@kellyjay saidThat's just not the case. If they were alive today they could be questioned and their history forensically examined. And even then, anecdotal evidence is not strong evidence. At two thousand years remove, we don't even know who your witnesses are.
The level of uncertainty would be no different if they were alive today. Truth is what we seek, and it has to be reasonable, not beyond doubt.
@avalanchethecat saidYou didn’t look at it.
This is just sophistry, it means nothing. You wish to find evidence of god because you believe your scripture which tells you god is there. I am not swayed by your scripture. The fact that we exist is not evidence for your god.
Again, I don't say it's impossible to know. I say I don't know, and you don't either. I dont' find your evidence unappealing. I find it unconvincing.
@avalanchethecat saidYou haven’t looked at the Holy Bible extensively. I doubt you’ve even read a page of it. I can tell by your ignorance of it.
The "fine-tuning" argument? I've looked at it, extensively. The bible? I've looked at it, extensively. What else have you got?
Your casual dishonesty and irreversibly closed mind on this subject makes conversations with you pointless.
You claimed evidence for the theory of evolution was overwhelming and then couldn’t produce a single shred of evidence.
In my opinion, you should fundamentally re-examine (or examine for the first time) what you believe ‘cause it seems entirely based on what other people think, and that ain’t good, Skipper.
@avalanchethecat saidI don’t know what you looked at and what you mean by extensively either. So far I have seen you chuck the possibility out of hand with the reasoning behind that having more to do with your bias than any reasoning. Even your link offered no explanation and the part I quoted after reading it you had issues with if I am not mistaken.
The "fine-tuning" argument? I've looked at it, extensively. The bible? I've looked at it, extensively. What else have you got?
@pb1022 saidHe and I have been have been having a nice conversation I believe his responses truthful. I don’t want to call anyone deceitful simply because we disagree. My version of studying scriptures I imagine is different than his, but because we don’t look at it to the same degree and intensity doesn’t mean he hasn’t looked into it.
You haven’t looked at the Holy Bible extensively. I doubt you’ve even read a page of it. I can tell by your ignorance of it.
Your casual dishonesty and irreversibly closed mind on this subject makes conversations with you pointless.
You claimed evidence for the theory of evolution was overwhelming and then couldn’t produce a single shred of evidence.
In my opinion, yo ...[text shortened]... you believe ‘cause it seems entirely based on what other people think, and that ain’t good, Skipper.
@kellyjay saidI am fully conversant with the 'fine-tuning' argument, in fact I argued your side of it on several occasions. Eventually I was shown that there is no level of scientific argument which has any relevance when weighed against the methodological principle I linked for you.
I don’t know what you looked at and what you mean by extensively either. So far I have seen you chuck the possibility out of hand with the reasoning behind that having more to do with your bias than any reasoning. Even your link offered no explanation and the part I quoted after reading it you had issues with if I am not mistaken.
I am very familiar with the bible. I spent a good portion of my childhood in a very religious house, attended Sunday School regularly and studied scripture assiduously. I believed it all, until suddenly I didn't. Since then, I have read through the OT (although I did skip the begats) a couple of times, the NT three or four times, and the Gospels a whole bunch of times.
1 edit
Eventually I was shown that there is no level of scientific argument . . .
Isn't it important what YOU think?
One can point out that there is no scientific agreement 100% on this or that matter.
This does not prevent you personally from deciding what YOUR decision is.
In spite of pointing out there is disagreements among scientists, what position do you wish to take? Are you waiting to notice unanimous total agreement from all cosmologists, astrophysicists, physicists, mathematicians, and biologist before you personally commit to a position about this?
Do you think several constants in physics are finely calibrated for life to exist in the universe? Or do you think not or want to postpone your belief because every last scientist doesn't think the exact same thing as every other?
@sonship saidIt doesn't mean anything to say how 'finely-tuned' the universal constants are. If they were any different, we wouldn't be here to measure them. For all we know there have been or are an infinite variety of universes with different constants. The only universe we know about is this one, and the fact that we are here means that those constants are such that we are able to exist.
@avalanchethecat
Eventually I was shown that there is no level of scientific argument . . .
Isn't it important what YOU think?
One can point out that there is no scientific agreement 100% on this or that matter.
This does not prevent you personally from deciding what YOUR decision is.
In spite of pointing out there is disagreements amon ...[text shortened]... postpone your belief because every last scientist doesn't think the exact same thing as every other?
2 edits
It doesn't mean anything to say how 'finely-tuned' the universal constants are. If they were any different, we wouldn't be here to measure them. For all we know there have been or are an infinite variety of universes with different constants. The only universe we know about is this one, and the fact that we are here means that those constants are such that we are able to exist.
I ask if you take a position on whether fine-tuning seems evident.
Would I be accurately representing you then that you are saying - It doesn't matter because that fact that we are here to discuss it, to consider it at all makes it irrelevant?
If that is your position, can I also say something like this:
"It doesn't matter if evolution took place because our existing makes it irrelevant whether it took place or not. If we didn't exist we would not be here to contemplate evolution. "
How is that attitude different from what you're proposing about fine-tuning?
@sonship saidIt's a methodological principle. We exist, therefore those constants MUST be such that they allow us to exist. You can't really apply the same principle to evolution unless you can be sure that there is no other way that we could have come to exist.
@avalanchethecat
[quote] It doesn't mean anything to say how 'finely-tuned' the universal constants are. If they were any different, we wouldn't be here to measure them. For all we know there have been or are an infinite variety of universes with different constants. The only universe we know about is this one, and the fact that we are here means that those constants are ...[text shortened]... volution. " [/i]
How is that attitude different from what you're proposing about fine-tuning?
@avalanchethecat saidYour introducing a means to ignore the reality of the fine tuning argument but I don’t see it being invalidated. So regardless it’s just as powerful example of design as the information guiding biological processes. This is not a what is true for you type of argument it is not a simple matter of disagreements .
I am fully conversant with the 'fine-tuning' argument, in fact I argued your side of it on several occasions. Eventually I was shown that there is no level of scientific argument which has any relevance when weighed against the methodological principle I linked for you.
I am very familiar with the bible. I spent a good portion of my childhood in a very religious h ...[text shortened]... p the begats) a couple of times, the NT three or four times, and the Gospels a whole bunch of times.
3 edits
It doesn't mean anything to say how 'finely-tuned' the universal constants are. If they were any different, we wouldn't be here to measure them.
Can we then extend this attitude towards any and all laws of nature which contribute to our existence?
Shall we say Newton's laws of universal gravitation should not be contemplated?
We would not be standing on the earth to contemplate any laws of gravity if
they were otherwise.
Shall we say Einstein's discovery E=mc2 being anything else we would not exist to think about it in the first place. So the fact that we are here to think on it makes it irrelevant.
Why isn't your grand apathy attitude not extendable to the entire scientific enterprise on things contributing to our existence?
1 edit
@kellyjay saidI don't think it's true to say I'm introducing a means for ignoring the argument. It is a simple fact that we exist. Do you disagree with that? No, of course not. Therefore you must accept that the universe is such that we may exist. It may appear to be 'fine-tuned', but the fact is that those constants couldn't be any different in any universe we find ourselves existing in.
Your introducing a means to ignore the reality of the fine tuning argument but I don’t see it being invalidated. So regardless it’s just as powerful example of design as the information guiding biological processes. This is not a what is true for you type of argument it is not a simple matter of disagreements .
To call it 'tuning' is to imply that they could be different. They couldn't be.
@sonship saidLol @ "grand apathy"
@avalanchethecat
It doesn't mean anything to say how 'finely-tuned' the universal constants are. If they were any different, we wouldn't be here to measure them.
Can we then extend this attitude towards any and all laws of nature which contribute to our existence?
Shall we say Newton's laws of universal gravitation should not be contemplated? ...[text shortened]... ttitude not extendable to the entire scientific enterprise on things contributing to our existence?
It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to examine the constants of the universe, and to attempt to understand why they have the values that they have. I'm in no way suggesting otherwise. It is, conversely, not reasonable to imagine that because if they were different in any way we could not exist that they prove that the universe was 'tuned' to permit our existence.