replaced philosophy in the quest for knowledge."
No intrinsic difference" do u ever get any sleep, debating the non-existence of fairies too?
Sorry if I dont have endless hours perusing & replying to the endless questions that obssessed atheists have about a God for which there is paradoxically no evidence!
@Gericho49 ... An atheist simply does not agree with your claim that a god DOES exist. That means he think that since there's no evidence, he will reserve belief until evidence exists. In other words, atheism is the claim, "I don't think a god exists, since there is no evidence for one," rather than the claim "I know that no gods exist."... TBC
@BailiffQuimby If an atheist wants to claim "there is simply no evidence" then he may just want to refute the consensus of modern science which infers that the "evidence for fine-tuning is overwhelming." It is no good saying its "an argument from authority" without providing verifiable citations from scientists who conclude the opposite..
All ur doing is repeating the same old phrase "we have nothing to prove" obviously, b/c naturalism or materialism are metaphysical questions
@Gericho49 "If an atheist wants to claim "there is simply no evidence" then he may just want to refute the consensus of modern science which infers that the "evidence for fine-tuning is overwhelming.""
Umm, that's not a scientific consensus. There is a small minority of physical scientists who believe that the universe must have been fine-tuned. I wouldn't refute a commonly accepted scientific fact without further examining the evidence myself.
@BailiffQuimby All I ask is name one astrophysicist or cosmologist who concludes that the preconditions of the BB & all the independent physical constants came about by chance or physical necessity? Where do all the ABSTRACT, immutable, absurdly complex laws of science & math come from if not from an even greater source of ultimate intelligence?
@Gericho49 2) The premise that the constants are fine-tuned requires that there be a certain range of values these constants could have had in the first place, which at the moment we have no way of concluding. Their current values might have been the only ones possible. 3) I'm sure you're familiar with multiverse-theory. And while there is no evidence supporting it, there's no evidence against it, making it at least as plausible if not moreso as your magical superbeing theory.
@BailiffQuimby "I'm sure you're familiar with multiverse-theory" Sometimes I just wonder what motivates the typical hardened sceptic who thinks he can make an informed comment on a video when he quite clearly hasnt watched it. A large segment of THIS video is dedicated to possible rebuttals, particularly the 9 "multiverse theories". There's no evidence to support unicorns either but that doesnt stop atheists from using it as a strawman to deny the plausability for God's existence.
"The premise that the constants are fine-tuned requires that there be a certain range of values these constants could have had in the first place, which at the moment WE have no way of concluding" Dont assume what supports ir biased ideology is what real scientists are saying . Again if u ever read modern cosmology like "A brief history of Time" u will see how exact Lambda has to be for the universe to exist at all.
@Gericho49 4) If a superbeing was responsible for fine-tuning the universe in such a way that it would birth life-supporting elements, and if that superbeing was omnipotent, as most people claim god is, then why shouldn't he have been able to do it in such a way that a significant percentage of it was life-supportive as opposed to the insanely small percentage that is? 5) Who fine-tuned the conditions of the universe (or wherever) for the creator to be able to exist?
@BailiffQuimby Again watch the video and be informed. Most of ur questions are answered there but hey, do I really care if u want to make silly comments as to what fine-tuning is actually NOT referring to?
@Gericho49 6) If the constants were NOT in their current place wherever your designer was before he designed our universe, then that means that these constants are not actually necessary for life to exist. 7) What is the probability that a god exists and fine-tuned the universe? If we can't put a number on this, then we can't claim it is more likely (or less likely) than the constants being as they are by chance.
@BailiffQuimby God's existence is either true or false. The possibility however, of OUR finite, observable universe having the physical constants it has, according to Stephen Hawking (oh yes, quote-mining again, I know) is so unbelievable, "it would be equivalent to a team of monkeys sitting at typewriters for as long as it takes to come up with a Shakespearian Sonnet" PC Davies says it's like throwing a dart across the universe at hitting a dime. Do u feel that lucky?
@Gericho49 ... It's the same way you feel about unicorns. While we can't disprove their existence, there's no reason to think they DO exist, so you do not believe in them. But you don't claim with any authority "No, they couldn't possibly exist anywhere at any time."
@BailiffQuimby Nice strawman! No one believes unicorns are eternal or created existence from non-existence, God is the uncaused cause, the source & essence of all being. Perhaps those who propose santa created all the abstract laws & physical constants that ensure our finite universe would be law-abiding & life-permitting are just as stupid as those who deny the need for an actual designer & Law Giver. Or do u debate the nonexistence of unicorns ad nauseum too?
@BailiffQuimby if u actually watched the video you will hear what the fine-tuning argument is NOTsaying, and one is that it has nothing to do with the weather on Pandora. Just listen to the science for once! Its about the initial conditions of the BB, the entrogy & cosmological constants. Its about all the independent laws of physics that allow galaxies to form & the 112 elements needed for carbon based life! But hey, dont let the facts stand in the way of your ignorance.
@Gericho49 The laws and constants might have to be close-to or precisely what they are to maintain and sustain a universe for a period of time. I can accept that. But I think it is a serious argument from ignorance fallacy to suggest that the only way these conditions could have arisen is due to an intelligence. Who says those constants and laws COULD have been any other way? And if they could have been different, why is the only way to reach the values they did an intelligence?
The teleological argument has a huge issue with the fact that we have no clue how many trials are involved or how the universe could vary.
It's probably also worth mentioning that what this video is insinuating, that there is some huge revival of theism among scientists due to observing nature - is simply false. Google "leading scientists still reject God" for a nature article showing a study repeated 3 times in the last century among NAS members, showing a huge shift towards personal nonbelief
@Gnomefro The teleological argument has NO issue with how many universes need to be invented to deny the obvious design & fine-tuning we find ouselves in. The 9 highly hypothetical if not fanciful multiverse theories would be laughed out of town if they came out of a religious text.
P1. The universal acceptance of fine-tuning is compatible & even predictable within a theistic worldview.
P2. The existence of fine-tuning is very improbable under an atheistic single-universe hypothesis.
P3: to counter chance, the atheist must fantasize about infinite hypothetical past universes (for which there is no evidence or likely to be)
Conclusion Theism needs only to point to current cosmology to infer fine-tuning and is by far, the more plausible explanation than atheism.
Gericho49 14 hours ago
Whenever a body of data (fine-tuning) is much more surprising under one hypothesis (atheism) than another (theism), the data counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis under which it is least surprising. A life-permitting universe further provides strong evidence of theism over the "brute fact hypothesis" (the universe has to be like this for life to exist). It should also be said that science provides just one aspect of evidence for theism, alone it's not being used as proof beyond ANY doubt
Gericho49 13 hours ago
a Political Analogy:Your choice is between candidate A & B.A is analogous to God & B to the non-theistic hypothesis. People have had doubts about both candidate A and B. (Analogous to situation before evidence of fine-tuning).
New and serious problems come to light with candidate B – e.g., strong evidence of lying and fraud. (Analogous to the new evidence of fine-tuning.) u choose A since the fine-tuning evidence shows B is way more implausible than we might have previously thought.
Gericho49 13 hours ago
The God of the Gaps retort: There is no claim being made that theism is a scientific hypothesis.Rather, it is a metaphysical hypothesis. Scientific explanations always invoke laws and initial conditions, but they cannot themselves explain why the most fundamental laws and initial conditions exist & have the values they do. One must either accept these as a brute fact or offer another non-scientific or metaphysical kind of explanation. Why & for what purpose Vs meaningless & blind chance.
Gericho49 13 hours ago
“Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are rare, &even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them. Atheist Geoffrey Burbidge, of the University of California, complains "my fellow astronomers are rushing off to join ‘the 1st Church of Christ of the Big Bang"
“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There's no conflict between science& religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery" JTaylor, Nobel Prize in physics.
Gericho49 2 weeks ago
Ultimate chaos is the logical result of blind forces, mindless processes & chance. It is a science ender. On the other hand, if the universe is orderly, predictable, knowable or as Einstein put it, “comprehensible “it exudes intelligence. If there is not design that is intelligible, there is no possibility for science of any kind. We don’t get unintelligible intelligibility. "It is amazing how fiercely atheists oppose intelligence when the design inference is so overwhelming." Dr. S Meyer
Gericho49 2 weeks ago
“Beginning in the 1960s, scientists began to notice a strange connection among a number of coincidences in physics. It turns out that many mysterious values and relationships in physics could be explained by one overriding fact: Such values had been necessary for the creation of life. The physicist Robert Dicke was the first to draw attention to this relationship.The scientist John Wheeler, a prestigious practitioners of cosmology, became interested in the idea in the 1960s. cont'd
Gericho49 1 week ago
Then, at Wheeler’s urging, Cambridge University astrophysicist and cosmologist Brandon Carter presented the observation in full-blown form at the Copernican Festivities (celebrating the 500th birthday of Nicolaus Copernicus).”
Carter coined the term “anthropic principle” (also sometimes referred to as “anthropic fine tuning”) to describe this concept.Anthropic fine-tuning is a big topic that has been explored extensively, but the basic idea is easy to grasp.
Gericho49 1 week ago
@ParadoxEternal "Not only are all the conditions for any living being to exist on a knife-edge but the universe itself is on a knife-edge" PC Davies agnostic astrophysicist.
The problem isn’t about lack of evidence for design but simply a suppression or wilful neglect of the evidence. It may be possible for a hardened sceptic to look down upon the evil & suffering on earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.
Gericho49 1 month ago
Let's review the science again: "In order for life to exist ANYWHERE in the universe, the force of gravity must be 1x10 to the 40th power times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. It’s essential that the force of gravity be incredibly weak compared to the other three forces of physics." “If the rate of expansion 1 sec after the
big bang had been smaller by even 1 part in10 to 120th power, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” So chance or design?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "So chance or design?"
Correct answer: We don't know, nor do we know if those are the only options. I've suggested at least one alternative that you've not acknowledged. And that's not even including the multiverse hypothesis which, while it has no supportive evidence, has not been falsified either (just like your god hypothesis).
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby Consider a hypothetical:- imagine physicists discovering a TOE saying all these so called independent constants & preconditions had to be the values they are by some version of "physical necessity". The chance of them NOT having these values is only 1 x 10 to120th power. Would I be right in saying well "we still dont know" for certain. it could still be remotely possible that a Designer did it, ok? This is the hopelessly absurd position that atheism is now taking..
Gericho49 1 month ago
The multiverse theory(s) r popular among some atheists to refute the design argument. Some fail to see the big difference between actual physics & hypothetical models. Those who embrace these models have just been misled, largely by mistaking the maths used to describe reality, as actual reality itself. The problem is one of conceptual distinction which is why the Philosophy of Science is such an important subject. But dont tell Hawking who wants to abandon it in pursuit of knowledge
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "Some fail to see the big difference between actual physics & hypothetical models."
This is likely true. But I have demonstrated that I do not fail to understand this distinction.
"The problem is one of conceptual distinction which is why the Philosophy of Science is such an important subject."
There's a difference between traditional philosophy, which is primarily bulls***, and "philosophy of science," understanding how scientific methodology relates to our conclusions.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby "There's a difference between traditional philosophy, which is primarily bulls*** "
If ur going to demean the 1000s of professors & students since Plato et al who have made the subject their life's work, u will need more than an unsubstantiated opinion & insults.
Please indicate with examples otherwise we would have to conclude u just ridicule facts that are inconvenient to your ideology.
Gericho49 2 weeks ago
@Gericho49 "imagine physicists discovering a TOE saying all these so called independent constants & preconditions had to be the values they are by some version of "physical necessity".
It's an interest hypothetical, but a false analogy. First, saying that a 1 part in 10^120 change would've re-collapsed the universe is not the same as saying there's only a 1 in 10^120 chance that the universe could have formed. Secondly, it ignores your false dichotomy of chance vs. design...
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby false analogy?" u need to check what an analogy is, friend! A different explanation for an observed fact is NOT an analogy. Moreover, "the universe would have almost certainly formed/collapsed" is NOT my conclusion. What part of ( Prof. R Collins: “The constants of of physics are balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur.... change one constant -not only no life but no universe, .) DO U NOT UNDERSTAND?
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
:It is not the same as saying .. the universe could have formed"
The only rational explanation for why ALL these independent constants have the knife-edge values is by choice- a profoundly omniscient Designer! An atheist once said to me the chance of the universe being like it is, is 1:1. As u say 100%, I totally agree b/c it was created that way. The emergence of a life permitting world is made possible if not inevitable by the highly complex laws&constants builtin to the very fabric of nature
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
@Gericho49 "The only rational explanation for why ALL these independent constants have the knife-edge values is by choice- a profoundly omniscient Designer!"
Correction: The only explanation you can think of for why these constants (they're not all independent, btw) have their current values is a profoundly omniscient designer. The explanation is not rational, nor can you demonstrate that it is the only one.
BailiffQuimby 4 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby "The only explanation you can think of for why these constants..."
Correction: I have listed 3 explanations(didnt watch the video did u?) Science is about drawing hypothesis & making plausible predictions. No scientist I know of, has come up with a materiatistic or natural explanation. Teleological argument is one of many for God's existence. Paradoxically!the number of deniers hopelessly obessessed with trying to prove (to themselves) there is no God is another.
Gericho49 2 weeks ago
@Gericho49 "u need to check what an analogy is, friend!"
Last I checked, it was a comparison between two situations illustrating a similar relationship. Like if you compared my denials of your chance vs. design argument to your hypothetical denial, of physical necessity, were it proven.
"Moreover, "the universe would have almost certainly formed/collapsed" is NOT my conclusion."
No, your conclusion is "...therefore there's a god." That's the part I'm objecting to.
BailiffQuimby 4 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby "Last I checked, it was a comparison between two situations illustrating a similar relationship"
Please explain how two competing explanations for the SAME scientific observation is an analogy?.
Analogies are attempts to transfer information from one subject to a DIFFERENT subject. Come on Buffy, admit that u goofed on this one! We all make mistakes only closedminded egotists wont admit it! I suspect u may be in the latter category.
Gericho49 2 weeks ago
examples of analogy (only for those wanting to enlighten themselves)
1. Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two sides gently compressed by a ThighMaster.
2. His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.
3The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease.
Gericho49 2 weeks ago
@Gericho49 "What part of ( Prof. R Collins: “The constants of of physics are balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur.... change one constant -not only no life but no universe, .) DO U NOT UNDERSTAND?"
I understand all of it, and have demonstrated that I understand all of it. All I'm saying is that your conclusion: "therefore god" is not a logical syllogism to this. It's a preconception that you're using to fill in an unknown.
BailiffQuimby 4 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby Premise 1. The existence of fine-tuning is compatible & even predictable from a theistic worldview.
Premise 2. The existence of fine-tuning is very improbable under an atheistic single-universe hypothesis.
premise 3: to introduce chance, the atheist must fantasize about infinite hypothetical past universes (for which there is no evidence or likely to be)
Conclusion Theism needs only current cosmology to justify design and is by far, the more plausible explanation than atheism.
Gericho49 20 hours ago
For an argument to be valid it just.has to be more plausible than the negative. Even if science discovers a "Fundamental law" to account for fine-tuning&design it just moves the fine-tuning up one level, to that of the postulated physical law itself.
Of all the abstract laws and parameters of physics that conceivably could have been logically necessary, it seems highly improbable that it would be those that are life-permitting.
Gericho49 19 hours ago
Consider quantum physicist John Polkinghorne "there are SIX apparently fundamental constraints in nature whose values have to be very close to their presently observed values if any intelligent, carbon-based life is to come into being anywhere in the universe. In some cases these values have to be astonishingly accurate: e.g, lambda, the expansion rate of the universe in relativity, has to be a factor of 10 to the 120th power smaller than such an explanation would have considered natural."
Gericho49 1 month ago
The atheist has 3 choices he can say 1. "the universe just is & needs no explanation, 2. "accept that it may "appear" fine-tuned but then look for a purely natural explanation like chance (at unimaginable odds), 3. he can dream up theories about infinite universes, one of which has to be like ours. The "non option" is to accept that mindless matter couldnt create a rationally intelligible universe b/c that would destroy his blind faith in "scientism" that everything is physical matter &energy.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 regardless of any logical inconsistencies that arise with it. I've never claimed that a god doesn't exist. I'm just saying you can't assume one does just to answer a question that we lack the evidence to answer with any certainty. Moreover, I think deep down you know this is true, as you present yourself as a fairly intelligent guy - but your attachment to your god answer and the idea of being right in this debate is much more important than your regard for truth.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby " I've never claimed that a god doesn't exist"
I think one of the most compelling arguments paradoxically is that man cannot live without God. There are many different worldviews that most of us can live in blissful ignorance of, but God as the likely source of ultimate meaning & reality is not one of them. Growing up In a family of 8 my life was a profoundly religious experience, long before I ever became a senior government scientist to marvel in awe at His methodology.
Pax!
Gericho49 4 weeks ago
@Gericho49 "I think one of the most compelling arguments paradoxically is that man cannot live without God."
I've been doing a great job of it for 34 years.
"but God as the likely source of ultimate meaning & reality is not one of them"
You realize that you just admitted that a premise for your argument for god's existence is that god exists?
BailiffQuimby 4 weeks ago
@BailiffQuimby "I've been doing a great job of it for 34 years"
Perhaps the millions of deniers in cyberspace hopelessly obsessed with trying to give their meaningless lives(Russell's claim not mine) some purpose, debating the non-existence of a transcendent reality that paradoxically gives them meaning hope & destiny might disagree with you.
“There are those who have seen sufficient evidence but suppress the truth in unrighteousness…They exchange the truth for a lie.” Romans Chap.1
Gericho49 20 hours ago
"1) without empirical data"
I acknowledged this in my first post. That is why I equated it with your god hypothesis. No demonstrable evidence.
"2) contradict each other"
And your definition of god doesn't contradict itself? Everything was created by a being - the being is part of 'everything'. Obviously, if either hypothesis it true, then these contradictions would be resolved in any of a number of ways, likely with a simple matter of semantics. Still no different than your God hypothesis.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby I tore ur "who designed the designer" to threads & no response.
1) u admit there's zero, zip zitch evidence for multiverses & dare me to prove them false.
2) u admit that these fanciful theories r contradicting but then throw in a red herring about the definition of God? How u conclude that from God as Creator , source & the essence of all being is beyond me. Sorry but matter cant be eternal in the past. Infinity is no where to be found in reality (D. Hilbert)
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "I tore ur "who designed the designer" to threads & no response."
You didn't tear anything to anything. You tried to subvert the argument by defining your god to be the one exception to a rule you claim applies to everything else in existence. And I did respond. I said you can't define god into existence.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby ur bigotry &bias clouds ur judgment. Ur silly red redding comeback has nothing to do with the design argument. Watch the video p1) all the evidence points to fine-tuning p2 the 3 explanations are a)chance b)physical necessity or 3)design. All science is based on cause & effect. There can only be one uncaused cause. That cause must be eternal & exist apart from the effect. There cant be "infinite regression of past finite physical events" conclusion time was created: Gen 1:1
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "u admit there's zero, zip zitch evidence for multiverses & dare me to prove them false."
No, I said that there being no evidence for multiverses makes them equivalent to your god hypothesis. Please read what I type, and not what you imagine that I type. Thank you.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby I waste my time arguing with a close minded bigot. The problem isn’t about lack of evidence for design but simply ur suppression & wilful neglect of the evidence. There is an abundance of scientific evidence for fine-tuning (none of which u've challenged) unlike multiverse theories which is pure fantasy. The closeminded atheist demands a God-free universe so he cant admit to design b/c the logical & most plausible explanation is for a Designer.
Gericho49 1 month ago
Baffy, I cant make u accept the citations of the most eminent scientists (including atheists agnostics) for fine-tuning. But dont try to claim they are arguments from authority.
Yes I do know what the latter is:
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors: 1.The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject. 2.A consensus exists among legitimate experts on that subject.
Please explain what evidence & conclusions I have presented that have been challenged by other experts
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "u admit that these fanciful theories r contradicting but then throw in a red herring about the definition of God?"
No red herring. Your definition of god is self-contradictory. That doesn't mean he is impossible - just that if he exists, we have to refine our definition. Same with your complaints about the contradictions between multiverses.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby "Your definition of god is self-contradictory." What definition of God might that be?
If u want to believe in an infinite regression of past finite physical events dont let logic or modern cosmology get in your way. u then contradict urself by suggesting matter is finite in the past. What then created all matter time & space. Hawking recently said "laws like gravity" did. 1. Where do abstract laws come from? 2. laws are prescripture & cant cause anything, right?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 ""Your definition of god is self-contradictory."
"What definition of God might that be?"
Just the minimalist definition that it is a sentient being who consciously created the universe with intent and design.
"If u want to believe in an infinite regression of past finite physical events"
I don't. But if you believe in an eternal god, you do.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby How is belief in a diety who "consciously created the universe with intent &design" be "self-contradictory"? Any semi-literate ape would be capable of a more intelligent rebuttal than that!
Even worse is to suggest that God is "past finite physical event" Baffy, matter cant be eternal but if something exists now something (non-matter) must have always existed. It's pointless arguing with a baffoon. Please go back to the dark dungeons of cyberspace where all gods of atheism gather.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby So this is your best knockdown intellectual "God slayer". “If the universe is designed then who designed the Designer”
In trying to disprove the existence of God, this self-contradictory question has to assume there is at least one god to deny any god exists. Since God by definition is the eternal uncaused cause, then created or “designed” gods is an oxymoron. Most importantly, one doesnt need to know the nature of a designer to recognize an object or event as designed
Gericho49 1 month ago
Consider a depot of unknown machinery, a Mars mission might discover. Would we have to know the name or nature of who put it there? Would we have to know what the machinery actually does to differentiate it from a pile of rocks or can we recognise it as designed & actually make the connection? Only an argument from ignorance would say, "let's wait for a naturalistic explanation OR "it just is" OR in a zillion universe we might expect to find one just like it. Such is the blind faith of atheism.
Gericho49 1 month ago
u claimed I didnt consider the "multiverse" theory(s). So I replied that if u actually watch my video u'll see that I had. Clearly u hadnt watched the video & are now being totally dishonest! Furthermore u now say I hadnt rebutted those hypothetical theories. But I listed 6 problems none of which u have challenged nor any of the conclusions by Davies, Hawking. But of course quoting scientists who should know is "an argument from authority" Damn right they are! Isnt evolution such a case?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "nor any of the conclusions by Davies, Hawking."
Authority again. And Hawking's conclusions weren't that the universe required a designer. You just added that in. In fact, Hawking has recently declared the exact opposite - that there is no need to invoke anything supernatural to explain the universe in his latest book. I assume you already knew that and just quote-mined what you wanted?
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
"Hawking's conclusions weren't that the universe required a designer. You just added that in"
Actually no I added in the conclusions of numerous award winning scientists! What do u think Hawking meant by "monkeys sitting at typewriters" analogy? In Hawkings 1st book "A Brief History of Time" he declared that the discovery of a unified theory of physics could help us to “know the mind of God.” His latest book has been severely criticised by Roger Penrose, his former coworker.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "His latest book has been severely criticised by Roger Penrose, his former "
Was there justification behind the criticism? Why not try getting to the actual arguments and not just relying on famous scientists' names? What's actually wrong with Hawking's conclusions from his new book?
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby There's a YT video of Roger Penrose Debunking Stephen Hawkings' New Book The Grand Design. Go listen but I know u wont!
As a self-proclaimed expert of logical argumention u probably wont find a problem with his claim that "science has replaced philosophy in the quest for knowledge."
If ur going to keep repeat the same old meaningless unsubstantiated claims about lack of evidence, arguments from authority etc, be prepared to be blocked in future
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "Such is the blind faith of atheism."
No faith is required to reject a belief. Faith is only required to accept one without evidence. And I'm not doing that. Accusing atheism of requiring faith is to demonstrate that you don't understand what atheism is. I'm not claiming that there are no gods. I'm just saying you haven't convinced me that a god exists. Nothing more than that.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby Pardon? Atheism is absolute blind faith in "naturalism" Its like what Prof. Peter Atkins claims "all questions worth asking can or will be answered by science" = "scientism". Is this really ur belief too? Perhaps u also agree with him when he said "why questions are silly questions."? Then why are u here asking why should I believe in God. Do u also believe the philosophical claim from Hawking who said, "science has replaced philosophy in the quests for knowledge"?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "Do u also believe the philosophical claim from Hawking who said, "science has replaced philosophy in the quests for knowledge"?"
I'll be honest with you, I don't believe raw philosophy without a scientific basis has any merit at all. Are we all brains in a jar? It's possible. But who cares? The universe acts as if we are real people being and doing exactly what we appear to be being and doing. So the most practical belief is that this is the case.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "So this is your best knockdown intellectual "God slayer". “If the universe is designed then who designed the Designer”"
Nope. My best knockdown is that there is no demonstrable evidence.
"In trying to disprove the existence of God"
...which I'm not actually trying to do. I'm just saying that your argument FOR god is flawed. Classic argument from ignorance. We don't know how something happened, so it must have been god.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby Nice non-response to my total dismantling of your "who designed the designer" rubbish Now we're back to where u started "there's is no evidence". What demonstrable evidence for God whould u expect?- a lifeless universe of noxious gases & bind forces or one exquisitely designed, obeying the most absurdly complex immutable laws & math formulae? If the universe has no purpose how are u (as a absurdly unlikely cosmic accident) able to say it has no purpose?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "Since God by definition is the eternal uncaused cause..."
by a definition that we wrote. You can't define something into existence.
"then created or “designed” gods is an oxymoron."
Okay, then I am defining the universe as "everything which exists." By that definition, if your god exists, then it's part of the universe, and therefore can't have created it from nothing. See the problem with this kind of argument?
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby "I am defining the universe as "everything which exists"
You can define it as anything u like. Perhaps some supporting evidence might help ur cause or would that be an argument from authority? How could an immaterial reality be part of PHYSICAL matter? Likewise, where would I find a molecule of hope, wisdom truth, joy hatred or love? Where in the universe would I find the universal immaterial laws of science?
For God's sake give up while ur not beyond redemption.
Gericho49 1 month ago
CS Lewis made an astute observation that an openminded sceptic may be briefly swayed by a good theological argument for God's existence. But what will deeply trouble the miltant atheist is the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion that look to theistic rather than naturalistic explanations from their science. “Astronomers who do not draw theistic or deistic conclusions are becoming rare & even the few dissenters hint that the tide is against them." Atheist cosmologist Geoffrey Burbidge,
Gericho49 1 month ago
Can I suggest those who want to comment on this video, please actually watch it & try to understand the process that has lead to the overwhelming scientific consensus that our universe is indeed fined tuned and on a "knife edge". Then ask yourself what is the most plausable explanation for that design. Please peruse the questions & answers for any queries you may have & keep any further comments relevant to the topic under discussion.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "Can I suggest..."
To reword your request of commenters: Please blindly accept every claim in my video, then presume that the universe is designed, and then conclude that a god must exist. Isn't that the exact opposite of how science works?
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby This is how science works = My arguments are based on the observations & conclusions of the most eminent scientists today.They REJECT chance & physical necessity I'm asking u to refute THEIR findings but u cant. If supremo atheist Dawkins says "the greatest challenge facing scientists today is to explain the "apparent" design in the universe" then I'm assuming NOTHING! Please give examples of where the video quotes are misconstrued or misinterpretated?
Gericho49 1 month ago
Prof.Frank Tipler ( Math’ Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some 20years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never imagined that one day I would be writing a book to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I've been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
WHY arent u convinced too?
Gericho49 1 month ago
You did not 'approve' all my replies. Isn't that a little spineless of you? Just asking.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby I have no idea what reply u are referring to. If your comment is sincere & relevant to the context of this video, I have no problem with that. What I do not tolerate are unsubstantiated & unsupported opinions, diatribes or insults that show the poster has not even bothered to view let alone understand the video. If u want to challenge the conclusions of current cosmology & astrophysicists, I await with baited breath.
Gericho49 1 month ago
cont'd e.g. Prof. Paul Davies, theoretical physicist: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job.' "
Gericho49 1 month ago
2. And from John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
Please consider the 3 possible explanations: chance, physical necessity or design. Which one suggests our universe is a "put-up job"?
Gericho49 1 month ago
S.Hawking in this video concludes that the rate of expansion after the big Bang had to be extraordinary near the value it is, for galaxies & stars to form & maintain their orbits. Other astrophysicists have calculated this is equivalent to shooting a dart across the universe & hitting a target the size of a dime.Atheists must accept on blind faith that all these independent constants & values came about by chance or believe in a T.O.E will eventually be found. Which is it, design or luck?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 Then u believe in an infinite past? Hilbert, one of the greatest mathemeticians of the 20th century said, “The infinite,as in infinite past time is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite…is solely that of an idea…”
In 2003, physicists Vilenkin, Borde, and Guth corroborated to formulate a proof that demonstrates that infinite past time is not feasible.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 There are theories of time that extend into multiple dimensions . You look at time as a line they see it as a bubble. Who is right.? I don't know My son doesn't kn ow and he's an asrophysicist. But I'm not the one trying to prove a magic man created the uiverse am I
emailpobox666 1 month ago
The facts that a biased ideology will want to deny is that the consensus of modern science supports design & fine-tuning, a finite past ( from cosmology & philosophical absurdity of an infinite past), the need for an uncaused 1st cause and most likely a life they dont want to be accountable. But of course the universe just is like it is, otherwise we would be here to talk about. Then they have to explain why the God question haunts their every waking moment.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "The facts that a biased ideology will want to deny is that the consensus of modern science supports design & fine-tuning, a finite past " Arguemtn from authority because you wish not to address the answers i gave in response to your questions
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Gericho49 By the way there are theories of time that extend into multiple dimensions. So rather than time being a line it's a bubble. I know your precious "proofs" hep you justify your faith . Accept that in the end it's ALL FAITH
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 There are theories about zillions of universes as well as unicorns to explain the beauty & wonder of our exquisitely designed corner of the world we find ourselves in. It's extremely easy to deal in fanciful hypothetical events, much more difficult to explain experimentally testible ones. It's the blind faith that atheists resort to in the form of conflicting hypotheticals to explain away the unexplainable, that is so tragic, its almost funny.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "There are theories about zillions of universes " And yoet you manage to agree with only the ones that support a god. Funny
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 Ah so is that an admission that we have at least one universe that is exquisitely fined tuned that cannt be explained by naturalism? I'm glad the overwhelming scientific evidence has finally penetrated those firing neurons. Atheists hypocritically demand evidence but are forced to invent at least 9 conflicting multiverse theories to appease their biased ideology based on pure fantasy. I only need one observable, existing universe to explain Design.
Gericho49 1 month ago
Oh I forgot
Science was supposed to bury God b/c it was supposedly based on reason and facts. Now we have atheism resorting to blind faith in hypothetical events and theism quoting science to explain God. Wonderful isnt it!
"The more I penetrate science the more I believe in God" Albert Einstein..Indeed it is!
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 I always find argumets from authority to be the result of a smal mind
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 In my case, I always find arguments from authority particularly compelling especially when it reflects the consensus of current scientific research.
On the same basis a small mind or "pobox" should reject the theory of evolution no? Oh I forgot that may actually agree with your biased ideology. Unless u try to account for all the abstract laws built in to the very fabric of nature that ensures that evolution is not a mistake?
Gericho49 1 month ago
The quote from Charles Darwin at 3:56 gives the impression that he ( as he says) "deserves to be called a Theist". However when you read the very next paragraph ( that you have not added), he quite clearly and incontrovertably states the exact opposite. This is quote mining of the highest order Gericho.
bonnie43uk 1 month ago
@bonnie43uk Its NOT quote minging at all. Darwin is one of many scientist I quoted who concluded from evidence: ".....extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity." Whether he meant to say "I deserve to be called a theist" and then detracted is irrelevant. No doubt he has had time to think about it since!
Gericho49 1 month ago
If u have watched ALL the video & could only criticise a 150 yr old quote, maybe I am getting thru. What I have done in this video is look at ALL the evidence and the 3 possible explanations (hardly begging the question). Search as I may, the best atheism can come up with is "The universe just is.." and "of course the universe is fined-tuned, we wouldnt be here if it wasnt. If those explanations satisfy u, then no more needs to be said. See next vid' Mind/matter problem
pax vobiscum
Gericho49 1 month ago
Fine tuning begs the question. It assumes that the universe has a purpose . The purpose of creating life which it most certainly does not
emailpobox666 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@emailpobox666 Not at all, perhaps u just read the title and wrote your comment. Many sceptics do! Please listen to all the quotes especially from several agnostic scientists who conclude "the evidence for fine-tuning is overwhelming" Even atheist numero uno Richard Dawkins concedes the "universe appears designed". Only blind faith in science called "scientism" would assume there may someday be a purely naturalistic explanation. "Science of the Gaps" perhaps?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 Dude you have to make the assumption that the purpose/goal of the universe is life then you say that life wouldn't exist if it wasn't fine tuned. Begging the question if I ever heard it
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 Pardon? I have assumed NOTHING. Can I suggest u actually watch the video this time, particular the statement "what the fine-tuning argument is NOT claiming" which starts at 0.26 seconds
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 THE ARGUMENT ASSUMES . are you really that thick headed or do you just not have a clue what the argument says
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 Please tell me what I have assumed in this argument:
p1 Modern science (not me) has deduced there are too many pre-conditions & independent physical constants that have to be the values they are for the universe to exist in anything like its present state.
p2 Those values are extremely unlikely to come about by chance or necessity
p3 our finite universe exudes intelligibility & design.
C1 the most plausible explanation is an actual Designer
C2 That Designer is God
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 pre-conditions assume there are conditions ."those values are extremely unlikely to come about by chance or necessity" You have nothing to compare this universe to so are incapable of makig this statemnet"our finite universe exudes intelligibility & design." No it does not it is obvious only because the way the human mind works seeking patternes even when theyr aren't any"
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 By ur own admission, u "dont give a crap" what Nobelists & eminent scientists conclude ("theyre just arguments from authority") about the absurdly narrow range, the 4 major physical constants need to be. Since u reject the conclusions of Einstein, LaMaitre, Penzias, Smoot, Crick, Davies. Plank, Shrodinger, Smoot, Crick Collins & numerous others its pointless trying to argue with a closeminded bigot. Please stick to atheism 101 for Dummies.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 "pre-conditions assume there are conditions" Can u really think of anything that comes into existence that doesnt requires a cause or pre-conditions to define that existence? Why u cant accept the overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion is obvious b/c of your closeminded, biased ideology! Funny how science was supposed to bury God a100yrs ago, but now declares "the glory of God in the things he has made, so that they are without excuse." Rom 1:20
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 continued...the most plausible explanation is an actual Designer"It is the only explanation you can think of not the only expantion.
" That Designer is God" see above answer +whch god there are thousands of them?
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@emailpobox666 I listed not 1 but 3 possible explanations.NO scientist I know of, has come out in support of chance or physical necessity. You reject the third option of design b/c that implies an actual designer. And the best u can do now is throw in the red herring of "which designer"? What about "who designed the designer of that designer" Created gods is an oxymoron. There can only be 1 ETERNAL, uncaused cause who created existence from non-existence. Cant deal with that?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 If I missed any please feel free to bring it to my attention
emailpobox666 1 month ago
@Gericho49 the fine tuning arguemnt begs the question and assumes that the universe was designed to produced life and then goes on to use this assumption to say if anythign was different the universe would not porduce life it then slaps a MADE IN GOD stiker on it
emailpobox666 1 month ago
Making claims without supporting evidence is what I've come to expect, Should I take ur opinion or the conclusions of some of the brillant scientific minds today"
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . It seems as though somebody has fine tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. . . The impression of design is overwhelming.” –Physicist Paul Davies, mentioned previously. If anyone wants to support chance or necessity, please do!
Gericho49 1 month ago
For those actually wanting an extensive review of Teleogical debate from all sides I recommend a somwhat technical paper by Prof. Robin Collins W W W . commonsenseatheism . com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf
Gericho49 1 month ago
God looks fine tuned to be intelligent and creative, so who made God?
Chuck1863 1 month ago
@Chuck1863 Ah, the old schoolboy jibe? Sorry created gods is an oxymoron. God by definition is the ETERNAL 1st cause & prime mover, the one who creates existence from non-existence, "man from the dust of the earth" & made the universe rationally intelligible. Any being greater than God would itself be God. The male ego replaces God creating his own idols like power, prestige, sex gambling, porn sport drugs etc. And yes I too dont believe in any of the created gods that u do or dont believe in.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 Since God looks designed but was not designed, it's obvious that not everything that looks designed actually was designed. The universe might be another such example, make God unnecessary.
Chuck1863 1 month ago
@Chuck1863 Well that hypothesis fails on several accounts.
1) the universe is not infinite in the past (BB theory) 2) even fanciful multiverse theories fail on the absurdity of an infinite regression of past finite events or causes . 3) every effect needs a cause. & all things that come into existence need a cause outside of the effect
4.there must be an ultimate uncaused 1st cause & eternal reality that brought all time, matter & space into existence (Hawking/Penrose theorem)
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 Since something can look designed without having been designed, the cause of the universe need not have been intelligent.
Chuck1863 1 month ago
At its core, the teleological argument is a huge argument from ignorance though. It goes to elaborate lengths to make the statement "I have no idea how this happened, therefore my pet religion is true". This is perhaps especially astonishing given that everything that's called "fine tuning" seems to be nothing more than various forms of equilibrium.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro Please actually watch the video for a change, rather then troll for "religious topics" and drop banal comments without challenging the evidence. In the video I quote many atheists, agnostics & philosophers who all agree that the universe appears designed.The question is, is it by chance, physical necessity or design itself? Also give a scholarly citation on equilibrium so that ur opinions are more substantive than merely a rejection of facts that are inconvenient to your ideology.
Gericho49 1 month ago
The last study had a mere 7% theists among the elite scientists of the US. This really is an astonishing figure and almost an inverse of the population at large. Not that this means that scientists are right, but it does mean that there is no force driving scientists to theism. If anything, the relationship must be in the opposite direction
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro Wrong !!! Spreading lies does nothing for your credability. Unlike the very selective study done by an all atheist NAS board in 1997, the LATEST study According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year (2011), a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not
Gericho49 1 month ago
Moreover in 2007 Elaine Ecklund, and Christopher Scheitle questioned 2,198 faculty members in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, political science, and psychology from 21 elite U.S. research universities.(unlike the NAS survey) more than 75% of professors contacted actually completed the survey. Only 31.2% expressed atheism & only 15% thought that science and religion were always in conflict. About half expressed some form of religious affiliation
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe..."
Disregarding the whole context of this line of reasoning being fallacy of argument from authority, I would add in that, while your statistic may be accurate regarding all scientists, you will find lower and lower percentages of believers as you get into the more physical scientists. ie: the more you know about the intricate workings that the teleological argument rely on, the less likely you are to believe.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@BailiffQuimby On that reasoning, are the 31.2% arguing from authority when they claim to believe in atheism.
The E&S survey revealed an interesting stat, that those who said they did not believe in God did so, not b/c of their science, but for family & social (lifestyle?) reasons.
Though I have none, If u find any scholarly citations that the evidence shows the universe is NOT fine-tuned I'm happy to listen. Unsubstantiated opinions are cheap however, & prove nothing.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "On that reasoning, are the 31.2% arguing from authority when they claim to believe in atheism."
I can't speak for other atheists and their motives. But I can tell you that one doesn't "believe in atheism". Atheism is the rejection of a belief, not a belief itself. You may be genuinely confused here, so I'll explain. An atheist does not have a belief that no gods exist (some do, but that's beyond the scope of atheism).... TBC
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby We all have worldviews even atheists. Theyre based on what we DO believe not what we dont. It's about how we make sense of this world, why we're here asking if there's a purpose.to life & the universe. Such questions says Nobelist, Sir Peter Medawar are metaphysical & no advancement of science are capable of answering. Thats why throwing in red herrings about fairies or unicorns are such trivial nonsense. LIkewise for "who designed the designer"
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "We all have worldviews even atheists"
Yes, but a worldview is not defined by a lack of belief in a god, or lack of belief in leprechauns or any other mythical creatures. The closest you might get is, for example, many atheists are also skeptics, and skepticism might be a basis for a worldview.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby A worldview is defined as how we make sense of our world & our place in it. It is about how we view or understand ultimate reality. Atheists attempt to make sense of human nature, consciousness, morality, meaning & destiny (ontological questions) in terms of a bunch of selfish genes whose sole purpose is procreation.
See my video the soul as the source & essence of human nature & identity.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "Such questions says Nobelist, Sir Peter Medawar are metaphysical & no advancement of science are capable of answering. "
...which would lead me to the conclusion that they are unanswerable questions. If science can't confirm a philosophical answer as correct, how else would you ever confirm it as correct? (I've a rather sour taste for philosophy in general, forgive me if that's too apparent)
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby "Sour taste" indeed! I suggest u google "scientism" u may well agree with Hawking who unwittingly made a philosophical claim that "science has replaced philosophy in the quest for knowledge."
No intrinsic difference" do u ever get any sleep, debating the non-existence of fairies too?
Sorry if I dont have endless hours perusing & replying to the endless questions that obssessed atheists have about a God for which there is paradoxically no evidence!
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 ... An atheist simply does not agree with your claim that a god DOES exist. That means he think that since there's no evidence, he will reserve belief until evidence exists. In other words, atheism is the claim, "I don't think a god exists, since there is no evidence for one," rather than the claim "I know that no gods exist."... TBC
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby If an atheist wants to claim "there is simply no evidence" then he may just want to refute the consensus of modern science which infers that the "evidence for fine-tuning is overwhelming." It is no good saying its "an argument from authority" without providing verifiable citations from scientists who conclude the opposite..
All ur doing is repeating the same old phrase "we have nothing to prove" obviously, b/c naturalism or materialism are metaphysical questions
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "If an atheist wants to claim "there is simply no evidence" then he may just want to refute the consensus of modern science which infers that the "evidence for fine-tuning is overwhelming.""
Umm, that's not a scientific consensus. There is a small minority of physical scientists who believe that the universe must have been fine-tuned. I wouldn't refute a commonly accepted scientific fact without further examining the evidence myself.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby All I ask is name one astrophysicist or cosmologist who concludes that the preconditions of the BB & all the independent physical constants came about by chance or physical necessity? Where do all the ABSTRACT, immutable, absurdly complex laws of science & math come from if not from an even greater source of ultimate intelligence?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 2) The premise that the constants are fine-tuned requires that there be a certain range of values these constants could have had in the first place, which at the moment we have no way of concluding. Their current values might have been the only ones possible. 3) I'm sure you're familiar with multiverse-theory. And while there is no evidence supporting it, there's no evidence against it, making it at least as plausible if not moreso as your magical superbeing theory.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby "I'm sure you're familiar with multiverse-theory" Sometimes I just wonder what motivates the typical hardened sceptic who thinks he can make an informed comment on a video when he quite clearly hasnt watched it. A large segment of THIS video is dedicated to possible rebuttals, particularly the 9 "multiverse theories". There's no evidence to support unicorns either but that doesnt stop atheists from using it as a strawman to deny the plausability for God's existence.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby
"The premise that the constants are fine-tuned requires that there be a certain range of values these constants could have had in the first place, which at the moment WE have no way of concluding" Dont assume what supports ir biased ideology is what real scientists are saying . Again if u ever read modern cosmology like "A brief history of Time" u will see how exact Lambda has to be for the universe to exist at all.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 4) If a superbeing was responsible for fine-tuning the universe in such a way that it would birth life-supporting elements, and if that superbeing was omnipotent, as most people claim god is, then why shouldn't he have been able to do it in such a way that a significant percentage of it was life-supportive as opposed to the insanely small percentage that is? 5) Who fine-tuned the conditions of the universe (or wherever) for the creator to be able to exist?
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby Again watch the video and be informed. Most of ur questions are answered there but hey, do I really care if u want to make silly comments as to what fine-tuning is actually NOT referring to?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 6) If the constants were NOT in their current place wherever your designer was before he designed our universe, then that means that these constants are not actually necessary for life to exist. 7) What is the probability that a god exists and fine-tuned the universe? If we can't put a number on this, then we can't claim it is more likely (or less likely) than the constants being as they are by chance.
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby God's existence is either true or false. The possibility however, of OUR finite, observable universe having the physical constants it has, according to Stephen Hawking (oh yes, quote-mining again, I know) is so unbelievable, "it would be equivalent to a team of monkeys sitting at typewriters for as long as it takes to come up with a Shakespearian Sonnet" PC Davies says it's like throwing a dart across the universe at hitting a dime. Do u feel that lucky?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 ... It's the same way you feel about unicorns. While we can't disprove their existence, there's no reason to think they DO exist, so you do not believe in them. But you don't claim with any authority "No, they couldn't possibly exist anywhere at any time."
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby Nice strawman! No one believes unicorns are eternal or created existence from non-existence, God is the uncaused cause, the source & essence of all being. Perhaps those who propose santa created all the abstract laws & physical constants that ensure our finite universe would be law-abiding & life-permitting are just as stupid as those who deny the need for an actual designer & Law Giver. Or do u debate the nonexistence of unicorns ad nauseum too?
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 "If u find any scholarly citations that the evidence shows the universe is NOT fine-tuned I'm happy to listen"
Less than 0.000001% of the universe is hospitable for life. How's that?
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
@BailiffQuimby if u actually watched the video you will hear what the fine-tuning argument is NOTsaying, and one is that it has nothing to do with the weather on Pandora. Just listen to the science for once! Its about the initial conditions of the BB, the entrogy & cosmological constants. Its about all the independent laws of physics that allow galaxies to form & the 112 elements needed for carbon based life! But hey, dont let the facts stand in the way of your ignorance.
Gericho49 1 month ago
@Gericho49 The laws and constants might have to be close-to or precisely what they are to maintain and sustain a universe for a period of time. I can accept that. But I think it is a serious argument from ignorance fallacy to suggest that the only way these conditions could have arisen is due to an intelligence. Who says those constants and laws COULD have been any other way? And if they could have been different, why is the only way to reach the values they did an intelligence?
BailiffQuimby 1 month ago
The teleological argument has a huge issue with the fact that we have no clue how many trials are involved or how the universe could vary.
It's probably also worth mentioning that what this video is insinuating, that there is some huge revival of theism among scientists due to observing nature - is simply false. Google "leading scientists still reject God" for a nature article showing a study repeated 3 times in the last century among NAS members, showing a huge shift towards personal nonbelief
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro The teleological argument has NO issue with how many universes need to be invented to deny the obvious design & fine-tuning we find ouselves in. The 9 highly hypothetical if not fanciful multiverse theories would be laughed out of town if they came out of a religious text.
Gericho49 1 month ago