Let's pretend...

[Tcg]

.

...that any of the arguments for god are valid. We have to pretend of course because they are horrible. But, if one established that a god created us, them, the universe and whatever else, what reason would there be to conclude that creator is still around?

As I like to present for example, maybe god was given a chemistry set for Christmas one year and he accidentally blew himself up. Then his bits and pieces and those of the chemistry set become the universe. There'd be no more god any more.


Tcg

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #126]

If fairy farts truly are the source of how universes get created, then a material universe accounting for itself (via the fairy farts) is quite possible and also explains all the gas quite nicely.
Why should we look to human inventions that we call the gods when fairy farts created our universe is an ample explanation?

I think this is logically wrong because it doesn't take into account the source of the "Fairy Farts" and simply claims the farts account for themselves.

Just like how humans are the source for human farts, the fairies are the source for the fairy farts. Like the gods, they are outside our universe... passing gas.
I note that they seem to have the exact same explanatory power as the available god concepts when it comes to creating universes.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #161]

DP

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #152

For me, smaller stuff will always be less complex than the bigger stuff it creates.

It may depend on the kind of stuff it's creating. I don't remember exactly where, but I read an observation that a star is huge but is really less complex than a bacterium. The chemistry may be different, but the physics is the same (granted a bacterium doesn't run on nuclear fusion, but its organic processes are still more complex).

Concerning sentience, let's look back at the neuron analogy; a single neuron is presumably unconscious, but in their billions they make up the seat of our biological consciousness----the whole exceeding the sum of its parts. It seems to me that this alone draws a plausible link between complexity and consciousness. Perhaps it's like the way the quantum level and the classical level don't follow the same rules but end up working together anyway. What if, on a hypermacro-level, the rules change again? If there are more than three spacial dimensions, as some mathematics suggests, would we even be able to conceive of a consciousness inhabiting those dimensions? Would hyperdimensional mean hyperconscious?

This is not going to get you anywhere. Even if you could substantiate that quote, so what? An atom of uranium is more complex than an atom of hydrogen, but hydrogen is more the stuff of the universe than uranium, so if the universe is conscious, your analogy argues against it. Same if the point was the a star is huge and a bacterium is tiny but the tiny bacterium is living and the star is not. So the tiny humans are conscious and the huge universe is not.

Aside the stuff about Neurons, you still fail to make any case for a conscious cosmos. Even if your analogies were valid, they would still not be evidence of anything. Ok lads, carry on with your speculations.

[William]

Clownboat: If fairy farts truly are the source of how universes get created, then a material universe accounting for itself (via the fairy farts) is quite possible and also explains all the gas quite nicely.

What about the solids and liquids which are present in the universe?...it is not all gas.

Clownboat: Why should we look to human inventions that we call the gods when "fairy farts created our universe" is an ample explanation?

Fairy farts didn't create themselves.

IF
"Our universe" is a fairy fart.

THEN
A fairy fart didn't create itself.

THEREFORE:
"fairy farts created our universe" is incorrect.

because what you are trying to convey, is that "our universe is a fairy fart/fairy farts."

Patu: I think this is logically wrong because it doesn't take into account the source of the "Fairy Farts" and simply claims the farts account for themselves.

Clownboat: Just like how humans are the source for human farts, the fairies are the source for the fairy farts. Like the gods, they are outside our universe... passing gas.

Are you outside your universe when you fart? No you are not. More to the point, you are quickly-enough engulfed by the stuff of your fart, even inhaling part of your fart back into your system, so [unlike the gods/fairy's] you are not separate from it .

THEREFORE: [if possible]
You will have to tidy up your analogue.

Clownboat: I note that they seem to have the exact same explanatory power as the available god concepts when it comes to creating universes.

Yes I see that you note this. However, it has been shown that you are incorrect. Your analogy is messy and needs serious attention to details, or - failing that - abandonment.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #160

Even proposing these extra dimensions, we have more compelling data that sentience is a product of the biological.

I propose the best we could do is say such as, there sits all them extra dimensions, and that extra intelligent, sentient thing within em.

Fair enough, I suppose.

On the other hand, we could look at it this way.....

If the universe we perceive is the only one there is, then we have to multiply universes, or "multiply entities" as one frequent poster would say, beyond what we have evidence of in order to get the randomness needed to challenge the fine tuning argument. We may have mathematical equations which predict the possibility of other universes, but mathematical predictions aren't proof. At least a fine-tuning argument is grounded in observable evidence.

[JoeyKnothead]

On the other hand, we could look at it this way.....

If the universe we perceive is the only one there is, then we have to multiply universes, or "multiply entities" as one frequent poster would say, beyond what we have evidence of in order to get the randomness needed to challenge the fine tuning argument.

It should be beholden on proponents of fine tuning to show such is the case. I've yet to find anyone who can.

That one can't provide some form of counter arguments doesn't mean fine tuning is the answer.

We may have mathematical equations which predict the possibility of other universes, but mathematical predictions aren't proof.

The possibility of the universe existing, in the form that it does, is 1. I challenge anyone to present a formula complex enough to account for all the variables involved beyond that.

At least a fine-tuning argument is grounded in observable evidence.

That's news to me. What do you consider evidence for design?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #166

That one can't provide some form of counter arguments doesn't mean fine tuning is the answer.

For scientific purposes, it doesn't have to mean it's the answer if the choice is between observable evidence (an apparently fine-tuned universe) and an untestable hypothesis (a multiverse).

At least a fine-tuning argument is grounded in observable evidence.

That's news to me. What do you consider evidence for design?

Are you not familiar with the fine-tuning argument?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #166

That one can't provide some form of counter arguments doesn't mean fine tuning is the answer.

For scientific purposes, it doesn't have to mean it's the answer if the choice is between observable evidence (an apparently fine-tuned universe) and an untestable hypothesis (a multiverse).

At least a fine-tuning argument is grounded in observable evidence.

That's news to me. What do you consider evidence for design?

Are you not familiar with the fine-tuning argument?

I'm not familiar with what you consider evidence for fine tuning.

So I ask, what do you consider evidence for fine tuning of the universe?

[brunumb]

For scientific purposes, it doesn't have to mean it's the answer if the choice is between observable evidence (an apparently fine-tuned universe) and an untestable hypothesis (a multiverse).

Apparently does not necessarily mean actually. Without a mechanism or process to refer to, how do we know that the universe was actually fine-tuned, or that such a thing is even a possibility?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #160

Even proposing these extra dimensions, we have more compelling data that sentience is a product of the biological.

I propose the best we could do is say such as, there sits all them extra dimensions, and that extra intelligent, sentient thing within em.

Fair enough, I suppose.

On the other hand, we could look at it this way.....

If the universe we perceive is the only one there is, then we have to multiply universes, or "multiply entities" as one frequent poster would say, beyond what we have evidence of in order to get the randomness needed to challenge the fine tuning argument. We may have mathematical equations which predict the possibility of other universes, but mathematical predictions aren't proof. At least a fine-tuning argument is grounded in observable evidence.

Since you mention (and, it seems misuse) the term 'multiply entities', a term I use, apart from this frequent poster you mention, I am impelled to respond.

Multiplying entities in logical terms is adding less likely possibilities where a simple explanation suffices. That is not the same thing as multiple universes, which is something suggested by indeterminacy. There is evidence for it and mathematical evidence is not to be dismissed as easily as you did it. It is not 'proof' as you say, bu it has led to some significant progress in physics, requiring scientific confirmation; the Higgs Boson for one, Black holes for another, with string theory and Dark matter still awaiting confirmation.

The fine tuning argument may be grounded in observable evidence, as you say, but is it valid? It depends what that evidence is. A lot of it is not. The Goldilocks argument is sorta valid, but 'we were lucky' is as valid as 'we were planned', if that was part of the argument. 'Why is there something instead of nothing?' is one I saw discussed and answered 'physics says there has to be', but don't ask me to explain the mathematics.

In fact I have to ask that you list (say) the best five arguments for 'Fine tuning' that shows evidence or a case for, a created universe, as that is surely what you are implying. Otherwise your fine tuning argument is no more than an unsubstantiated claim (1).

Your worst is in fact that you misread the post. You totally ignored that biology explains sentience better than a cosmic mind, and multiplicity of universes was used to make a fair case for a cosmic mind 'beyond', but you jumped in and started waving away physics as unproven. If I'd done Joey's post I'd tell you to do it all again and consider apologising for not reading it properly.

p.s I was going to save this, but it may not come up; but it looks like you are doing creationism. Yep. It Looks like 'scientific materialism can't explain where the Universe/Cosmos came from, so a Cosmic Mind has to be the only possible answer'. That's what it looks like.

(1) There is the one about if it was just a little bit less than a particular number or value, the universe wouldn't exist. This is rather misunderstood, I believe. I think (I could be wrong) it is countered like the reason the universe (physics) works - what doesn't, doesn't survive; what works, does. In OW chemical evolution accounts for why the universe is the way it is.

Also the value of the BB. Which is irrelevant to Cosmic origins and explained like fire or melting 'If it wasn't up to that temperature, it wouldn't burn or melt'. Sure, but so what? Nobody says a god has to do it. You may not mean those arguments, but we should hear which ones you do mean.