This is why I think God exists.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Still havent left the room then? Do you think maybe going back and editing your generalised post around point 4 would be wise then? Given that you have proven it wrong yourself, it is only the right thing to do.

You might reconsider point 2 too in the light of the part of my comment above that you did not reply to.

And God bless you too! Have a great day!

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

There are quite a number of reasons why I wouldn't want that!

1) To live for infinity years with a decayed body / uncurable disease would be absolutely awful.

does that just apply to infinity? or does it not count when someone lives a life of suffering and cant end their pain through suicide as its a sin?

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

And God bless you too!

I doubt it, given you havent gotten around to establishing the first iota of any reason whatsoever to think said entity exists. As I said at the start of this interlude, this is about as useful as closing the door on an empty room and talking about the actions of the guy sitting in there.

PDN wrote: »

Have a great day!

Oh so you are leaving the room then? Maybe you were not wrong, just delayed so.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh so you are leaving the room then? Maybe you were not wrong, just delayed so.

I think I'm free to leave the room, or indeed to re-enter the room, whenever I wish. So long as the mods have no objection. But thank you for your keen inerest in my comings and goings. Such solicitude is touching.

MagicMarker

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh so you are leaving the room then? Maybe you were not wrong, just delayed so.

PDN wrote: »

I think I'm free to leave the room, or indeed to re-enter the room, whenever I wish. So long as the mods have no objection. But thank you for your keen inerest in my comings and goings. Such solicitude is touching.

Maybe you should both get a room? Eh? Wink wink...

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

I think I'm free to leave the room, or indeed to re-enter the room, whenever I wish.

I never claimed otherwise! You are now responding to things I never espoused which clearly aids no one. I am more than happy for you to do either, I am just pointing out the implications of you choosing one of them...

The purpose of my points therefore is that the generalisation you made in a previous post about how conversations here go, where you claimed the slighted Christian would exit the room, is clearly false as you have done no such thing and hence proved your own generalisation to be entirely wrong.

And in this light maybe you could either recognise the error of your generalisation, such as it stands, or return to edit it?

You might also consider changing point 2 while youre at it as your response was neither helpful NOT polite (as you answer a question with a question which never helps and is not polite, before proceeding to tell people how they have not got a clue).

philologos

krudler wrote: »

does that just apply to infinity? or does it not count when someone lives a life of suffering and cant end their pain through suicide as its a sin?

With pallative care, alleviating suffering until the patient passes away, there isn't much need for euthanasia surely?

Caring Not Killing are the main advocacy group in the UK for encouraging this method over others. I've found their Q&A section to be quite useful.

That said, I really wouldn't want to be in hospital for eternity either.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

With pallative care, alleviating suffering until the patient passes away, there isn't much need for euthanasia surely?

Caring Not Killing are the main advocacy group in the UK for encouraging this method over others. I've found their Q&A section to be quite useful.

That said, I really wouldn't want to be in hospital for eternity either.

Even with all the drugs in the world it's not always possible to die a painless death.

Turtwig

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

I think I'm free to leave the room, or indeed to re-enter the room, whenever I wish.

Oh so you are leaving the room then? Maybe you were not wrong, just delayed so.

. . .

(NSFW)

zenno

God is electrical energy.

the old books say god is everywere, what is akin to that ? energy. electrical energy is everywere and place at the same time on this planet and space. this is the real god, not a man in the uneducated sense of thinking. think out of the box.

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

With pallative care, alleviating suffering until the patient passes away, there isn't much need for euthanasia surely?

Caring Not Killing are the main advocacy group in the UK for encouraging this method over others. I've found their Q&A section to be quite useful.

That said, I really wouldn't want to be in hospital for eternity either.

alleviating suffering isnt ending suffering though.

Its utterly ludicrous that if a horse breaks it leg we shoot it , or if a dog is injured to the point where it wont live a full life, this is the "humane" thing to do, but yet we'd rather let fellow humans lie in a bed with tubes poking out of them keeping them alive and in suffering rather than putting them out of their misery, as apparently taking out own lives is an insult to god, who by chrisitan logic put those suffering in that position in the first place. I know this is going to descend into the "god doesnt make people sick" endless argument again so dont even go there.

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The problem being that his entire opening “argument” is linear time based. So what his “argument” has got to do with something he is postulating which is outside time… I do not know, nor is it becoming any clearer in proportion to the length of this thread.

That is a problem. It would be more helpful to you to try and see how his argument works, rather than to see how it doesn't. What his argument appears to have done, is use the very obvious statement that everything in this time/space-constrained world has a cause. This is justification for the cosmological argument up to a point.

Then when the universe starts, it's a start of time and space. I guess the argument extends then to say that something outside of time "caused" this start, and that it was God.

MagicMarker wrote: »

A HA! So something CAN come from nothing after all!!

Ergo, God doesn't exist.(in the sense same sense as things which are in space time do)

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So there "must" be something to which the normal rules of the universe as we understand them do not apply, making it not a "thing" in the normal sense of the word. Let's make this shaky assumption for the moment. Now why must this "something" be a god, with all of the connotations that word brings?

I don't think his system is making claims to absolute certainty. This is what people who don't understand their belief system do. You can focus on any system whatsoever, and say "prove that, prove that, prove that". Skepticism does not start and end with religion.

It's not difficult at all to move from the deistic argument to the theistic one. It's not a fully connected logical pattern, but it's not difficult to come up with either.

For example, from that video there he mentioned the fine tuning argument deists bring up sometimes. So something 'finetuned' the physical constants to be what they are... the only difference between this and the theistic conception is that the theistic one interferes after the cogs are set in place. But the leap is the fine tuning part, it's not anything else. There is a thing which deliberately "fine tuned" the universe so that planets and people would form. To extrapolate things like "benevolence" from that isn't hard. And neither is it a leap to think that this deistic god couldn't just waltz in and start creating things again. For example, I once heard the ressurection of jesus described as "second creation".

I would fish out a bertrand russell quote if I had the book here with me. But It is better to try and see why someone is right, than why they are wrong, you will understand their position more accurately then. I do have an aristotle quote though "it is possible to entertain an idea without accepting it", it's something along those lines anyway.

Edit: The aristotle quote is actually " It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"

philologos

krudler: Personally, I think it's too risky to be legalised as it can be too readily abused. This is the reason a House of Lords committee gave in 1994 for arguing that it is pretty much unenforceable. People can be easily guilted into giving up their life by relatives and others, and ensuring full and clear will to end life is incredibly difficult.

This is a good bit off topic though, I'd be glad to go into more depth about it in a thread that is more relevant or by PM.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I think I'm free to leave the room, or indeed to re-enter the room, whenever I wish. So long as the mods have no objection.

Indeed, we have no objection. I feel your defenses of christian thinking are doing more for the cause of atheism than any other single poster here!

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

That is a problem. It would be more helpful to you to try and see how his argument works

If it doesn’t work it doesn’t work. Why consider it any other way? If a car does not start, there is no reason to consider all the wonderful reasons why it should. It simply is a non working car. Similarly this non working argument does not work, and considering how it WOULD work in our temporal universe does not help it.

raah! wrote: »

This is justification for the cosmological argument up to a point.

No, no it does not.

The causality of our universe lends itself to causality arguments ONLY within our universe. Applying the same arguments to a state where time and causality does not apply is entirely meaningless. There is no way to make it work, or to twist it so it does. Temporal arguments simply do not apply... at all.

Asking what "caused" the universe is meaningless. Causality is time based and time is an attribute of the universe we currently have.

raah! wrote: »

I guess the argument extends then to say that something outside of time "caused" this start, and that it was God.

Yes, this is exactly what the argument is TRYING To say, but it is meaningless. Again as time does not apply, causality does not apply, so postulating a "cause" is merely time based thinking being applied to non time based scenarios.

Making a meaningless argument that sounds good in our situation, may sound good in our situation, but it is still a meaningless argument.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know if it is to be honest. The frustrations of never knowing the answers to the key questions of life, would drive people with a philosophical mind batty. I'd rather know that my life was going to end.



Would you rather just live here forever, if it was the case that there was a God, and there was a hereafter, and there was a possibility that not only you, but others could find it? And that this God was going to send all your friends and family, you have ever known and loved, to a seperate place where you would never see them again, to be tortured in the most horrible way imaginable, forever and ever. If they happened not to believe the exact exact same thing you did prior to thier death. And know you will have to associate with this God for all eternity, knowing what he had done to your husband/wife/children/friends/parents. And knowing that, judging on his past behaviour he would probably condemn you to be tortured forever aswell if you ever complained about the treatment of your loved ones.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with living here for my entire lifespan, but I believe that my true home is elsewhere.

Fixed your post.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Indeed, we have no objection. I feel your defenses of christian thinking are doing more for the cause of atheism than any other single poster here!

That's very interesting since I haven't actually been making any defences of Christian thinking. My entry into this thread, as is often the case, was to correct a misconception about what Christians believe. Actually I agree this should help the cause of atheism since it would mean you are more likely to address others' genuine positions rather than strawmen. I would have thought that posters would be grateful for this service. After all, reasonable people should prefer knowledge to ignorance, shouldn't they?

What is interesting, and sad, is that the adversarial approach to fora such as these mean that some posters tend to see everything as an attack or a defence rather than an opportunity to learn from each other. Then things tend to get personal.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

Fixed your post.

A number one reason why Christians should evangelise, and help people to find forgiveness for what they have done wrong. A key reason why I would want all people to come to know about what Jesus did for them.

Your post seems to put the blame on God, but this is highly inaccurate. God has given us a means of salvation. It is down to our stubborn heartedness that we end up rejecting Him.

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If it doesn’t work it doesn’t work. Why consider it any other way?

Arguments aren't cars. The analogy isn't correct, as far as I'm concerned. To say why you aren't correct in saying that we would have to go all the way into naturalism and all that jive.

The reason to consider it another way is to understand it better.

No, no it does not.

Maybe you are replying too fast?

up to a point

The causality of our universe lends itself to causality arguments ONLY within our universe. Applying the same arguments to a state where time and causality does not apply is entirely meaningless. There is no way to make it work, or to twist it so it does. Temporal arguments simply do not apply... at all.

If causal explanations are completely done away with, then we are unable to explain anything. We cannot say that causal explanations don't work in that situation using cause based arguments, and logic. This is used in the sense that the truth of certain statements is "caused" by the truth of other ones. Now, that's clearly not a time based conception of cause, but for the fellows argument, which it could be argued boils down to an argument from ignorance, we could say this doesn't matter. We can say his argument garauntees the existence of gaps.

Asking what "caused" the universe is meaningless. Causality is time based and time is an attribute of the universe we currently have.

It depends on your conception of cause, and whether or not cause is truly time based. There are lots of assumptions in this thread about time.

Yes, this is exactly what the argument is TRYING To say, but it is meaningless. Again as time does not apply, causality does not apply, so postulating a "cause" is merely time based thinking being applied to non time based scenarios.

Well, to get into this, we'll have to have very solid definitions of "time" and "cause". That's why I put them in inverted commas. Now we don't know the fellows argument, but the idea of cause isn't directly necessary.

Also, if this is not an argument, then responding to it with arguments wouldn't make sense would it? Are you not responding to the individual points in the argument? That's what an argument is, full stop. Any other kind of conception of "an argument is something with data" is wrong.

Edit: Do not be so limiting in your quotes please. Sometimes when I read a quote I think "I couldn't have said that" but then go back to the context and it's one part of a syllogism or something like that. It also leads to cases where you quote one part of a statement I made, whilst going on to explain the rest of it, and you pretty much re-hash the parts ahead. Perhaps that is deliberate.

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

Arguments aren't cars.

Can you please find where I said they were? OR do you just revel in addressing things people have not actually said, to avoid what they really did say?

raah! wrote: »

Maybe you are replying too fast?

Concern yourself with your own replies, and leave me to mine.

raah! wrote: »

If causal explanations are completely done away with, then we are unable to explain anything.

Well done, and welcome to the real world because this is EXACTLY where we are right now. We have, with the use of our science, realised that causal thinking breaks down at the "big bang" as time itself came into being at this point too. We are currently working as a species on explaining it having realised this and I look forward to the results of this work.

raah! wrote: »

We cannot say that causal explanations don't work in that situation using cause based arguments, and logic.

Really? Well then show me any example you have to hand of causality in the complete absence of time. Then we can talk about how you think a causal frame work in a non-temporal state can be achieved. Or maybe you are replying too fast?

raah! wrote: »

It depends on your conception of cause, and whether or not cause is truly time based. There are lots of assumptions in this thread about time.

Again, I am waiting for your example, or sample frame work, showing how one event can "cause" another in the absence of time. In fact nothing else you just typed is of use until you demonstrate this. I will, of course, be the first to let the nobel prize committee know of your work.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

I don't think his system is making claims to absolute certainty. This is what people who don't understand their belief system do. You can focus on any system whatsoever, and say "prove that, prove that, prove that". Skepticism does not start and end with religion.

It's not difficult at all to move from the deistic argument to the theistic one. It's not a fully connected logical pattern, but it's not difficult to come up with either.

For example, from that video there he mentioned the fine tuning argument deists bring up sometimes. So something 'finetuned' the physical constants to be what they are... the only difference between this and the theistic conception is that the theistic one interferes after the cogs are set in place. But the leap is the fine tuning part, it's not anything else. There is a thing which deliberately "fine tuned" the universe so that planets and people would form. To extrapolate things like "benevolence" from that isn't hard. And neither is it a leap to think that this deistic god couldn't just waltz in and start creating things again. For example, I once heard the ressurection of jesus described as "second creation".

I would fish out a bertrand russell quote if I had the book here with me. But It is better to try and see why someone is right, than why they are wrong, you will understand their position more accurately then. I do have an aristotle quote though "it is possible to entertain an idea without accepting it", it's something along those lines anyway.

Edit: The aristotle quote is actually " It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"

The part in bold is what I have a problem with. The leap from "something" created the universe even to extrapolating that this something is a being doesn't even make any sense to me. The leap from "something" to benevolance is an impossible leap across a bottomless chasm as far as I'm concerned, never mind the leap to "a guy who lived in Israel 2000 years ago".

You say that these leaps are not difficult so please explain how you do it to me. As far as I can see theists spend all their time convincing people that there must have been a beginning and that the universe appears fine tuned* and then just add all the assumptions that they have of the word god right up to raising from the dead and answering prayers as if one automatically follows from the other. What if this beginning was the equivalent of a natural process in some kind of "realm" where the laws of our universe didn't apply? I've never seen a theist explain why it can't have been something like this and I highly doubt that they would call such a thing god, never mind the specific christian god that they believe in. Basically, please tell me how one makes the leap from "the universe had a beginning" to "god disapproves of gayness" or anything of the sort




*even though 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
of the universe is uninhabitable so if it's fine tuned for anything I don't think it's life

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

Edit: Do not be so limiting in your quotes please.

Again, as I requested in the post just above this one, you worry about your posts and leave me to worry about mine. The quotes were accurate, which is a lot more than you get from SOME users on this site who go around doing what they call "fixing" what you said and then replying to something you never yourself typed.

If I reply to something you did not say then of course correct me, or if I reply to something you said and I misunderstood or misrepresent what you said then of course correct me. If you are simply unhappy with what is IN the quote then sorry but I am not about to pander to this nor am I aware of any reasons why I should.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

A number one reason why Christians should evangelise, and help people to find forgiveness for what they have done wrong. A key reason why I would want all people to come to know about what Jesus did for them.

Your post seems to put the blame on God, but this is highly inaccurate. God has given us a means of salvation. It is down to our stubborn heartedness that we end up rejecting Him.

I'd equate that to me stopping you on the street in Dublin, putting a shotgun to the back of your head and screaming at you "believe that you are in France! Don't just say you believe, genuinely believe it!" Then pulling the trigger when you were incapable of doing so.

Then in court saying to the judge "Hey I did nothing wrong. It's not my fault it is Jakkass' fault. He brought it on himself. I gave him a way not to have his head blown off. It's not my fault he didn't believe despite all the evidence pointing in the opposite direction, despite the fact he was standing on the Ha' Penny Bridge in Dublin city centre surrounded by Dubs. Despite the fact that he was standing at a latitude of 53 20 N and a longitude of 6 15 W which he confirmed via his GPS. That he was in France. I think you'll agree Judge, I'm pretty blameless of any wrongdoing here."

I'd be spending the rest of my life in either Portlaoise or St. Lomans and rightly so.

raah!

Ok, so if we take fine tuning, which is one such deistic argument. There is not need to cite the anthropic prinicple now, or the multiverse jive, because these are arguments in counter to fine tuning.

You don't say "yeah it was fine tuned buuut anthropic principle", you say "No! Anthropic principle!"

My argument followed from "fine tuning", now also you must realise, that while this is an argument, most religious people don't care for such justifications of their God. For them it's an axiom, or some sort like that, a talking varying axiom.

So fine tuning, what does that mean? The universe was "fine tuned" so that planets, people, astronomers form. The so that is the important part. And that is implied in the term "fine tuned". So the universe was made "so that", for a reason. Reason suggests consciousness, and you can go on from there if you please.

You get to gayness being bad once you have established your theistic communicating version of god, which I do no think is difficult to get to from any deistic conception. A deistic conception is a thing which made the universe, and then stopped making things. So if this thing outside of hte laws of physics can make things, then he can make things, if he can make these laws, and fine tune them, then it's not ridiculous to think that he can change or break them. This is not a direct logical connection, mind you. But you must rid yourself of the notion that you me, or anyone operates under such direct connections 100% of the time

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

Ok, so if we take fine tuning, which is one such deistic argument.

I do not think it is an argument because the claim made by those espousing it is founded on nothing. Unless you define argument, therefore, as something you simply CALL an argument (Like a prosecutor saying to the judge “I think he did it because apples are green”) then I see no reason to call the fine tuning claim an argument.

What the fine tuning claim is, in fact, is a very subtle addition of a massive assumption into something that is essentially very likely true.

The claim is that if you change ONE variable of our universe, life as we know it would not exist, therefore ALL The variables have to be as they are now for life to have happened.

The first failure with the argument is the “so what” claim. I described above the “Two card game” fallacy and this fine tuning argument is a perfect example of it.

The second failure is that all the words after “ALL” are wholly assumed and hence this is not an argument, but a wholly assumed declaration by fiat.

Why?

Well quite simply because we do not know this to be true. If you change ONE variable then yes things fall apart, but what if you edit the others to counteract the change? Clearly then there is another balanced setting that would work. Why then can we not assume that there are infinite settings that would be "balanced" and that ours is simply one of them?

I wrote more on this for an Atheist Ireland article here titled “Our Tune Might Not Be So Fine At All”
http://www.atheist.ie/2009/04/our-tune-might-not-be-so-fine-at-all/

raah!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Can you please find where I said they were? OR do you just revel in addressing things people have not actually said, to avoid what they really did say?

Ok, this is the last time in which I'll interact with you. Me saying "arguments aren't cars" was my way of saying that I thought the analogy was a bad one.

Concern yourself with your own replies, and leave me to mine.

How can I reply to them then? You were replying to my post, you misinterpreted sentences by taking them out of context.

Well done, and welcome to the real world because this is EXACTLY where we are right now. We have, with the use of our science, realised that causal thinking breaks down at the "big bang" as time itself came into being at this point too. We are currently working as a species on explaining it having realised this and I look forward to the results of this work.

So do I. I doubt it will be very much different from the concept of cause mind you. All explanations are cause seeking. Words like cause and meaning are not independent either.

Really? Well then show me any example you have to hand of causality in the complete absence of time. Then we can talk about how you think a causal frame work in a non-temporal state can be achieved. Or maybe you are replying too fast?

Again, I am waiting for your example, or sample frame work, showing how one event can "cause" another in the absence of time. In fact nothing else you just typed is of use until you demonstrate this. I will, of course, be the first to let the nobel prize committee know of your work.

Please fully read my posts before you reply to them. It's fairly obvious that if the tone of the discussion between us has descended into this then we shouldn't really be discussing with each other anymore. Because as you said, we won't learn anything.

Dades

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I never claimed otherwise! You are now responding to things I never espoused which clearly aids no one. I am more than happy for you to do either, I am just pointing out the implications of you choosing one of them...

The purpose of my points therefore is that the generalisation you made in a previous post about how conversations here go, where you claimed the slighted Christian would exit the room, is clearly false as you have done no such thing and hence proved your own generalisation to be entirely wrong.

And in this light maybe you could either recognise the error of your generalisation, such as it stands, or return to edit it?

You might also consider changing point 2 while youre at it as your response was neither helpful NOT polite (as you answer a question with a question which never helps and is not polite, before proceeding to tell people how they have not got a clue).

Will you us all a favour and give this a rest? I already alluded to the (lack of) helpfulness of PDN's post and we moved on.

This thread is becoming a nightmare and the OP is going to have tough going to find any posts actually relevant to his post.

nozzferrahhtoo

raah! wrote: »

Me saying "arguments aren't cars" was my way of saying that I thought the analogy was a bad one.

I do not see why, and you simply saying it is bad does not make it miraculously acquire that characteristic merely by virtue of you saying it. However maybe if I add to the analogy it will be clearer to you.

IF a car is not working for some reason it is entirely useless to sit there imagining how it would work better if only the rules of the universe were slightly different. You can imagine all you want, but the fact remains the car still does not work.

What I am attempting to draw a picture of here, is that there is no use imagining how great the first cause argument is, if you assume temporal mechanics, when at the end of the day you are still applying the argument to something where causality does not apply. The fact remains the argument still fails. You are, just like with the car, attempting to change the parameters of what you are talking about, in order to make an argument fit that otherwise doesn't.

raah! wrote: »

How can I reply to them then? You were replying to my post, you misinterpreted sentences by taking them out of context.

Which sentence was misrepresented and how? Merely saying something was, does not mean one was. Explain please. Oh no wait you can not, because you wont be "interacting" with me again. How convenient! Though somehow I doubt the truth of this claim and I rather expect further interaction is at least likely.

raah! wrote: »

All explanations are cause seeking.

All the ones we have now are, but this does not mean there does not exist any that will not be. It is precisely because we know time breaks down at the "big bang" point that we have to start working on explanations that are independent of cause. This is NOT helped by people creating causality arguments, and then applying them to timeless elements such as - say - the event which converted our universe from one form (singularity) to another (expansion event involving the creation of space and time).

raah! wrote: »

Please fully read my posts before you reply to them.

You would likely do better to not ask me to do things that I have already done and do. You seem to take an inordinate amount of interest in the poster and posting style, rather than the actual subject at hand.

Anyway, that's it for now until you fail to not interact with me some time in the future.

nozzferrahhtoo

Dades wrote: »

and we moved on.

Er yes we did and that part of the conversation was over and had not resurfaced... until just now :mad:

raah!

No no , we'll keep interacting, and i'll try to explain the things I say more. But lets not do so in this fellows thread anymore, for all we know my interpretations of what he's saying aren't even correct.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

My entry into this thread, as is often the case, was to correct a misconception about what Christians believe.

And if I get any time, which is looking unlikely over the next day or two, I'd love to point out several flaws in your own understanding of the Nicene creed!

PDN wrote: »

What is interesting, and sad, is that the adversarial approach to fora such as these mean that some posters tend to see everything as an attack or a defence rather than an opportunity to learn from each other. Then things tend to get personal.

It's interesting you should think this. Over on this side of the fence, ideas are reckoned only to be as good as the defense that's made of them. And anything that passes examination by A+A's able Epistemological SWAT team is likely to be at the very least, quite interesting.

Unlike religious fora, though, on this side, people are not encouraged to self-identify with ideas, something that's common, if not ubiquitous, in religious fora where in-group thinking, group-identity and group-markers are all part of the religious experience. Sadly, if people self-identify with an idea, then it's hard not to believe that criticism of the idea is equivalent to criticism of the person. And the kind of vigorous questioning that's normal here, is therefore viewed -- as you incorrectly believe -- as a direct personal attack upon the people who hold this view.

It's a rather subtle point, but I think an important one.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

I'd equate that to me stopping you on the street in Dublin, putting a shotgun to the back of your head and screaming at you "believe that you are in France! Don't just say you believe, genuinely believe it!" Then pulling the trigger when you were incapable of doing so.

It's nothing of the sort. It's really this simple. If God has created the world, and if this world is His, then He has authority to rule over it, and He has the ability to give us commandments about how best we should live in it for our own well being and the authority to enforce these commandments.

Should we willingly turn away from God, we reject His authority, and when we disobey His commandments in His world, there is a penalty for doing so. This penalty arises through our own wrongdoing.

However, God in His grace, allowed for Jesus to stand in our place, so that we might not have to receive this penalty. As such the decision is firmly in our hands, as to whether we are to believe in Him and to receive His amnesty.

Otherwise we are fully accountable to God for what we have done. Pretty much in the same way that I can still be brought before court, even if I ardently deny that it has any form of authority over me, or even if I had the blind fortitude to deny that it even truly existed.

Indeed, if I receive an amnesty from jail, or indeed if I am released on good behaviour, and if I refuse to recognise the terms of this amnesty, I will be back in jail.

Turtwig

I for one think that the fine tuning argument is a rubbish argument to propose as an argument for the existence of God. The argument seems to make the implicit assumption that we decide something is true if the probability of an event occurring is highly unlikely.An example of why such reasoning is misguided is the following example. Aliens travel to earth and abduct an unknown creature. It turns out this creature is a pilot. As only less than 0.5% of humans beings are pilots, they conclude that the creature they caught isn't human. Now imagine they were to grab over 1000 specimens of bacterial samples. It's not really logical for them to state that divine intervention was needed for them to grab a bacterial organism with a probability of 1x10^-32. Also if an Alien only picks 10 bacterial samples, is the aforementioned divine intervention/fluke more or less likely to occur?

The second problem with such an argument is that assigning a probability to something which quite honestly can't be assigned one. Since we don't know the origin of the fine structured constants we cannot say how likely or unlikely it is for them to be this way. An example of this would trying to predict the likely hood of a certain person winning the lotto without knowing, how often the person plays the lotto and how many numbers the person can pick from. We simply do not know the initial conditions of the problem to calculate its probability.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Pretty much in the same way that I can still be brought before court, even if I ardently deny that it has any form of authority over me, or even if I had the blind fortitude to deny that it even truly existed

:eek:So, atheists are like those crazy Freeman of the Law people you see on the CT forum....:eek:

Christ, I think I'd prefer to believe in God.

maximoose

apart from the stupid quarrels this thread is making some pretty good reading

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Ok, so if we take fine tuning, which is one such deistic argument. There is not need to cite the anthropic prinicple now, or the multiverse jive, because these are arguments in counter to fine tuning.

You don't say "yeah it was fine tuned buuut anthropic principle", you say "No! Anthropic principle!"

My argument followed from "fine tuning", now also you must realise, that while this is an argument, most religious people don't care for such justifications of their God. For them it's an axiom, or some sort like that, a talking varying axiom.

So fine tuning, what does that mean? The universe was "fine tuned" so that planets, people, astronomers form. The so that is the important part. And that is implied in the term "fine tuned". So the universe was made "so that", for a reason. Reason suggests consciousness, and you can go on from there if you please.

You get to gayness being bad once you have established your theistic communicating version of god, which I do no think is difficult to get to from any deistic conception. A deistic conception is a thing which made the universe, and then stopped making things. So if this thing outside of hte laws of physics can make things, then he can make things, if he can make these laws, and fine tune them, then it's not ridiculous to think that he can change or break them. This is not a direct logical connection, mind you. But you must rid yourself of the notion that you me, or anyone operates under such direct connections 100% of the time

Leaving aside the fact that the fine tuning argument spectacularly fails to demonstrate any fine tuning and is actually just a misunderstanding of probability, how does one get from "something has the ability to fine tune the laws of physics" to believing that this something has performed specific supernatural acts at specific times in history? This is really my major problem with religions, religious people spend so very much time giving me deistic arguments that, even if I begin the conversation fully accepting the assumption that these arguments are valid and the universe is indeed fine tuned, I am no closer to choosing Yahweh over Thor than I was yesterday. So once we have established that the universe is fine tuned, how do we go from there to sifting through the millions and millions of contradictory claims about the nature of the thing that did the fine tuning and decide which claims are true above all others?

Morbert

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He's just copying something I said last August :P

And you were just copying something I said in 2008 :P

it is perfectly valid to say that there was never a point in time when the universe didn't exist

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58223445&postcount=57

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nothing of the sort. It's really..........I will be back in jail.

It's very much the exact same thing. Just say me with my shotgun is also the source of all morality and bang! what I did was completely reasonable and fair.

So we get back to "God can do no wrong". If he rapes a million babies it's a good thing because god did it and all good comes from god. Because you believe in this "god given morality" all is exceptable if it's god doing it. I'd love to know which particular desert Jew thought that one up because it was a masterpiece of loophole creation. A sleazebag lawyers wet dream. This is an impasse we will never breach.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nothing of the sort. It's really this simple. If God has created the world, and if this world is His, then He has authority to rule over it, and He has the ability to give us commandments about how best we should live in it for our own well being and the authority to enforce these commandments.

Should we willingly turn away from God, we reject His authority, and when we disobey His commandments in His world, there is a penalty for doing so. This penalty arises through our own wrongdoing.

However, God in His grace, allowed for Jesus to stand in our place, so that we might not have to receive this penalty. As such the decision is firmly in our hands, as to whether we are to believe in Him and to receive His amnesty.

I couldn't have summed up better how bananas the Christian God story is.

Jakkass wrote: »

Otherwise we are fully accountable to God for what we have done. Pretty much in the same way that I can still be brought before court, even if I ardently deny that it has any form of authority over me, or even if I had the blind fortitude to deny that it even truly existed.

The bold bit is a palpably poor attempt to gloss over the stark failure of the analogy. To atheists, the Christian God's authority is a non-question. Something that does not exist cannot have authority. God is not rejected or denied his character simply falls out of the equation due to non-existence.

raah!

Malty_T wrote: »

I for one think that the fine tuning argument is a rubbish argument to propose as an argument for the existence of God. The argument seems to make the implicit assumption that we decide something is true if the probability of an event occurring is highly unlikely.An example of why such reasoning is misguided is the following example. Aliens travel to earth and abduct an unknown creature. It turns out this creature is a pilot. As only less than 0.5% of humans beings are pilots, they conclude that the creature they caught isn't human. Now imagine they were to grab over 1000 specimens of bacterial samples. It's not really logical for them to state that divine intervention was needed for them to grab a bacterial organism with a probability of 1x10^-32. Also if an Alien only picks 10 bacterial samples, is the aforementioned divine intervention/fluke more or less likely to occur?

Sorry I don't quite follow the argument fully. But if it's what I think it is, then it must be noted that the fine tuning argument is based on a model with one universe, and one set of physical constants. That's why those type of "lots of universes" or "lots of time" arguments aren't really relevant to it. The argument starts at the assumption that there is one universe.

I don't see the argument as invincible at all mind you, I was simply trying to show that when operating from within this "fine tuned" unique universe, theistic gods can be arrived at.

The second problem with such an argument is that assigning a probability to something which quite honestly can't be assigned one. Since we don't know the origin of the fine structured constants we cannot say how likely or unlikely it is for them to be this way. We simply do not know the initial conditions of the problem to calculate its probability.

Well yes, it comes down to saying that either there was an infinite number of choices somehow being chosen randomly. Or just one chooser. And it's not solidly known, it operates on the basis that there is one set of laws of physics, which isn't hard to think of at all. To say there is or can be more than one bolsters other types of "god of the gaps" arguments by quite a bit.

Fine tuning is as ridiculous as the proposed alternatives. But then, I don't know fully how these arguments were arrived at, and it's possible there is alot of evidence for multiple universes and multiple sets of laws of physics. I have no particular affinity to this argument.

Sam Vimes

Morbert wrote: »

And you were just copying something I said in 2008 :P



http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58223445&postcount=57

*searches for pre 2008 reference* :pac:

Turtwig

Morbert wrote: »

And you were just copying something I said in 2008 :P



http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58223445&postcount=57

And I said it before all of you, 8 years earlier to myself and YOU CAN'T PROVE I DIDN'T!!!!!

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that the fine tuning argument spectacularly fails to demonstrate any fine tuning and is actually just a misunderstanding of probability,

Well I'm gonna call shenanigans on this one. In this forum full of popular science advocates, most of us don't really understand probability. We certainly don't fully understand the motivations for those varying hypotheses. We're all using arguments from authority. So I'll use this one and say that fine tuning was introduced by physicists. They still hold that view.

And I disagree that that's it's a misunderstanding of probability, based on my leaving cert understanding of it. It's an insertion of something into the gap. To say it concerns probability is to base it on the anthropic principle, or the multiverse one. As malty T pointed out, we don't know what the choices were at the start, it's just gapping in there. To use the fine tuning argument along with the multiverse or anthropic principles would be a misunderstanding, but the fine tuners don't accept those, they are alternatives.

If anything now, to say that it is a misunderstanding of probability is a misunderstanding of the only valid form of fine tuning.

how does one get from "something has the ability to fine tune the laws of physics" to believing that this something has performed specific supernatural acts at specific times in history?

Because fine tuning the laws of physics was itself a supernatural act. It was above the natural, it was preternatural, it was everything that isn't natural because it happened in a time when the natural laws didn't exist. Any conception of natural which doesn't reference the laws of physics is in my opinion worthless, but we could go into that.

This is really my major problem with religions, religious people spend so very much time giving me deistic arguments that, even if I begin the conversation fully accepting the assumption that these arguments are valid and the universe is indeed fine tuned, I am no closer to choosing Yahweh over Thor than I was yesterday. So once we have established that the universe is fine tuned, how do we go from there to sifting through the millions and millions of contradictory claims about the nature of the thing that did the fine tuning and decide which claims are true above all others?

Well i gave points in my post there. If you think they are wrong you should quote them and provide counter arguments, not repeat the request for reasons. I believe I gave them, I don't mind if you think they are bad or wrong, but If you gave arguments it would cure me of such statements as those.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

If God has created the world, and if this world is His, then He has authority to rule over it, and He has the ability to give us commandments about how best we should live in it for our own well being and the authority to enforce these commandments.

I have a kid whom I helped to create and she's "mine" (if you stretch the meaning). I have the authority to rule over her (if I wanted to, which I don't) and I believe that I have the ability to give her reasonably good rules about how she can live what I believe is a good life. I have the authority to enforce these rules, but I rarely if ever have to force her to do anything, because she's learned by example, not by force.

She is three years old and in fifteen years time, save financially, I'm expecting her to be fully independent of me. I would view myself as a failure as a parent if she wasn't independent of me.

Could you speculate as to why christians believe that god is treating the whole of humanity like three-year olds who never grow up?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

If God has created the world, and if this world is His, then He has authority to rule over it, and He has the ability to give us commandments about how best we should live in it for our own well being and the authority to enforce these commandments.

Says who?

Jakkass wrote: »

Should we willingly turn away from God, we reject His authority, and when we disobey His commandments in His world, there is a penalty for doing so. This penalty arises through our own wrongdoing.

Who says it is wrong to do this?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

I have a kid whom I helped to create and she's "mine" (if you stretch the meaning). I have the authority to rule over her (if I wanted to, which I don't) and I believe that I have the ability to give her reasonably good rules about how she can live what I believe is a good life. I have the authority to enforce these rules, but I rarely if ever have to force her to do anything, because she's learned by example, not by force.

Providing biological material != create.

The world itself is also not under your jurisdiction. More than likely you would be made accountable to the State that has authority above you. Christians go one step further than you, and say that God has dominion over all things.

robindch wrote: »

Could you speculate as to why christians believe that god is treating the whole of humanity like three-year olds who never grow up?

I don't think God does treat us all like three year olds, in the same way I don't think the State treats us like three year olds.

krudler

Dades wrote: »

I couldn't have summed up better how bananas the Christian God story is.

The bold bit is a palpably poor attempt to gloss over the stark failure of the analogy. To atheists, the Christian God's authority is a non-question. Something that does not exist cannot have authority. God is not rejected or denied his character simply falls out of the equation due to non-existence.

Say if a bunch of tribesmen in the darkest depths of the jungle, no outside communication with christians or any knowledge whatsoever of god, they die, get to the pearly gates, and are promptly told to sod off by St peter as they "rejected god" by not worshipping him, how can you reject something you dont know supposedly exists? thats a bit of a stretch of an analogy, but you get what I mean, imagine that, being told that you were rejecting something you had no idea existed in the first place. If god wanted more people to believe in him, he would have made it a bit clearer that he exists at all.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well I'm gonna call shenanigans on this one. In this forum full of popular science advocates, most of us don't really understand probability. We certainly don't fully understand the motivations for those varying hypotheses. We're all using arguments from authority. So I'll use this one and say that fine tuning was introduced by physicists. They still hold that view.

And I disagree that that's it's a misunderstanding of probability, based on my leaving cert understanding of it. It's an insertion of something into the gap. To say it concerns probability is to base it on the anthropic principle, or the multiverse one. As malty T pointed out, we don't know what the choices were at the start, it's just gapping in there. To use the fine tuning argument along with the multiverse or anthropic principles would be a misunderstanding, but the fine tuners don't accept those, they are alternatives.

If anything now, to say that it is a misunderstanding of probability is a misunderstanding of the only valid form of fine tuning.

Eh, I'm not using an argument from authority. The fine tuning argument fails and I understand why it fails. I'm not just accepting someone else's opinion on it. The fine tuning argument fails basically because the universe is massive and because we are not the only kind of life possible. If there was one planet the fine tuning argument might be valid but there are trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions. given that, it does not take any stretch of the imagination to accept that just one of them could form in such a way as to support life.

Secondly, life adapted to the earth, not the other around. To quote myself from a previous posts: had the universe had different constants, it's entirely possible that a completely different kind of life would have eventually evolved. The universe might appear to be fine tuned for this kind of life but if it was different, the glaxnors with the mercury running through their veins (assuming they had veins) would sit under their purple cuboidal sun in a universe where humans could never possibly evolve and remark how the universe seems so fine-tuned for them.

Neither of the points I just made are arguments from authority, they explain logically why the fine tuning argument fails. But anyway, in my post I was assuming that the universe was fine tuned and asking you how we get from that to a specific belief system so let's continue..

raah! wrote: »

Because fine tuning the laws of physics was itself a supernatural act. It was above the natural, it was preternatural, it was everything that isn't natural because it happened in a time when the natural laws didn't exist. Any conception of natural which doesn't reference the laws of physics is in my opinion worthless, but we could go into that.

Well i gave points in my post there. If you think they are wrong you should quote them and provide counter arguments, not repeat the request for reasons. I believe I gave them, I don't mind if you think they are bad or wrong, but If you gave arguments it would cure me of such statements as those.

I'm afraid you haven't given them. I asked you to go on from the assumption that the universe is fine tuned and tell me how I choose which supernatural acts I should believe were actually performed and which weren't but you've just given more reasons for why you think the universe is fine tuned, which I said I was assuming for the sake of argument. Even if something did fine tune the laws of the universe the fact remains that >99% of the claims that were ever made about this "something" are not true. I am not prepared to simply assume that if something did the fine tuning that this something is the specific being described in one particular book written 2000 years ago so how do I sift through the millions and millions of contradictory claims about the nature of the thing that did the fine tuning and decide which claims are true above all others?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Providing biological material != create.

"Begotten not made" again, eh? I think the missus might have issues with that view. Or indeed, any doctor or biologist!

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think God does treat us all like three year olds

Well, your description of how you believe your god treats the world is pretty much identical to how I treat my three-year old (or could, if I were some ghastly authoritarian parent, which I'm not ).

raah!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh, I'm not using an argument from authority. The fine tuning argument fails and I understand why it fails. I'm not just accepting someone else's opinion on it. The fine tuning argument fails basically because the universe is massive and because we are not the only kind of life possible. If there was one planet the fine tuning argument might be valid but there are trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions. given that, it does not take any stretch of the imagination to accept that just one of them could form in such a way as to support life.

Ok well fine tuning is about the formation of planets. And things like that. The formation of the larger elements.

Secondly, life adapted to the earth, not the other around. To quote myself from a previous posts: had the universe had different constants, it's entirely possible that a completely different kind of life would have eventually evolved. The universe might appear to be fine tuned for this kind of life but if it was different, the glaxnors with the mercury running through their veins (assuming they had veins) would sit under their purple cuboidal sun in a universe where humans could never possibly evolve and remark how the universe seems so fine-tuned for them. Neither of the points I just made are arguments from authority, they explain logically why the fine tuning argument fails

That is wrong. Fine tuning is called "fine tuning" for a reason. There would be no planets, no complex elements, which formed in the planets, and then no complex arrangements of those atoms, called life. Unless you want to speculate some kind of magic life? But that's different, and this contradicts the position you hold when you criticise things like religion.

I'm afraid you haven't given them. I asked you to go on from the assumption that the universe is fine tuned and tell me how I choose which supernatural acts I should believe were actually performed and which weren't but you've just given more reasons for why you think the universe is fine tuned, which I said I was assuming for the sake of argument.

If you think this then please re-read the post. This is completely wrong. You asked me to go from fine tuning to benevolence etc. and I did that. If you think benevolence can't be arrived at, respond to the argument.

The multiplicity of religions, and which "supernatural acts" to believe, is an argument which occurs higher up in this, it is not pertinent to "fine tuning allows for theistic conceptions of god".

Also, I don't believe I ever gave any reasons why i think the universe is fine tuned.

Even if something did fine tune the laws of the universe the fact remains that >99% of the claims that were ever made about this "something" are not true. I am not prepared to simply assume that if something did the fine tuning that this something is the specific being described in one particular book written 2000 years ago so how do I sift through the millions and millions of contradictory claims about the nature of the thing that did the fine tuning and decide which claims are true above all others?

Well I would argue the claims aren't that difference. I would also like to highlight, this position, the one you are stating, is massively different to "the idea of a theism derived from fine tuning is ridiculous".