Originally posted by RJHinds
It is amazing to me what you atheists imagine to deny the truth.

Do you imagine that the laws of probability and the principles of logic necessitate atheism?

Originally posted by vistesd
Do you imagine that the laws of probability and the principles of logic necessitate atheism?

Nope, I believe there is no need for atheism, Budhism, Hinduism or other
religious -ism.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Nope, I believe there is no need for atheism, Budhism, Hinduism or other
religious -ism.

Unfortunately you are the poster child for why there is a need for atheism.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The whole 'fine-tuning' argument is based on the assumption that current conditions are special. This assumption is completely unwarranted and must be justified first. That every hair on my cat is where it is, requires extremely fine-tuned initial constants. But so would they if they were somewhere else, or even if my cat was hairless. Every state of the ...[text shortened]... ist, and depending on how you interpret quantum mechanics, multiple prior states are possible.

The whole 'fine-tuning' argument is based on the assumption that current conditions are special. This assumption is completely unwarranted and must be justified first.

The universe is contingent. That is, there is nothing inherent in the universe telling us it had to be the way it is -- neither did it have to exist. In fact, by claiming that the world couldn't have been otherwise we commit ourselves to the position that a life-prohibiting universe is impossible. But why think that?

If the world were not contingent, we should expect to be able to explain the world completely without recourse to empirical methods; every cosmological constant and physical law would be determined by necessity and understood through deductive logic alone. This is clearly not the case. The universe contains constants that no amount of deductive reasoning can arrive at. They are the way they are without any explanation, and give no reason to think they couldn't have been different than they are.

So it doesn't matter that we cannot determine the probability of the constants being any different than what they are. There are only a limited number of possibilities: e.g., (1) the world is the way it is due to necessity, (2) the world is the way it is due to design, or (3) the world is the way it is due to chance. We don't need to know the probability or possibility of the world being different than it is in order to entertain the reasonableness of any of these options.

The justification for thinking the cosmological constants are special is their contingency, and the contingency of the cosmological constants happens to be most apparent during the initial conditions of the universe (immediately after the Big Bang).
__________

That said, I don't think anyone has yet addressed my point that "fine-tuning" isn't equal to "design", or the fact that "fine-tuning" is a legit problem which physicists recognize concerning the initial conditions of the cosmos (a problem which some have attempted to solve with multiverse theories, no-boundary proposals, etc.). "Fine-tuning" isn't a problem that can be brushed aside simply by appealing to the anthropic principle.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Unfortunately you are the poster child for why there is a need for atheism.

All we need is the logic from God. Atheism fight against that logic at every turn.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The whole 'fine-tuning' argument is based on the assumption that current conditions are special. This assumption is completely unwarranted and must be justified first.

The universe is contingent. That is, there is nothing inherent in the universe telling us it had to be the way it is -- neither did it have to exist. In fact, by ...[text shortened]... oblem that can be brushed aside simply by appealing to the anthropic principle.[/b]

Scientist would not be worried about Global warming if they did not believe
this Earth was fine tuned for life.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The whole 'fine-tuning' argument is based on the assumption that current conditions are special. This assumption is completely unwarranted and must be justified first.

The universe is contingent. That is, there is nothing inherent in the universe telling us it had to be the way it is -- neither did it have to exist. In fact, by ...[text shortened]... oblem that can be brushed aside simply by appealing to the anthropic principle.[/b]

That said, I don't think anyone has yet addressed my point that "fine-tuning" isn't equal to "design", or the fact that "fine-tuning" is a legit problem which physicists recognize concerning the initial conditions of the cosmos (a problem which some have attempted to solve with multiverse theories, no-boundary proposals, etc.). "Fine-tuning" isn't a problem that can be brushed aside simply by appealing to the anthropic principle.

I at least didn’t assume you were talking about “design”. But it does seem as if you are, intentionally or not, assuming the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) at least in some form. And I am not convinced that, philosophically, the PSR is unassailable—or even compelling. I’m doing some more reading on it, though, and will hold fire till I’m done. (Since you seem to be coming at this from a scientific point of view, and I am coming at it philosophically, I will grant that scientific inquiry needs to assume, in principle, that an explanation can be found that is in principle falsifiable and empirically testable.)

My point about probability is that I think that the ex post probability of the universe being exactly the way it is—is 1.0 (and in a multiple universe model, perhaps the a priori probability as well). But I’m willing to stand corrected.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Scientist would not be worried about Global warming if they did not believe
this Earth was fine tuned for life.

Wrong again. (you can tell what you said was wrong because it was you that said it)


Earth is not 'fine tuned' for life.

Life evolved to suite the conditions on the earth.
And also altered those conditions to be more favourable for life.

There is no (serious) worry that human induced climate change is about to wipe out life on earth.

However what it will do is significantly and rapidly alter the climate conditions on the earth which
will, and is, altering local conditions out of the habitable range of various species living in those
regions that have evolved to survive in those very specific conditions.
This will cause some (many) species to go extinct (when coupled with all sorts of other things humans
do like alter or destroy habitats ect) and shift the locations and ranges of others.
This poses issues for us as species diversity is beneficial to us in many ways.
And it also changes the locations that are suitable for farming and/or for farming specific crops.
which threatens our food supply chain.
And it also has effects like rising sea levels which directly threaten our coastal infrastructure.


None of this has anything to do with the earth being fine tuned for life.

The life on earth has evolved to suite the conditions on the earth,
The earth wasn't fine tuned for life, life fine tuned itself for the earth.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wrong again. (you can tell what you said was wrong because it was you that said it)


Earth is not 'fine tuned' for life.

Life evolved to suite the conditions on the earth.
And also altered those conditions to be more favourable for life.

There is no (serious) worry that human induced climate change is about to wipe out life on earth.

Howeve ...[text shortened]... ns on the earth,
The earth wasn't fine tuned for life, life fine tuned itself for the earth.

I have decided to show you how nice I can be and not argue with you about
this even though I know you are wrong. Let's see if my being nice helps in
your conversion to the truth of God as some claim.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We young Earth Christians believe after the Creation of the Earth the only big
change in the Earth occurred because of the worldwide flood of Noah's day.
I believe there was only one Ice Age which was also due to the flood. The
Grand Canyon was also due to the flood. The extinction of the Dinosaurs was
due to the flood. The high mountains was due to t ...[text shortened]... laim to be wise become fools because
they do not believe God. Glory be to God. HalleluYah!!!

If the separation of continents was due to this fantasy flood you imagine, why are they still separating and not with water but with extreme heat that is measured and the spreading measured on a weekly basis, coming out to about an inch or two a year, verified by GPS measurements? We can see the recording of magnetism in the rocks on the bottom near the spreading line and see how long ago it was happening and the magnetic data clearly shows it happening on geological times, flat impossible in a few thousand years.
Read this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading

Also, I notice you ignored my blitz challenge. That has to say something right there.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If the separation of continents was due to this fantasy flood you imagine, why are they still separating and not with water but with extreme heat that is measured and the spreading measured on a weekly basis, coming out to about an inch or two a year, verified by GPS measurements? We can see the recording of magnetism in the rocks on the bottom near the spr ...[text shortened]... reading

Also, I notice you ignored my blitz challenge. That has to say something right there.

You think a worldwide flood is impossible too, but it happened. This doesn't
even come close to proving the Holy Bible wrong. It seems to be more like
evidence proving it right to me. And ignoring your blitz challenge tells us
nothing about the accuracy of the Holy Bible. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have decided to show you how nice I can be and not argue with you about
this even though I know you are wrong. Let's see if my being nice helps in
your conversion to the truth of God as some claim.

Well given that this is just an indirect way of saying "I'm right, your wrong, nahna-nahna-nah-nah"
I don't think it really qualifies as being nice.

However your (or anyone else) being nice or nasty has precisely zero impact in my belief or
otherwise in the existence of gods or the supernatural.


What you don't seem to grasp is that my philosophical position is that of rational skepticism.
I believe in trying to believe as few wrong things as possible and as many right things as
possible and thus having as accurate a picture of the reality we live in as possible so as to
be able to have the best possible grounding for making decisions.

Part of this means ONLY believing that which is justified by evidence and reason.
If something hasn't be justified by evidence or reason I won't believe it.
This doesn't mean that I necessarily believe that that something is false or doesn't exist.
Just that it has not yet been proven to exist and thus it doesn't deserve to be believed in yet.

If you want me (or anyone else who believes in rationalism and skepticism) to believe in your god
then you must prove that your god exists.
The bible and everything it says is not proof or evidence of either god or the supernatural, so quoting that
will get you nowhere.
Also given the ability of the human brain to delude itself and imagine things or hallucinate as well as things
like confirmation bias, unverifiable personal experience is also not evidence for gods or the supernatural either.


I am not a rationalist skeptic because I am an atheist.
I am an atheist because I am a rationalist skeptic.

I don't believe in anything based on faith, because to believe in things based on faith is to (by definition) believe
in things without sufficient evidence and often to believe in things despite contradictory evidence.

Thus given not only the total lack of any evidence for the existence of any god or gods but also the mass of evidence
that contradicts the stories of the bible and of the claims you make about your god.

I cannot and will not believe in your god regardless of how nice you are.

If you want me to believe in your god you must show me evidence, you must show me proof.

And as the man said.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


So...
Do you have extraordinary proof?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
So it doesn't matter that we cannot determine the probability of the constants being any different than what they are. There are only a limited number of possibilities: e.g., (1) the world is the way it is due to necessity, (2) the world is the way it is due to design, or (3) the world is the way it is due to chance. We don't need ...[text shortened]... d being different than it is in order to entertain the reasonableness of any of these options.

I would say that your (2) should be removed. After all, any designer would need an explanation 1,2 or 3 and if 2, would need explaining recursively. So I see no need for separating the 'universe' from the totality of reality and just keeping options 1. and 2.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The whole 'fine-tuning' argument is based on the assumption that current conditions are special. This assumption is completely unwarranted and must be justified first.

The universe is contingent. That is, there is nothing inherent in the universe telling us it had to be the way it is -- neither did it have to exist. In fact, by ...[text shortened]... oblem that can be brushed aside simply by appealing to the anthropic principle.[/b]

That said, I don't think anyone has yet addressed my point that "fine-tuning" isn't equal to "design", or the fact that "fine-tuning" is a legit problem which physicists recognize concerning the initial conditions of the cosmos (a problem which some have attempted to solve with multiverse theories, no-boundary proposals, etc.). "Fine-tuning" isn't a problem that can be brushed aside simply by appealing to the anthropic principle.

If already addressed adequately, ignore this.

Your Point 1. Fine tuning not equal to design: Does either imply an agent? Fine tuning => tuner; Design => designer? If they are alike in this respect, either both, or neither, implying an agent, how are they different from one another? (It seems like many Christians who refer to design, refer to fine tuning in the same way; as implying an agent, God.)

Your Point 2. Could we agree that a "legit problem" in physics is like the search for the Higgs boson, and not like a search for a god? Could you cite discussions within physics proper (not physicists dabbling in metaphysics) wherein "fine-tuning" is recognized as a legit problem? What sort of problem is it, in terms of how physics is approaching it?

I am skeptical that fine tuning is a legit issue for physicists when they are doing physics, BTW.

Originally posted by JS357
[quote]That said, I don't think anyone has yet addressed my point that "fine-tuning" isn't equal to "design", or the fact that "fine-tuning" is a legit problem which physicists recognize concerning the initial conditions of the cosmos (a problem which some have attempted to solve with multiverse theories, no-boundary proposals, etc.). "Fine-tuning" isn't a pro ...[text shortened]... hat fine tuning is a legit issue for physicists when they are doing physics, BTW.

One of the most fundamental questions that science can look at is "why are things the way they are?"

This is very much a question that cosmology and physics looks to answer.

Why the laws of physics are what they are and not different is a valid question.

One to which there is not yet a definitive answer (and to which there may never be a definitive answer).

However there are many many possibilities (including the existence of a multiverse containing a potentially
infinite number of other universes all with different laws of physics) other than and more likely than an intelligent
designer/fine tuner of the universe for why the universe is the way it is and not different.

At the moment we don't know what the answer is.

But that is not and never will be an excuse to give up and say god did it.