Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?

[otseng]

Proposition: God is a real actual thing, not something merely imagined or written about. God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

Otseng will argue that belief in the truth of the above proposition is more rational than disbelieving it. McCulloch will argue that disbelieving the truth of the proposition is more rational than believing it.

[otseng]

Here is my summary of where we are with the fine tuning argument:

There have been three explanations put forward to account for the apparent fine tuning of the universe:

1. The universe could not have been any other way.
   There has been no evidence put forward supporting the idea of a theory of everything that this option would require.
2. Our universe is one of many universes.
   There has been no evidence put forward speaking to the existence of any other universe or to any kind of space containing these multiple universes.
3. It is the deliberate planned action of a supernatural being, God.
   There has been no evidence put forward speaking to the existence of God, to the existence of a realm outside of the universe or to the idea that the universe was deliberately planned.

I would like to clarify this in that there is no direct evidence for any of the three options. Clearly we are not able to directly detect or measure anything outside of our universe. But, because we do not have direct evidence does not mean that we do not have indirect evidence.

The strength of any explanation lies in how multiple lines of evidence (direct or indirect) supports it. When an explanation has a convergence of evidence from multiple angles, then it has greater plausibility. Of the three options listed above, only the third also addresses the origin of the universe. And as this thread continues, it will also address other issues.

OK. But please don't raise issues that you are not willing to debate yet. You bring up the unsupported assertion that there is some kind of spiritual dimension in context of the fine-tuning argument and then counter a request for clarification about what you mean by that for later.

I try to avoid raising too many issues at one time, but sometimes it is unavoidable. You had stated that "it postulates an unknown being" which led us down the path of discussing how "unknown" the being is. Implicit in this is that God is totally unlike us. Since I do not agree with this, addressing this will naturally lead to other issues.

You assume that an advanced life form would have developed radio technology. I suppose by that you mean to imply that Earth had no advanced life forms until the 1890's. Our own galaxy could have hundreds of civilizations as advanced as the Roman Empire and we would not detect them.

Remind me why this point is at all relevant to the fine tuned argument.

Let's use this to segue from fine-tuning to alien life in our universe.

The fine-tuning problem is about the parameters necessary for any life to exist in our universe. To take it a step further, I assert that there does not exist any type of life outside of Earth.

This is supported by the fact that there does not exist any direct or even indirect evidence for the existence of any type of alien life. And to explain that we are the only life in the entire Universe is best explained by an intelligent agent that created us.

Do you feel that sentient life is necessary?

If the universe is explained purely on naturalistic causes, I would agree that the existence of sentient life is not necessary in the universe.

[McCulloch]

I would like to clarify this in that there is no direct evidence for any of the three options. Clearly we are not able to directly detect or measure anything outside of our universe. But, because we do not have direct evidence does not mean that we do not have indirect evidence.

I believe that the line between direct and indirect evidence can be a bit fuzzy. Has either of us provided any evidence, direct or indirect, that supports any of the three options as an explanation of the apparent fine-tuning of the universe?

The strength of any explanation lies in how multiple lines of evidence (direct or indirect) supports it. When an explanation has a convergence of evidence from multiple angles, then it has greater plausibility. Of the three options listed above, only the third also addresses the origin of the universe. And as this thread continues, it will also address other issues.

Actually, it does not really explain the origin of the universe, it relegates it to the act of some kind of being, who's existence is more problematic to explain than the universe's own existence. Might I say that it resembles the argument from ignorance, we don't know how the universe got started, therefore it must have been from God?

You had stated that "it postulates an unknown being" which led us down the path of discussing how "unknown" the being is. Implicit in this is that God is totally unlike us. Since I do not agree with this, addressing this will naturally lead to other issues.

Let's see, God inhabits a realm outside of our spacetime; humans exist within spacetime. God actually creates; humans rearrange what already exists. There are many humans but only one God. Humans can be shown to exist; God must be inferred. Forgive me, but I am having a bit of difficulty determining how this God you have described is not unlike us.

[McCulloch]

You assume that an advanced life form would have developed radio technology. I suppose by that you mean to imply that Earth had no advanced life forms until the 1890's. Our own galaxy could have hundreds of civilizations as advanced as the Roman Empire and we would not detect them.

Remind me why this point is at all relevant to the fine tuned argument.

Let's use this to segue from fine-tuning to alien life in our universe.

Let's. I'll make this a separate post so that we can discuss this issue separately from the fine-tuning issue.

The fine-tuning problem is about the parameters necessary for any life to exist in our universe. To take it a step further, I assert that there does not exist any type of life outside of Earth.

This is supported by the fact that there does not exist any direct or even indirect evidence for the existence of any type of alien life. And to explain that we are the only life in the entire Universe is best explained by an intelligent agent that created us.

I see that as an an argument by lack of imagination because it assumes no other forms of life. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or other forms of life are possible.

The term, black swan, comes from the ancient Western misconception that all swans were white. One notices only white swans. From this one can conclude:

• There exists swans that are white.

From this, one may wish to conjecture:

• All swans are white.

It is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white.

A black swan, a member of the species, Cygnus atratus, which remained undocumented until the eighteenth century.

One notices one planet with biological life. From this one can conclude:

• At least one planet has biological life.

From this, one may wish to conjecture:

• Life only occurs on this one planet.

It is impractical to observe all the planets in the universe to verify that they are all lifeless.

I don't know if there is other forms of life in the universe. If there are and they are somewhat rare, as the lack of evidence does initially indicate, then we have little or no chance of observing it, with the present and foreseeable limitations of of our technology and of physics. If life itself is rare in the universe, then sentient life could be even rarer. And sentient life capable of building something like the human level of technological development would be even rarer, given the non-zero probability of such development being ultimately suicidal. The universe is big. No, the universe is vast. To assert that there is no life anywhere else in the universe is presumptuous hubris, a form or anthropocentrism, the assumption, presented without evidence, that humans are the reason for the universe. It looks as if you are presenting God as an explanation for your presumption rather than for the evidence.

[otseng]

I believe that the line between direct and indirect evidence can be a bit fuzzy. Has either of us provided any evidence, direct or indirect, that supports any of the three options as an explanation of the apparent fine-tuning of the universe?

Here's an illustration of what I mean by direct vs indirect evidence. If an alien lands on Earth in a spaceship, that would be direct evidence that an alien exists. We can see it. And with a little convincing, we can ask it to step on a scale and weigh it and measure it. Now, if we receive a radio signal from space that encodes a prime number sequence, that would be indirect evidence.

Likewise, fine-tuning is indirect evidence. Like the prime number sequence, it could be from an alien lifeform. Or it could have some possible natural cause.

Actually, it does not really explain the origin of the universe, it relegates it to the act of some kind of being, who's existence is more problematic to explain than the universe's own existence.

I've already addressed the issue of causality of God. Or are you referring to something else about being more problematic?

Might I say that it resembles the argument from ignorance, we don't know how the universe got started, therefore it must have been from God?

I'll say this, I have no problem with scientists researching on possible causes of the universe. And if they do find a definitive natural explanation for the cause of the universe, it will falsify my entire argument on God's existence.

Forgive me, but I am having a bit of difficulty determining how this God you have described is not unlike us.

I don't want to give the impression that God is exactly like us. But I only point that we share properties of intelligence and being able to create, but on a scale much larger than ours. There are other properties as well, but I'll leave that for a later time to avoid too much spawning in this thread.

[McCulloch]

I believe that the line between direct and indirect evidence can be a bit fuzzy.

Here's an illustration of what I mean by direct vs indirect evidence. If an alien lands on Earth in a spaceship, that would be direct evidence that an alien exists. We can see it. And with a little convincing, we can ask it to step on a scale and weigh it and measure it. Now, if we receive a radio signal from space that encodes a prime number sequence, that would be indirect evidence.

I see things as being less discrete than that. Actually meeting the alien would be more direct than seeing video footage of his landing. Seeing the video would be more direct than inferring his existence from standing stones. I am not convinced that there is much utility in dividing evidence arbitrarily into two piles, direct and indirect.

Has either of us provided any evidence, direct or indirect, that supports any of the three options as an explanation of the apparent fine-tuning of the universe?

Likewise, fine-tuning is indirect evidence. Like the prime number sequence, it could be from an alien lifeform. Or it could have some possible natural cause.

The apparent fine-tuning is a characteristic of the universe. There have been a few different attempts to explain that characteristic. No evidence has been provided to my knowledge supporting any of the different options. It is confusing to substitute that which is to be explained for evidence that one of the options is correct.

Actually, it does not really explain the origin of the universe, it relegates it to the act of some kind of being, who's existence is more problematic to explain than the universe's own existence.

I've already addressed the issue of causality of God. Or are you referring to something else about being more problematic?

Where did my car keys go? The fairies took them. Do you see the parallel?

Might I say that it resembles the argument from ignorance, we don't know how the universe got started, therefore it must have been from God?

I'll say this, I have no problem with scientists researching on possible causes of the universe. And if they do find a definitive natural explanation for the cause of the universe, it will falsify my entire argument on God's existence.

This is the classic God-of-the-gaps approach.
I have no problem with scientists researching on the possible causes of the natural disasters. And if they do find a definitive natural explanation for the natural disasters, it would not falsify anyone's argument for the existence of God, merely push it back a few steps.
I have no problem with scientists researching on the possible causes of the disease. And if they do find a definitive natural explanation for the disease, it would not falsify anyone's argument for the existence of God, merely push it back a few steps.
I have no problem with scientists researching on the possible origin of human language. And if they do find a definitive natural explanation for the origin of human language, it would not falsify anyone's argument for the existence of God, merely push it back a few steps.
I have no problem with scientists researching on the possible causes of the diversity of life. And if they do find a definitive natural explanation for the diversity of life, it would not falsify anyone's argument for the existence of God, merely push it back a few steps.
I have no problem with scientists researching on the possible causes of the origin of life. And if they do find a definitive natural explanation for the origin of life, it would not falsify anyone's argument for the existence of God, merely push it back a few steps.
I have no problem with scientists researching on the possible origin of the Earth. And if they do find a definitive natural explanation for the origin of the Earth, it would not falsify anyone's argument for the existence of God, merely push it back a few steps.
I have no problem with scientists researching on the possible origin of the Sun. And if they do find a definitive natural explanation for the origin of the Sun, it would not falsify anyone's argument for the existence of God, merely push it back a few steps.

Forgive me, but I am having a bit of difficulty determining how this God you have described is not unlike us.

I don't want to give the impression that God is exactly like us. But I only point that we share properties of intelligence and being able to create, but on a scale much larger than ours. There are other properties as well, but I'll leave that for a later time to avoid too much spawning in this thread.

The various gods of humanity have always had many characteristics in common with the societies that create them. But fundamentally, the supreme deity is always unknowable, and in his very essence different from humans.

[otseng]

The fine-tuning problem is about the parameters necessary for any life to exist in our universe. To take it a step further, I assert that there does not exist any type of life outside of Earth.

This is supported by the fact that there does not exist any direct or even indirect evidence for the existence of any type of alien life. And to explain that we are the only life in the entire Universe is best explained by an intelligent agent that created us.

I see that as an an argument by lack of imagination because it assumes no other forms of life. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or other forms of life are possible.

There is no assumption that no other life exists if there is no evidence of any other life existing. If no such evidence exists, then saying that they exist would be the assumption.

As for alternative biochemistry, what would you be referring to?

A black swan, a member of the species, Cygnus atratus, which remained undocumented until the eighteenth century.

Saying that an animal of the same species having a different color is possible is quite different than saying another lifeform of a completely different biochemistry is possible.

To assert that there is no life anywhere else in the universe is presumptuous hubris, a form or anthropocentrism, the assumption, presented without evidence, that humans are the reason for the universe.

On the lack of evidence alone a case can be made that extraterrestrial life does not exist. But, I'll build my case on this further in later posts.

[otseng]

I see things as being less discrete than that. Actually meeting the alien would be more direct than seeing video footage of his landing. Seeing the video would be more direct than inferring his existence from standing stones. I am not convinced that there is much utility in dividing evidence arbitrarily into two piles, direct and indirect.

I bring up the distinction because most people who ask for evidence for a God is asking for what I would classify as direct evidence. Typically, what people demand are: "I need to see God", "I need to audibly hear God", etc. Such requests cannot be readily met if God is outside our spacetime. The only thing we can look at are clues left behind in our own universe that we can analyze. These I would classify as indirect evidence.

It is confusing to substitute that which is to be explained for evidence that one of the options is correct.

Here's an analogy. Suppose I walk into a room that all the walls are pink. There is a crib in one corner with pink sheets on it. There is a table with diapers, baby wipes, and a baby monitor on it. Next to the table is a diaper pail. In another corner is a rocker. Yes, all these things would be characteristics of the room, but it would also be evidence that parents prepared a room for a baby girl.

Where did my car keys go? The fairies took them. Do you see the parallel?

If I find later that my son took them, then the fairy story is easily falsified.

This is the classic God-of-the-gaps approach.

No, I'm not pushing it further back, because by definition there is no further back than time 0.

But fundamentally, the supreme deity is always unknowable, and in his very essence different from humans.

If you don't believe in a deity, then I do not see then how you can then describe it, much less say that such a deity has the characteristic of being unknowable or be different from humans.

[McCulloch]

There is no assumption that no other life exists if there is no evidence of any other life existing. If no such evidence exists, then saying that they exist would be the assumption.

Lacking evidence, asserting that other life forms exist or do not exist would be presumptuous. I hope that we can agree on that.

As for alternative biochemistry, what would you be referring to?

Not a clue.

Saying that an animal of the same species having a different color is possible is quite different than saying another lifeform of a completely different biochemistry is possible.

Life happened. On earth. At least once. We don't know the details of how it started. Without such knowledge, we cannot claim with any certainty that it could not have happened elsewhere.

On the lack of evidence alone a case can be made that extraterrestrial life does not exist.

In this case no, you are wrong. The lack of evidence is consistent with both hypotheses, that life is unique to Earth and that life is quite rare.

But, I'll build my case on this further in later posts.

And then you will jump to the conclusion that since life is unique to Earth, that it must have had a supernatural originator?

[McCulloch]

I bring up the distinction because most people who ask for evidence for a God is asking for what I would classify as direct evidence. Typically, what people demand are: "I need to see God", "I need to audibly hear God", etc. Such requests cannot be readily met if God is outside our spacetime. The only thing we can look at are clues left behind in our own universe that we can analyze. These I would classify as indirect evidence.

Fair enough. I have seen very few doubters demand that God be seen or audibly heard, but I will take your word on it that you have. As far as I am concerned, such evidence would be less convincing than some of what you would call indirect. Voices can be faked. Hallucinations happen. Perhaps it would be more useful to refer to the degree of ambiguity with regard to evidence.

Here's an analogy. Suppose I walk into a room that all the walls are pink. There is a crib in one corner with pink sheets on it. There is a table with diapers, baby wipes, and a baby monitor on it. Next to the table is a diaper pail. In another corner is a rocker. Yes, all these things would be characteristics of the room, but it would also be evidence that parents prepared a room for a baby girl.

Are you planning to demonstrate that the evidence for a supernatural creator is as as clear and unambiguous as this example?

Where did my car keys go? The fairies took them. Do you see the parallel?

If I find later that my son took them, then the fairy story is easily falsified.

And until you find out who took your keys, you are open to the possibility that the fairies took them?

This is the classic God-of-the-gaps approach.

No, I'm not pushing it further back, because by definition there is no further back than time 0.

You are correct. This is not the classic God-of-the-gaps approach, it is the ultimate God-of-the-gaps approach.

But fundamentally, the supreme deity is always unknowable, and in his very essence different from humans.

If you don't believe in a deity, then I do not see then how you can then describe it, much less say that such a deity has the characteristic of being unknowable or be different from humans.

I'm just going by what you and others who describe such a being say. God, according to you, lives in a realm outside of time and space. I don't know what that is like and I am making the wild presumption that other humans cannot know what that is like either. I have listed some of the fundamental ways this alleged spiritual being is different from humans. I don't have to believe in such a being to be able to sift out these differences.

[otseng]

Lacking evidence, asserting that other life forms exist or do not exist would be presumptuous. I hope that we can agree on that.

I would agree that if no evidence is presented for the existence or nonexistence of something, stating that such an entity exists or not exists would be presumptuous.

I would also assume then that the rational position to take would be to have no position, that is the agnostic position.

Without such knowledge, we cannot claim with any certainty that it could not have happened elsewhere.

Actually, the new field of astrobiology reveals that the probability of life elsewhere is quite remote, if not impossible.

And then you will jump to the conclusion that since life is unique to Earth, that it must have had a supernatural originator?

If the only life in the entire Universe was on Earth, would you say it has any implications on the existence of a god?

Fair enough. I have seen very few doubters demand that God be seen or audibly heard, but I will take your word on it that you have. As far as I am concerned, such evidence would be less convincing than some of what you would call indirect. Voices can be faked. Hallucinations happen. Perhaps it would be more useful to refer to the degree of ambiguity with regard to evidence.

It's on this very forum that such requests have been made. But, I didn't bother to bookmark those requests.

But, I would agree with you that the "direct" evidences would be less persuasive than the indirect.

Are you planning to demonstrate that the evidence for a supernatural creator is as as clear and unambiguous as this example?

As with the features found in the room specifically tailored for a baby girl, we find parameters in our universe specifically set for life to exist. One compilation of parameters is from Hugh Ross:

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for hypernova eruptions
34. Number and type of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for supernova eruptions
36. Number and types of supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
38. Density of white dwarf binaries
39. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
40. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
41. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
42. Mass values for the active neutrinos
43. Number of different species of active neutrinos
44. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
45. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
46. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
47. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
48. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
49. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
50. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
51. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
52. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
53. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
54. Density of quasars
55. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
56. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
57. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
58. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
59. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
60. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
61. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
62. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
63. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
64. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
65. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
66. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
67. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
68. Flatness of universe's geometry
69. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
70. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
71. Constancy of dark energy factors
72. Epoch for star formation peak
73. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
74. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
75. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
76. Level of charge-parity violation
77. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
78. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
79. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
80. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
81. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
82. Water's temperature of maximum density
83. Water's heat of fusion
84. Water's heat of vaporization
85. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
86. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
87. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
88. Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
89. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
90. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
91. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
92. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
93. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe

And until you find out who took your keys, you are open to the possibility that the fairies took them?

If no evidence is presented either way on fairies, I would have no position on it.

God, according to you, lives in a realm outside of time and space. I don't know what that is like and I am making the wild presumption that other humans cannot know what that is like either.

Lisewise then, multiverse is unknowable and thus cannot exist.