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]

.

I'm gonna keep my response here short, considering all rationale and credibility of what is supposed to be a serious discussion was lost.

"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."

Reading comprehension.

The point is; origins come from God, not science/nature.

That has been my position from jump street and nothing you've just quoted contradicts my/that point.

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.

Obviously, I don't think science is inept because as mentioned prior, we can use science to support P2 of the KCA.

We can and we do.

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.

I'm handwaving because it is yet another rabbit hole that I refuse to go down.

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.

It doesn't matter how you get there, get there if you can.

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.

I repeat; the current Big Bang model is the prevailing view in cosmology today, with the most evidence supporting it...and in this model, the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.

The implication of (God did it) is too much to bear for some, so theyve been postulating pre big bang models to restore an "eternal" universe...the problem is, they have no empirical evidence supporting their theories...only imagination.

Anyone can imagine anything...but where is the evidence pointing, is the question.

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.

While I appreciate their work, I don't know if I can rock with them on certain details.

But they are doing God's work.

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

The universe began to exist though. That's the point.

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.

You are simply wrong here..and I can prove it. Please, create a thread.

I'm begging you.

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

My apologies.

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.

100% convinced strikes me as more than a strong opinion.

1. The painting of mona Lisa

So, it is here where all credibility and rationale was lost.

You can have the last word, and I'll await the KCA or first cause thread.

I'm begging you to create it..it is my second favorite argument for the existence of God and if you dare create it, you'll see me there.

[benchwarmer]

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.

Can you please provide links to scientific papers to back up your assertions? i.e. scientists are 'scrambling like eggs'.

The reality is that scientists are trying to come up with a theory that explains ALL observations. The 'big bang' model has issues and thus there are 'rival' models that attempt to be inclusive of other data that 'big bang' doesn't seem to cover.

I found this high level paper (not peer reviewed, but interesting summary)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... cal_models

Science is an ever moving endeavor. Theories are constantly put to the test when new data arrives. While the basic 'big bang' theory seems to be the current 'winner', it still has a lot of areas to be further developed before it satisfactorily covers everything.

You make is sound like scientists are scared they will discover the 'big bang' is broadly correct. News flash, scientists (in general) want to discover the truth and be the first ones to do so, wherever that leads. You get Nobel prizes for that kind of stuff. They don't start with a predetermined outcome (like religious people do) and then desperately try to make all the evidence point that way. It works in the opposite direction. ALL evidence must be explained by any useful theory or it is eventually tossed aside for a better one.

A good theory can provide predictions that can be tested and verified. That's it.

I always say, if there is a god, scientists will be the first to find it. They follow the evidence and if that's where it leads, that's where it leads. Faith will never find anything because you start with a belief and stop looking.

[POI]

That has been my position from jump street and nothing you've just quoted contradicts my/that point.

Post 9:

1985: "I clearly stated that science is unable and incapable of explaining things related to origins."

POI:

1) 'Science' cannot because it is inept in some type of way?
2) 'Science' is not even the right tool for this job, use a different one?

Post 12:

1985: "Yes to both."

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

Since 'science' is both inept and the incorrect tool, you can no longer refer to 'science' in an attempt of "explaining things related to origins."

Obviously, I don't think science is inept because as mentioned prior, we can use science to support P2 of the KCA. We can and we do.

No, you logically cannot use 'science' sense the KCA is yet Christian apologetic tool in an attempt in "explaining things related to origins."

I repeat; the current Big Bang model is the prevailing view in cosmology today, with the most evidence supporting it...and in this model, the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.

Without going beyond common sense alone, I have to ask a serious question.... Do you think that the academic community, which discusses and research eternal universe model(s) are not fully aware of big bang cosmology?

The implication of (God did it) is too much to bear for some, so theyve been postulating pre big bang models to restore an "eternal" universe...the problem is, they have no empirical evidence supporting their theories...only imagination. Anyone can imagine anything...but where is the evidence pointing, is the question.

I'm speechless... Really. You were right in one sense.... Yes, this exchange has lost credibility, right about here --- (in red)....

The universe began to exist though. That's the point.

"Absolute nothing" existed at one point?

You are simply wrong here..and I can prove it.

Then I suggest you run to the powers-that-be and present your case for peer review.

Please, create a thread. I'm begging you.

I'm not going to create yet another thread in which you will ultimately duck out from... Finish the ones you started. Address the 'Evilution' thread, posts 87 and 118. Please, "I'm begging you."

So, it is here where all credibility and rationale was lost

The answer is 1). Every paint stroke is quite purposeful and all are required to be there to compose of a masterpiece. Opton 2) presents with a less complex design, in that there exist many design flaws. Case/point: Urethra running through the prostate, an appendix prone to inflation and rupturing, an airway sharing the same space as a food way -- (leading to aspiration issues), female anatomy sharing both pleasure and sewage -- (prone to infection), etc... Alternatively, every brush stroke in option 1) has a perfect place. Not one brush stroke, are out of place, which is exactly why you know what the Mona Lisa even is....

[1213]

You weren't born a believer.

I think I have been, because I don't remember any moment in my life when I didn't believe.

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm not going to create yet another thread in which you will ultimately duck out from... Finish the ones you started. Address the 'Evilution' thread, posts 87 and 118. Please, "I'm begging you."

Ok, so you'd like me to get back to actively engaging on the Evilution thread, which I have no desire whatsoever to do.

And I want you to create a Kalam Cosmological Argument and/or First Cause thread, which you (at the least) are hesitant to do.

So let's make a deal; I'll get back to engaging the Evilution thread, if you'll create the KCA/FC thread.

Deal?

You scratch my back, and I'll stab (I mean, scratch) yours.

How bout it?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #42]

If POI creates a KCA/FC thread, I'll copy this post to that thread and respond to it there.

This thread is supposed to be about fine-tuning, but that went to hell quick (thanks to POI).

I used to be all for one convo leading to another, but now I am more of a "different topic, separate thread" kind of guy.

Call it, growth and maturity.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #40]

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.

That's why I don't rely on fine-tuning as an argument. I prefer to look more at likely causes rather than effects.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #45]

Hmmm....? I think you again need to understand my worldview. My belief(s) is/are placed upon topics which are actually demonstrated. Case/point, I'm undecided about abiogenesis because:

"Abiogenesis is considered a theory as it explains the origin of life from non-living matter, but currently lacks definitive experimental proof to be classified as a fact; scientists are still researching the exact mechanisms behind it and how life could have arisen from non-living molecules under early Earth conditions.". -- If abiogenesis is false, my worldview changed little to none. But, we are not there....

I'm also undecided about the "big bang" because:

"The Big Bang is considered a scientific theory rather than a fact, as it is a well-supported explanation for the origin and evolution of the universe based on extensive evidence, but still subject to further refinement and potential new discoveries within the field of cosmology; the key piece of evidence supporting it is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which is interpreted as the afterglow of the Big Bang." -- If big bang cosmology is proven true, my worldview still changes little to none. But, we are not there...

I am not undecided about evolution because:

"Evolution is considered both a fact and a theory in science; the fact is that organisms change over time, while the theory of evolution explains the mechanisms and processes behind this change, making it a well-supported explanation for the observed phenomenon of evolution." -- but again, if this were to change, my worldview still would not. However, it would appear yours would, a lot! This would then be fun to explore, but I understand why you might want to protect your current position, by way of avoidance.

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

I find it interesting that you are 'disinterested' in exploring scientific fact, but would rather plant your flag on a topic which is not established fact? At best, the KCA means something caused our 'universe'. That something could be anything. But then you would just likely pivot to the 'uncaused cause' argument. And while not definitively "debunked," the "uncaused cause" argument, often used in the cosmological argument for the existence of God, is widely considered to be flawed due to several philosophical criticisms, including the possibility of an eternally existing universe and the limitations of our understanding of causation, particularly when applied to the very beginning of the universe.

At the end of the day, as I stated in the beginning of this exchange, there exists quite a large distinction between deism and theism. Deism implies an impersonal agency. Theism implies the opposite. Much in the same way it would be like discovering aliens. We discover a) aliens in which we will never be able to engage, versus b) ones we can. At best, you will get as far as a). And like I stated, from the jump, I'm pretty much 50/50 to the idea of some agency?,?.?.?

Anyhow, you are a BIG BOY. Create the KCA thread and make your argument. If I find flaws in it, I'll be happy to respond. I'm not the only one which is allowed to make new topics. And if you decide not to address posts 87/88 and 118 of the other thread, I already suspect why....

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #48]

See, that's the problem with society; unwilling to compromise.

Everyone wanting to have it their own way, instead of meeting somewhere in the middle.

The energy you used to make that long $#$ post, you could have used on the KCA thread, and we could have had a lively discussion (which wouldn't have gone well for you, btw).

But, oh well.

It is what it is.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #49]

I understand, belief preservation, on your part, is key.