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]

Both theists and skeptics will state this is one of the best arguments a believer has.

It is.

But, is it sound reasoning?

It is.

Below are some points to consider before continuing:

The fine-tuning argument for God is often considered to fail

Unbelievers of God considers an argument for God's existence a fail?

How surprising.

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

We'll see a about that.

; 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

Characteristics such as?

, and the argument can be seen as a "God of the gaps" fallacy, where unexplained phenomena are attributed to divine intervention.

Nonsense.

We only appeal to God after we've concluded that nature/science is unable and incapable of explaining said phenomena.

It is an appeal to the best explanation, and science has limitations and is not the end all, be all to knowledge, wisdom, insight and information.

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.

First of all, within 5 words of the first sentence, your first point began to unravel.

There cannot be an "infinite" amount of universes, nor could there be infinite amount of causes preceding the spawn of any specific universe.

You cannot arrive at infinity as a destination, nor can you have an actual infinite amount of things as a sum total.

Both are impossible to achieve.

The absolute best you can do with this hypothesis, is render the multiverse to an astronomical number of universes, but no matter how astronomical the number is, it is still a finite number.

What does that mean?

It means that there had to have been a first number within this finite set (a first universe), from which the other universes within this multiverse derived from.

This universe itself could not have existed for eternity, so the question of origins can be asked of it..where did this universe come from?

So, the problem is not solved.

Not to mention that there is not one shred of empirical evidence for any multiverse...it is simply science-fiction.

Keyword: Fiction.

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.

"We only observed Caesar being stabbed because an instrument capable of stabbing him was used..and if this instrument wasn't capable of stabbing him, we wouldn't have observed him being stabbed.".

That is what you sound like

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.

Again, what characteristics?

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.

I addressed this above.

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.

I read up on this...the courts found that irreducible complexity isn't science.

I agree..it isn't science.

Not sure what your mention of this was supposed to prove.

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?

Fine tuning is a good argument for the existence of God, because the only other option fails (natural law).

[POI]

Food for thought... I posted some general arguments, for starters. I'll be happy to engage them where you feel they are important. Skeptics will argue that (out of all the bad god arguments), this is one of the best arguments theists can put forth. Okay, here we go....

Characteristics such as?

Even if such an agency were to exist, maybe this asserted hypothetical god or gods possesses none of the actual traits and qualities listed in your holy book? (i.e.) Maybe this creator is amoral, or by your own standard, immoral. Maybe this god or gods also cares not to intervene or interact.

Nonsense. We only appeal to God after we've concluded that nature/science is unable and incapable of explaining said phenomena. It is an appeal to the best explanation, and science has limitations and is not the end all, be all to knowledge, wisdom, insight and information.

Using your rationale, if science never identifies the cause of certain condition(s) and/or cures to certain unwanted diseases and conditions, this also means the supernatural would be the most logical conclusion. Sure, science surely is not the be-all-end-all, but without science, many would still read Genesis literally. We would still assign evil to many conditions in which we later found a cure for. We would never have known about the germ theory of disease. Etc etc etc........ Can we agree that science is not done? As science discovered more, the gaps available for a God or gods become(s) smaller and smaller. We no longer believe the earth is a flat disc. We no longer believe "Thor" is responsible for lightning bolts. etc etc etc etc etc...........

First of all, within 5 words of the first sentence, your first point began to unravel. There cannot be an "infinite" amount of universes, nor could there be infinite amount of causes preceding the spawn of any specific universe. You cannot arrive at infinity as a destination, nor can you have an actual infinite amount of things as a sum total. Both are impossible to achieve. The absolute best you can do with this hypothesis, is render the multiverse to an astronomical number of universes, but no matter how astronomical the number is, it is still a finite number. What does that mean? It means that there had to have been a first number within this finite set (a first universe), from which the other universes within this multiverse derived from. This universe itself could not have existed for eternity, so the question of origins can be asked of it..where did this universe come from? So, the problem is not solved. Not to mention that there is not one shred of empirical evidence for any multiverse...it is simply science-fiction. Keyword: Fiction.

Allow me to steelman this position. Okay, I concede. We cannot assert something in which we cannot first demonstrate. And I cannot demonstrate the "multiverse." Great. But if we are to be consistent, this is true of a God or gods too. Unless you can demonstrate a god or god(s)? Since I doubt you can, as no one has, all you have done here is to exchange one set of indemonstrable claims for another. The time to believe in the existence of something is after it has been demonstrated to exist. Are we on the same page here? I'll reject the theoretical offerings of dark matter, dark energy, blackholes, etc, if you reject 'god.' Deal?

"We only observed Caesar being stabbed because an instrument capable of stabbing him was used..and if this instrument wasn't capable of stabbing him, we wouldn't have observed him being stabbed.". That is what you sound like

This angle of argument puts forth that life only exists because the universe is so 'finely tuned' to produce life. The universe is vast. What are the odds that some form or life exists elsewhere? And if there exists such life elsewhere, what local conditions exist for life on this alternate planet? Are the conditions the same as ours. Same goes for a multiverse. The conditions may vary greatly. Further, a God or gods would not necessarily need to create specific conditions. He's God. Life could exist under any condition(s), not just the ones we happen to have. And another observation is that the Universe is so vast, so that humans can exist? Take humans away, and the universe is basically unchanged. We place a little too much importance upon ourselves, as a species I reckon.

Again, what characteristics?

As stated above, the 'creating force(s)' may mirror none of the expressed or believed attributes of the god you believe in.

I addressed this above.

So did I.

I read up on this...the courts found that irreducible complexity isn't science. I agree..it isn't science. Not sure what your mention of this was supposed to prove.

If you reject the irreducible complexity argument, as an argument for god, then of course, case closed here.

Fine tuning is a good argument for the existence of God, because the only other option fails (natural law).

Why?

[SiNcE_1985]

Food for thought... I posted some general arguments, for starters. I'll be happy to engage them where you feel they are important. Skeptics will argue that (out of all the bad god arguments), this is one of the best arguments theists can put forth.

I agree.

Even if such an agency were to exist, maybe this asserted hypothetical god or gods possesses none of the actual traits and qualities listed in your holy book? (i.e.) Maybe this creator is amoral, or by your own standard, immoral. Maybe this god or gods also cares not to intervene or interact.

That's fine, because even if we grant what you posit, that's still a defeater of atheism, isn't it?

And besides, the argument from design only gets you to theism, not necessarily Christian theism.

First, the establishment of theism (in general) is needed..and after that, it is built upon with arguments given for Christian theism.

It is a cumulative case.

Using your rationale, if science never identifies the cause of certain condition(s) and/or cures to certain unwanted diseases and conditions, this also means the supernatural would be the most logical conclusion.

Depends on what you mean by "cause".

You know the difference between primary cause(s) and secondary cause(s), right?

God is the primary cause of certain conditions...but human beings are the secondary cause of those conditions (all things equal).

God created the elements/chemicals for man to create nuclear weapons (primary).

However, man's free will to create the weapons with those chemicals are the secondary cause.

Sure, science surely is not the be-all-end-all, but without science, many would still read Genesis literally. We would still assign evil to many conditions in which we later found a cure for. We would never have known about the germ theory of disease. Etc etc etc........ Can we agree that science is not done? As science discovered more, the gaps available for a God or gods become(s) smaller and smaller. We no longer believe the earth is a flat disc. We no longer believe "Thor" is responsible for lightning bolts. etc etc etc etc etc...........

I agree.

However, these questions/topics are that of origins.

You can't use science to explain origins.

You can only use science to explain the inner workings after it originated.

And that is where scientists get in logical trouble, and why scientists don't make the best philosophers...as you cannot use science to explain the origins of its own domain...to do so would be to use circular reasoning.

For example, I want you to scientifically explain the origins of your computer...but the catch is; the explanation has to lie within your computer.

You cannot appeal to anything external from the computer.

You can't do it, can you?

So, if you can understand that, you should be able to use that same logic as it pertains to the universe.. which, you have no problem doing with anything else, as long as the "G" word isn't involved.

Thus, the taxicab fallacy.

Allow me to steelman this position. Okay, I concede. We cannot assert something in which we cannot first demonstrate. And I cannot demonstrate the "multiverse." Great. But if we are to be consistent, this is true of a God or gods too. Unless you can demonstrate a god or god(s)? Since I doubt you can, as no one has, all you have done here is to exchange one set of indemonstrable claims for another.

There are only two options, which makes the process of elimination fairly easy.

Both options cannot be equally true..one option has to be necessarily true, making the other one necessarily false.

Either..

1. God did it.

2. Nature did it.

The only two games in town.

I have overwhelming evidence that God did it..and zero evidence that nature did it...and to make matters even worse for nature, I have evidence AGAINST nature doing it.

We all have a choice to make...and we've made our choices.

The time to believe in the existence of something is after it has been demonstrated to exist. Are we on the same page here? I'll reject the theoretical offerings of dark matter, dark energy, blackholes, etc, if you reject 'god.' Deal?

No deal. I'm gonna ride this Christian thing out..and see where it takes me.

This angle of argument puts forth that life only exists because the universe is so 'finely tuned' to produce life. The universe is vast. What are the odds that some form or life exists elsewhere? And if there exists such life elsewhere, what local conditions exist for life on this alternate planet? Are the conditions the same as ours. Same goes for a multiverse. The conditions may vary greatly. Further, a God or gods would not necessarily need to create specific conditions. He's God. Life could exist under any condition(s), not just the ones we happen to have. And another observation is that the Universe is so vast, so that humans can exist? Take humans away, and the universe is basically unchanged. We place a little too much importance upon ourselves, as a species I reckon.

Too much focus on everything else but what we have going on here, which is a 1 chance in 10^10^123 that our universe would be life permitting.

You don't overcome such odds by chance. You achieve those odds by way of a Cosmic Designer.

As stated above, the 'creating force(s)' may mirror none of the expressed or believed attributes of the god you believe in.

Then I'd still be right about theism, but wrong about Christian theism.

You, on the other hand..

If you reject the irreducible complexity argument, as an argument for god, then of course, case closed here.

But I don't reject it.

Why?

Because of our understanding of entropy.

[POI]

That's fine..... because even if we grant what you posit, that's still a defeater of atheism, isn't it?

Yes and no. This hypothetical pre-assumes, without actual demonstration, deism though and not theism. I'll explain below.

And besides, the argument from design only gets you to theism, not necessarily Christian theism. First, the establishment of theism (in general) is needed..and after that, it is built upon with arguments given for Christian theism. It is a cumulative case.

I disagree. Depending on the evidence, this currently undemonstrated argument, when actually demonstrated, might only prove deism. You might still have more to go to demonstrate theism? Here is the difference between the two (i.e.):

Deism: Deists believe in a god who created the universe but then left it to operate under natural laws. Deists believe that reason and nature are valid sources of religious knowledge, and that supernatural revelation is not. Deists often use rational thought to consider the likelihood of miracles or divine intervention, and they do not believe in them.

Theism: Theists believe in a god or gods who are actively involved in the world, communicating with people and directly affecting the universe. Theists often use magical thought processes and belief patterns, and they believe in divine intervention and that a god answers prayers. Many religions, including Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, are theistic.

Depends on what you mean by "cause". You know the difference between primary cause(s) and secondary cause(s), right? God is the primary cause of certain conditions...but human beings are the secondary cause of those conditions (all things equal). God created the elements/chemicals for man to create nuclear weapons (primary). However, man's free will to create the weapons with those chemicals are the secondary cause.

Has a "primary cause" ever actually been demonstrated? Remember, the time to believe something is after it has actually been demonstrated. I'm happy to retain agnosticism/skepticism from any assertion which has not actually been demonstrated. This makes me consistent. You may want to try it.

I agree. However, these questions/topics are that of origins. You can't use science to explain origins. You can only use science to explain the inner workings after it originated.

Well, if you agree science is not done yet, then maybe that is where we are at for the moment. Seems pretty hasty to jump to conclusions and assume it will never be solved. We know science has only been a thing for a few hundred years. We still likely know less than we actually do know. There's a lot left to discover, I'm sure. But, as of yet, there has been no demonstrated 'God' or 'gods' in any of it.

Just so you are aware, I'm not a scientist. I can give no $h1+ as to whether "science" is the be-all-end-all, or not. If we cannot use "science" to figure it out, what do you suggest we use instead: philosophy, mathematics, religious text(s), asserted revelation, other? BTW, this subtopic may need its OWN thread???? We are going into "Aquinas" territory real fast, with the 'first cause' argument.

And that is where scientists get in logical trouble, and why scientists don't make the best philosophers...as you cannot use science to explain the origins of its own domain...to do so would be to use circular reasoning.

As for the "universe", here is where there is still academic debate. I'm no scientist, but I do know scholarly debates exist which propose an 'eternal universe.' Which would then render the 'first cause' argument pointless, if demonstrated. And yes, this is not yet demonstrated one way or the other - (finite vs eternal). Hence, I remain agnostic to the debate of the universe(s) being finite <vs> eternal. I do not hold to either hard position, as it is beyond my field of expertise and the topic is not resolved. I also remain agnostic to many debated topics, which have not been demonstrated one way or another. Hey, God seems to be one of these undemonstrated assertions too. If you can demonstrate God, I will then believe it. Can you do that?

I want you to scientifically explain the origins of your computer...but the catch is; the explanation has to lie within your computer. You cannot appeal to anything external from the computer. You can't do it, can you?

In the end, your given analogy only confirmed that material causation necessitates 'secondary causation' -> humans. You are attempting to compare non-living inorganic material with living organic material. It has been demonstrated that non-living inorganic material cannot self-replicate. It has not only been demonstrated that it cannot self-replicate, but demonstration has also been identified of the necessary external intelligent agency, which is humans.

Your argument here is that an external agency has to be involved, as a computer cannot generate itself. In this case, I'm required to assert that a human did it, which is an external intelligent agency. Well, you are providing a false equivalency. Living organic matter has been demonstrated to self-replicate. One example alone is germination. Since you admit nature is a "secondary cause", we have endless examples of self-sustaining 'secondary causation,' It all happens within. And if you want to argue for intelligent external causation(s), guess what? Those external causes are often from nature too.

So, if you can understand that, you should be able to use that same logic as it pertains to the universe.. which, you have no problem doing with anything else, as long as the "G" word isn't involved. Thus, the taxicab fallacy.

Please try again.

There are only two options, which makes the process of elimination fairly easy. Both options cannot be equally true..one option has to be necessarily true, making the other one necessarily false. Either..

1. God did it.
2. Nature did it.

The only two games in town.

Nature is the only demonstrable option so far. Supernature is merely an assertion, hence, skepticism should remain in place instead of holding to such a position.

I have overwhelming evidence that God did it

I'm ready. Lay it on me with this overwhelming evidence? I've been waiting a long time for this.

..and zero evidence that nature did it...and to make matters even worse for nature, I have evidence AGAINST nature doing it. We all have a choice to make...and we've made our choices.

But we know nature is a thing. And nature is also demonstrable. Do we have this for the supernatural? No. Please try again.

No deal. I'm gonna ride this Christian thing out..and see where it takes me.

You do you boo.

Too much focus on everything else but what we have going on here, which is a 1 chance in 10^10^123 that our universe would be life permitting. You don't overcome such odds by chance. You achieve those odds by way of a Cosmic Designer.

Can you please identify your source here please?

Mine comes from theoretical physicist and philosopher - Sean Carrol. He teaches math and states that if you go into the equations of general relativity, there is a correct rigorous derivation of the probability and when you ask the correct questions and use the correct equations, we find the probability is actually "1", not 10^10^123.

But I don't reject it.

Great, can we leave it on the table for discussion? If so, irreducible complexity was thoroughly debunked in court at the Dover trial. Please view the trial details. Oh, and evolution was also demonstrated by a Roman Catholic in court, at the same trial. Cross examination had no rebuttal to the given evidence. But again, if you wish to remain speaking about the teleological argument alone, that's fine too. I know we may immediately splinter off into many subtopics.

Because of our understanding of entropy.

What about it? Scholarly debates would not logically continue about (finite vs eternal) if the theist assertion were demonstrated.

[SiNcE_1985]

Depending on the evidence, this currently undemonstrated argument, when actually demonstrated, might only prove deism. You might still have more to go to demonstrate theism? Here is the difference between the two (i.e.):

Deism: Deists believe in a god who created the universe but then left it to operate under natural laws. Deists believe that reason and nature are valid sources of religious knowledge, and that supernatural revelation is not. Deists often use rational thought to consider the likelihood of miracles or divine intervention, and they do not believe in them.

Theism: Theists believe in a god or gods who are actively involved in the world, communicating with people and directly affecting the universe. Theists often use magical thought processes and belief patterns, and they believe in divine intervention and that a god answers prayers. Many religions, including Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, are theistic.

While I understand the distinction, this is still splitting hairs.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... plit-hairs

If you believe in a supernatural creator of the universe, then you are a theist...according to how I define theism.

But we can agree/disagree here...as it is irrelevant to the fine tuning argument.

Has a "primary cause" ever actually been demonstrated?

Yeah, based on first cause argumentation, particularly the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA).

Remember, the time to believe something is after it has actually been demonstrated. I'm happy to retain agnosticism/skepticism from any assertion which has not actually been demonstrated. This makes me consistent. You may want to try it.

I don't need to try it, considering it has actually been demonstrated.

Well, if you agree science is not done yet, then maybe that is where we are at for the moment.

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

Seems pretty hasty to jump to conclusions and assume it will never be solved. We know science has only been a thing for a few hundred years. We still likely know less than we actually do know. There's a lot left to discover, I'm sure. But, as of yet, there has been no demonstrated 'God' or 'gods' in any of it.

Science of the Gaps.

Just so you are aware, I'm not a scientist. I can give no $h1+ as to whether "science" is the be-all-end-all, or not.

Well, you might as well worship it, because you are appealing to a future hope in discoveries just like believers await for Jesus' return.

If we cannot use "science" to figure it out, what do you suggest we use instead: philosophy, mathematics, religious text(s), asserted revelation, other?

We use whatever methodology available that will provide the best explanation for said phenomena.

BTW, this subtopic may need its OWN thread???? We are going into "Aquinas" territory real fast, with the 'first cause' argument.

Well, get one cracking then.

As for the "universe", here is where there is still academic debate. I'm no scientist, but I do know scholarly debates exist which propose an 'eternal universe.' Which would then render the 'first cause' argument pointless, if demonstrated.

Eternal universes are impossible based on the impossibility of an actual infinity existing.

I've already touched on this in my prior response...and you ignored it.

Here we go again with the selective-quoting...the part that you ignored, directly addresses the points that you are raising here now.

It blows my mind.

And yes, this is not yet demonstrated one way or the other - (finite vs eternal). Hence, I remain agnostic to the debate of the universe(s) being finite <vs> eternal. I do not hold to either hard position, as it is beyond my field of expertise and the topic is not resolved. I also remain agnostic to many debated topics, which have not been demonstrated one way or another. Hey, God seems to be one of these undemonstrated assertions too. If you can demonstrate God, I will then believe it. Can you do that?

First off, you don't have to be a scientist or an expert in any field to know/understand that an eternal universe defies logical reasoning.

In the end, your given analogy only confirmed that material causation necessitates 'secondary causation' -> humans. You are attempting to compare non-living inorganic material with living organic material. It has been demonstrated that non-living inorganic material cannot self-replicate. It has not only been demonstrated that it cannot self-replicate, but demonstration has also been identified of the necessary external intelligent agency, which is humans.

The universe is more complex than the computer mentioned in the analogy.

So if it follows that the computer owes it's origins to intelligent design, then it follows that so does the universe.

I understand you may not want to accept this, but it is what it is.

No entity, whether living or nonliving, can be the origin of its own domain.

External causes are necessary.

You cannot logically appeal to..

1. Self-creating entities or processes.

or..

2. Infinite causation.

Both are equally absurd, and you've run out of viable options..except for one; the one you refuse to accept.

Your argument here is that an external agency has to be involved, as a computer cannot generate itself. In this case, I'm required to assert that a human did it, which is an external intelligent agency. Well, you are providing a false equivalency. Living organic matter has been demonstrated to self-replicate. One example alone is germination. Since you admit nature is a "secondary cause", we have endless examples of self-sustaining 'secondary causation,' It all happens within. And if you want to argue for intelligent external causation(s), guess what? Those external causes are often from nature too.

No, it is you who've created a false equivalence.

I am saying that something cannot create itself..and the living matter that self-replicates did not create itself.

The living matter had to owe its existence via external causes before it could self replicate.

And speaking of living matter, let's not talk about the abiogenesis problem, which is a another problem for atheists...but that is a convo for another day.

Nature is the only demonstrable option so far.

Yeah, and nature will only take you so far.

It will take you all the way to the point of origins, and that's where the bandwagon stops.

After that, theology takes over.

Supernature is merely an assertion, hence, skepticism should remain in place instead of holding to such a position.

The supernatural hypothesis is merely an appeal to the best explanation.

I'm ready. Lay it on me with this overwhelming evidence? I've been waiting a long time for this.

The fine tuning argument. Ever heard of that?

Oh, wait...that is what we've supposed to have been discussing here.

But we know nature is a thing. And nature is also demonstrable. Do we have this for the supernatural? No. Please try again.

Too bad nature can't get us beyond origins.

You do you boo.

Can you please identify your source here please?

Mine comes from theoretical physicist and philosopher - Sean Carrol. He teaches math and states that if you go into the equations of general relativity, there is a correct rigorous derivation of the probability and when you ask the correct questions and use the correct equations, we find the probability is actually "1", not 10^10^123.

Sean Carroll

10^10^123 has been penned "The Penrose Number", after mathematical physicist Roger Penrose.

You can read his book where it is discussed...or you can Google the equations...or here, read this..

https://uncphew.com/2020/10/30/the-most ... dont-know/

Penrose's book..

"The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers Minds, and the Laws of Physics".

It is common knowledge now.

10^10^123 <----- a 1 chance in this number, of our universe being life permitting.

I predict you will research this, consider it, reject it as significant...and then continue on with a cry of "no evidence for God", with continued unbelief.

It blows my mind.

Great, can we leave it on the table for discussion? If so, irreducible complexity was thoroughly debunked in court at the Dover trial. Please view the trial details.

I reject irreducible complexity as a science as well..as I told you the last time.

No need to continue driving home a point that we both agree on.

I accept irreducible complexity as a method/concept used by believers to point towards the idea of a Creator.

And nothing that happens at any trial will change this.

Oh, and evolution was also demonstrated by a Roman Catholic in court, at the same trial. Cross examination had no rebuttal to the given evidence. But again, if you wish to remain speaking about the teleological argument alone, that's fine too. I know we may immediately splinter off into many subtopics.

Kent Hovind, Jonathan Wells, or Ken Ham weren't present at the evolution trials, were they?

What about it? Scholarly debates would not logically continue about (finite vs eternal) if the theist assertion were demonstrated.

That's the point, the big bang was supposed to be an event of disorder (high entropy).

But instead, what we find is that it was a highly ordered event (low entropy).

All the experts understand this, which is why they've came up with all that nonsense to explain it away...some of the stuff you've mentioned in this very thread.

[Revelations won]

To the OP and all respondents,

Joseph Smith Jr., the first prophet of the Church of JesusChrist of Latter Day Saints, never at any time presented an argument for the existence of God. Why was this so?

[1213]

...Why is the fine-tuning argument a good argument for a God or god(s) existence?

I think it is quite good, because no good counter argument against it.

The Multiverse Hypothesis is an interesting argument, because that leads us to think that this what we can now see, which is allegedly all by chance would happen easily almost the same way countless numbers of times. And that could make one to think, how would it be possible, if we can't see that to happen in nature everyday.

[POI]

Before I begin, please know (my) current position or 'worldview'. In regard to a belief in a "higher power", I remain undecided. It has not been demonstrated to me. I'll give you an example. I am also, in a similar way, undecided about intelligent life abroad. My gut tells me there could or should be -- (based upon probability/environment/etc), but my skepticism leaves me undecided. In both the case for a 'god(s)', as in the case for 'aliens', 'mounds of evidence' has been provided. And yet, in either case of an assertion for god(s) and aliens, not 'the evidence' which would actually convince me. In both cases, for both 'god(s) and 'aliens', only "indirect evidence" is ever presented for me.

IMHO, I see the teleological argument, cosmological argument, and all the rest in which the apologist will put forth, as really nothing more than mental masturbation. In the case for the teleological argument, it puts for an argument from complexity and design, in the sense that there is 'just no way' this observed phenomenon could have happened without (fill-in-the-blank). In a similar kind of way, many will put forth the same type of argument for observed incongruencies here on earth, like Stonehenge or the Pyramids. Many will argue for "aliens", in the sense that ancient civilizations were just not advanced enough to do what we see, therefore "aliens did it". And anyone who does not agree, or remains undecided/skeptical, might then be "gaslit" by the one who asserts 'aliens'.

As such... Until both a god(s) and/or aliens have been demonstrated, I remain undecided or skeptical. Further, though these types of arguments are fun to explore, I doubt many, if any, come to a god belief because of any of these types of arguments. But hey, here we go!

While I understand the distinction, this is still splitting hairs.

Aces

Yeah, based on first cause argumentation, particularly the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA).

I've studied this argument too, and yet, I'm still not convinced.

I don't need to try it, considering it has actually been demonstrated.

Via one of the expressed "mental masturbation" exercises, or, maybe instead through perceived direct revelation? And my this, I mean maybe you are a believer because you feel Jesus/God/other has contacted you?

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

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?

We use whatever methodology available that will provide the best explanation for said phenomena.

Allow me to clarify my question... Which tool is the right tool for this job? 

Eternal universes are impossible based on the impossibility of an actual infinity existing. I've already touched on this in my prior response...and you ignored it.

Then why is the scholarly topic not settled -- (between finite vs eternal)? http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Ph ... 20geometry.

The universe is more complex than the computer mentioned in the analogy. So if it follows that the computer owes it's origins to intelligent design, then it follows that so does the universe.

If the "universe" is eternal, then it is just more "mental masturbation".

I understand you may not want to accept this, but it is what it is. No entity, whether living or nonliving, can be the origin of its own domain. External causes are necessary. You cannot logically appeal to..

1. Self-creating entities or processes.

or..

2. Infinite causation.

Both are equally absurd, and you've run out of viable options..except for one; the one you refuse to accept.

Let the "absurdities" flow... Until we know if the universe is or is not eternal, I'm rolling with (nature has been demonstrated and supernature has not). 

I am saying that something cannot create itself..and the living matter that self-replicates did not create itself. The living matter had to owe its existence via external causes before it could self replicate.

If nature is eternal, then this entire conversation is null and void.

And speaking of living matter, let's not talk about the abiogenesis problem, which is a another problem for atheists...but that is a convo for another day.

LOL! Sure, abiogenesis is not theoretical, but even if it were, you'd still reject it. Hence, your argument is mute.

Yeah, and nature will only take you so far. It will take you all the way to the point of origins, and that's where the bandwagon stops. After that, theology takes over.

Until the finite/eternal question is answered, we can continue with the 'mental masturbation.'

The supernatural hypothesis is merely an appeal to the best explanation.

Admitting 'hypotheses' and 'best explanation' does not equal demonstration, does it?

The fine tuning argument. Ever heard of that? Oh, wait...that is what we've supposed to have been discussing here.

Hmm? So far, I'm not picking up on this overwhelming evidence. Maybe we should try a different argument?

Too bad nature can't get us beyond origins.

Something eternal would logically have no origin.

I predict you will research this, consider it, reject it as significant...and then continue on with a cry of "no evidence for God", with continued unbelief.

I've considered it. Academia/peer review has not accepted it as "common knowledge", so why should I? Here are what some critics say below:

While the "Penrose number" itself isn't directly considered "debunked," the theory behind it, which suggests evidence for a universe before the Big Bang based on specific patterns in the cosmic microwave background radiation, is widely disputed and considered to lack strong supporting evidence by most physicists; many argue that current observations do not confirm his claims, effectively rendering the theory unvalidated.

Key points to remember:

No definitive proof: Despite Penrose's calculations, the scientific community largely lacks concrete evidence to support his theory of a cyclical universe with multiple Big Bangs.

Data interpretation concerns: Critics point out that the patterns Penrose identifies in the cosmic microwave background might be explainable by other, more conventional astrophysical phenomena, raising questions about the validity of his interpretation.

Ongoing research: While Penrose's theory remains controversial, further research into the cosmic microwave background could potentially provide more conclusive evidence for or against his claims.

I accept irreducible complexity as a method/concept used by believers to point towards the idea of a Creator. And nothing that happens at any trial will change this.

Why?

Kent Hovind, Jonathan Wells, or Ken Ham weren't present at the evolution trials, were they?

No, I think Mr. Hovind might have been in jail for fraud during this time. Ken Ham is not qualified as soon as you see the Ark Encounter. And Johnathon Wells is part of the 'Discovery Institute', which is more pseudoscience.

Anywho, Kennith Miller placed forth evidence which demonstrates evolution. I placed it in the 'evilution' thread, and you ignored it.

That's the point, the big bang was supposed to be an event of disorder (high entropy). But instead, what we find is that it was a highly ordered event (low entropy). All the experts understand this, which is why they've came up with all that nonsense to explain it away...some of the stuff you've mentioned in this very thread.

Honest question... Is there still debate because of:

a) God denial?
b) still not enough data, or not enough information collected, to conclude an answer?

[POI]

...Why is the fine-tuning argument a good argument for a God or god(s) existence?

I think it is quite good,

Did this argument play a role into your god belief, or, were you already a believer before you stumbled on to this apologetic argument?