ATHEIST vs THEIST

Why are the underlying law to the universe fine tuned?
This fine tuning has led to a universe that has manifested stars, planets, elements and eventually life.
And not just any life by sentient life.
Not just sentient life, but life that has been able to unlock many of the underlying laws and secrets of the universe.
A universe that desired to be understood perhaps.
Does this point to an intelligence, beyond out capacity to comprehend, behind the universe?
What alternatives would atheists put forward?

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• atheism
• theism
• proog of god
• goldilocks enigma
• big bang
• fine-tuning

[kschieck]

...been lucky to be in the one that supports life (observation bias). Therefore there is no need for a creator to finely tune the laws of physics. Also, how finely tuned is it when our star system is unimaginably small compared to the universe. The Earth isn't at the center of the universe, clearly we are not the center of attention for any creator of the universe.

[vicachcoup]

@kschieck Sorry I've dealt with this in previous replies.

Not a strong argument at all

[kschieck]

@vicachcoup

I don't accept the theory as fact as I don't think it is meant for that. I think it is just meant as a response to the idea that there HAD to be a creator. It's just there to show that your hypothesis isn't the only one and btw there is just as much evidence for a multiverse as there is for a personal god; none. The difference is that you are claiming your hypothesis to be fact whereas the atheistic position is one of skepticism.

[vicachcoup]

@kschieck

I get you. I say the fine tuning points to a concious intelligent initiator of the universe.

That's all. A personal God is a different matter altogether. Skepticism to me suggests agnosticism not atheism.

Multiverse - some say there is some indirect evidence. But even then - how did we get a multiverse with laws that eventually led to sentient life. It just broadens the question which still remains.

How did the multiverse begin?

[vicachcoup]

@kschieck

My last line should read -

Another question is How did the multiverse begin?

[kschieck]

I don't know much about the multiverse theory but it seems like it doesn't need any evidence. Here's where the theist will stop reading and say "aha" you have faith derpderpderp. The multiverse theory is a response to the "fine tuning argument" which states that since the laws of physics are so finely tuned it must have had a designer ... yada yada yada... The multiverse theory says that it's possible that there are infinitely many universes or some vastly large number and we could have just...

[vicachcoup]

@kschieck

Multiverse - like the video says - FAITH, FAITH , FAITH , FAITH

Folks gotta believe in somethin I spose

[huwrj]

With regard to the fine-tuned universe, a) it is not established that it is fine tuned, although it may be b) there are multiple ways to explain fine tuning, mostly not involving a cosmic knob-fiddler. It doesn't matter though because the fact is science don't know exactly where the laws of nature come from. That doesn't mean that the BIBLE does. The Bible is 100% proven wrong. Read Genesis and Exodus, it's good for a laugh.

[MrNeodarwinian]

@christianthinker2012

Very wrong!! Arguments from authority, regardless of qualifications, are fallacies. Reading and arguing are two different things. If I were to say," Dawkins says this and it is true therefore, " I have committed a fallacy. I suggest you educate yourself before writing again, faith head. We are quite through here.

[christianthinker2012]

@MrNeodarwinian arguments from authority are not fallacious, it's arguments from unqualified authority that are fallacious. if arguments from authority where fallacious then why do many atheists read the books of Richard dawkins and Sam harris

[MrNeodarwinian]

And Victor Stenger explains why the laws are not fine tuned. Arguments from authority are fallacious where ever they come from. Where is your god evidence, faith head, not you arguments from incredulity and referential arguments.