One of the Best Arguments for God?

[POI]

we should focus the fine-tuning.

Both theists and skeptics will state this is one of the best arguments a believer has. But, is it sound reasoning? Below are some points to consider before continuing:

The fine-tuning argument for God is often considered to fail because it relies on the assumption that the extreme improbability of our universe's life-permitting conditions points to a designer, but this can be countered by the concept of a multiverse, where our observable universe could simply be one of many with vastly different conditions, making our seemingly fine-tuned universe less surprising statistically; additionally, critics argue that even if fine-tuning is real, it doesn't necessarily point to a God with the characteristics typically described in religions, and the argument can be seen as a "God of the gaps" fallacy, where unexplained phenomena are attributed to divine intervention.

Below are some key points against the fine-tuning argument:

The Multiverse Hypothesis: If there are an infinite or very large number of universes with different physical constants, then it becomes less improbable that we would happen to be in one where life is possible, even if the odds of that specific set of constants are very low in any single universe.

Anthropic Principle:This principle states that we can only observe a universe capable of supporting life because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it, which can partially explain the fine-tuning observation without invoking a deity.

Lack of Specificity: Even if fine-tuning is real, it doesn't necessarily point to a specific God with the characteristics described in religions, as the "designer" could be a very different entity.

The "God of the Gaps" Fallacy: Critics argue that invoking God to explain unexplained phenomena like fine-tuning is a form of this fallacy, where God is used to fill in gaps in our scientific understanding that may be explained by future discoveries.

Notable... "irreducible complexity" focuses on the structure of a system, while "fine-tuning" focuses on the specific values within a system that make it functional. But I feel it is still worth adding:

Irreducible complexity: Theists will argue for it. It is a system that is made up of multiple parts that work together, and where removing any one part causes the system to stop working. However, the Dover trial of the mid 2000's dispelled this assumption.

*************************

For Debate: Above provides some point(s) which would be a (cause for pause) in theists continuing to push for this argument. Why is the fine-tuning argument a good argument for a God or god(s) existence?

[SiNcE_1985]

Then you cannot use 'science' to explain origins, which still means I can completely ignore Mr. Penrose.

I said in my last post we'll see how many more times you will misrepresent what I said.

Let's start an official tally: 2.

This is the second official time you've done so.

I never used science to explain origins, especially not after I just said the bandwagon of science stops at origins, and that's where theology takes over.

The tally is active.

Ah, then you now retract what you said about God with hypotheses and best explanations?

Ah, no.

You start at the God hypothesis, and then you examine the arguments/evidence presented, and then you'll find that God is the best explanation.

My point is that if it is one the best arguments for God, then why do so few know about it? Further, why is it not ever the catalyst argument for one's conversion from atheism to theism? Every time I hear conversion stories; I never hear of any of these mumbo-jumbo arguments.

Red herring...irrelevant to the discussion.

If people are converting without knowledge of the argument, good for them.

Since we are speaking about an argument for God, and this is one of the best, seems most should have at least heard of it, and many more people would become convinced because of this argument as well.

Opinions, red herrings, irrelevancy.

The second premise asserts a beginning. And to the bold, "science' is still exploring. (Academia/peer review) would not be publishing papers exploring eternal universe theory if this topic was settled.

The second premise asserts a beginning, and then presents argumentation is given supporting this beginning..from both science, math, and philosophy.

If there was so much evidence supporting an eternal universe, then there would be no need to "explore eternal universe theory".

Scientists have been scrambling to come up with pre-big bang models in efforts to combat the overwhelming evidence which supports the current prevailing theory in cosmology; the big bang theory.

The BBT has the most evidence supporting it, and scientists, aware of it's implications, have been scrambling like eggs to restore a "eternal" universe.

The problem is, there is no evidence for it.

Yes, but before 'science', it is mere unfounded assertion.

Um, no. Some of those first cause arguments are still as valid today as they were hundreds of years ago.

And now that we have 'science', and there is still debate among academia and peer review, P2 is still an unfounded assertion.

I will say again, since you ignored it the last time..

The arguments against infinity is independent of "science"..so appealing to science won't work.

The universe cannot be eternal because of the impossibility of infinite regress.

Well, we cannot speak about points 1. and 2., as we would necessarily have to cite 'science' and 'origins'. But sure, we can discuss 'evolution' in either this thread, or, I can point you to where you abandoned the exchange in the other thread, or, you can ignore it both here and there. It's your call?

If I abandoned it, it is probably because I said all I needed to say.

Yes, I know, you already stated this. I'm scratching my noggin because you stated hypotheses and best explanation, which are mere assumptions and hunches. All you are stating is that your hunches are very strong. But even the strongess/assumptions can be wrong all the time. Theoretical science does not reach conclusions based upon strong hunches and assumptions.

I started off with a hypothesis, and ended with being 100% convinced.

You misunderstand. It's an if/than statement. And then applying basic logic or common sense to that evaluation. Which is the reason you are afraid of what would be if it were to turn out that the 'universe' is eternal. I, on the other hand, carry no baggage for either conclusion. If the 'universe' turns out to have a true beginning, then you may have a stronger case. But, until we know, it's all speculative mental masturbation.

I'm beyond speculation.

I already touched on this. We know non-living and non-organic material, or a painting, needs humans to create them. We also know humans exist. What is your point?

Ok, so, which is more complex..

1. The painting of Mona Lisa

or

2. The actual physical (human) woman of whom the painting is of?

Please answer.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Tell ya what, create a thread on either the Kalam Cosmological Argument..or a thread on whether the universe is finite or infinite (eternal).

Either way, it won't look good for you.

[POI]

I never used science to explain origins

"The fine-tuning argument is often used as an argument for the existence of a creator or intelligent designer, suggesting that the universe's fundamental constants are so precisely balanced to allow for life that it points to a deliberate design rather than a random occurrence, essentially arguing for an origin beyond the natural world."

"The teleological argument, also known as the argument from design, attempts to prove an origin by suggesting that the apparent order and purposefulness in the natural world points to the existence of a designer, implying that the universe was created by an intelligent being with a purpose in mind; therefore, attempting to establish the origin of the universe as a deliberate act of creation."

And since you admitted 'science' is both inept and also not the correct tool for the job, I can logically ignore any 'scientific' use coming from you, regarding such said arguments.

Ah, no. You start at the God hypothesis, and then you examine the arguments/evidence presented, and then you'll find that God is the best explanation.

That's too bad then. All I'm going to instead read are synonyms for the words hunch and assumption.

Red herring...irrelevant to the discussion. If people are converting without knowledge of the argument, good for them.

It is most certainly not irrelevant. It is instead uncomfortable for you, so you wish to rubber-stamp or hand-wave the question away. Remember, we have had a few exchanges now and we both follow with the convo organically.

If it is one the best arguments for God, then why do so few know about it? Further, why is it not ever the catalyst argument for one's conversion from atheism to theism? Every time I hear conversion stories; I never hear of any of these mumbo-jumbo arguments. Since we are speaking about an argument for God, and this is one of the best, seems most should have at least heard of it, and many more people would become convinced because of this argument as well.

If there was so much evidence supporting an eternal universe, then there would be no need to "explore eternal universe theory".

The assertion in question is not a theoretical science. Models are floating around with both finite and eternal. You do not get the luxury in asserting one position. Real science admits we have much more to do.

Scientists have been scrambling to come up with pre-big bang models in efforts to combat the overwhelming evidence which supports the current prevailing theory in cosmology; the big bang theory.

LOL! 'It blows my mind' in that is probably what you really think. You'd also make a great mouthpiece for Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute. Leading the way in the most cutting edge of pseudoscience.

Um, no. Some of those first cause arguments are still as valid today as they were hundreds of years ago.

That is because things that begins to exist have a cause. This is basic knowledge. The 'universe' may not qualify?

The universe cannot be eternal because of the impossibility of infinite regress.

An infinite regress is not considered a problem for an eternal universe because, by definition, an eternal universe has no beginning or end, meaning there is no need to identify a "first cause" or starting point which would otherwise create the issue of an infinite chain of causes leading back to an impossible origin; in an eternal universe, the chain of events simply extends infinitely in both directions, eliminating the problem of a regress.

If I abandoned it, it is probably because I said all I needed to say.

You basically said nothing of any use. I laid out two points, in posts 87 and post 118. You avoided both.

I started off with a hypothesis, and ended with being 100% convinced.

This is really no different than saying, I start with a hutch, and end with a strong assumption. Hunches and assumptions are wrong all the time.

Ok, so, which is more complex..

1. The painting of Mona Lisa

or

2. The actual physical (human) woman of whom the painting is of?

Please answer.

1. The painting of mona Lisa

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Tell ya what, create a thread on either the Kalam Cosmological Argument..or a thread on whether the universe is finite or infinite (eternal).

Either way, it won't look good for you.

Is this thread looking good for you, or the "evilution" thread, for which you abandoned? If you want to create a thread or two, be my guest.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to POI in post #29]

I'm asking you for (your) example(s). What is good for the goose may not be good for the gander.

I don't rely on the fine-tuning argument, so I don't need any examples of my own. I'm just referring to the argument as it's been put forth.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to POI in post #30]

If "something", which is to mean anything-at-all, has always existed, then it is not absurd when the general concept of 'popping into existence' is proposed.

If something has always existed, then you don't have anything "popping into existence". All you have is something "popping" into another form.

In other words, what is the true meaning when someone uses the term 'nothing.'

The correct definition of the word "nothing" is, not anything, regardless of how someone uses it.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #30]

If "something", which is to mean anything-at-all, has always existed, then it is not absurd when the general concept of 'popping into existence' is proposed.

If something has always existed, then you don't have anything "popping into existence". All you have is something "popping" into another form.

I agree. This is because it depends upon what one means by the term 'nothing.' And this is why I asked if 'absolute nothing' was ever a thing.

[Purple Knight]

For Debate: Above provides some point(s) which would be a (cause for pause) in theists continuing to push for this argument. Why is the fine-tuning argument a good argument for a God or god(s) existence?

I don't know why theists are stuck on this one. And I don't know why atheists are stuck on the argument from suffering. They're both terrible.

viewtopic.php?f=79&t=40204

In the first instance I am on the atheist side and in the second I am on the theist side, and for the same reason.

I don't believe you can even ask the question.

In the first instance, to say, god is more likely because of the laws of the universe, you must say god is less likely in chaos.

In the second instance, to say god is less likely if suffering exists, you would have to say, god is more likely if suffering does not exist.

And how can we say that latter thing when we can't even conceptualise what it would be like? We can't conceive what it would be like for the laws of nature to not exist or be extremely different, and we can't conceive of life without suffering. Personally I don't even think we'd even be conscious without suffering. We learn by the things that cause us to suffer to avoid those things. Without suffering there is no learning, and without learning how can there be consciousness? So I call these both cases where the question itself is unaskable, because we can't see the other side of the scales. We go toward the carrot, yes, but only because the stick poked us. If we weren't suffering hunger we wouldn't bother.

It's like asking, "O God, if you really love us, why have you made bald people?!" And that's a decent question. But asking why are there bald people if everybody was bald... we wouldn't even know what we were asking. It might still be a good question but we have no way of knowing that.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Tell ya what, create a thread on either the Kalam Cosmological Argument..or a thread on whether the universe is finite or infinite (eternal).

Either way, it won't look good for you.

Is this thread looking good for you, or the "evilution" thread, for which you abandoned? If you want to create a thread or two, be my guest.

70% of the threads on this forum belong to you anyway.

What's one more added to the stockpile?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #20]

If the universe just randomly popped into existence somehow and some life managed to emerge, that does not mean it was 'finely tuned'.

The fine-tuning argument aside, can you go into detail on how the universe would pop into existence randomly?

No, because I didn't say it did. I merely pointed out that IF that happened (by who knows what method), then we are basically at the same position. The universe exists somehow. Whether a god created it or it appeared by some other mechanism. The fact that life exists has no bearing on there being a creator. Only that the conditions in this universe allow some life to appear under certain conditions.

The fine tuning argument can be taken to all kinds of ludicrous places. i.e. the universe was fine tuned for atheists, fine tuned for flesh eating disease, etc.

Again, just because the conditions exist for something to appear does not mean a 'fine tuner' or fine tuning was involved. That's just a hopeful guess based on trying to uphold a faith position.