Evidence for God #2

[DaveD49]

Topic for Debate: DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING BEING EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?
In answering please state clearly whether you agree or disagree
Your reasoning for doing so
Please rate from 1 to 10 with 10 being the strongest what you feel the strength of the evidence is.
If you have something further to add please let me know.

The exact fine-tuning of all the scientific laws and the universal constants.
Category: Mathematics and Science

In my first item of evidence i spoke about the simple existence of universal scientific laws and how they point to the existence of God. Here we are going to look at a more in-depth view of the laws and other universal constants. (A universal constant is defined in Wikipedia as "a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and have constant value in time."). The bottom line is that if these laws and constants were not exactly at the force setting there are at then either the universe could not form, that the universe would only live for a short time and then collapse in on itself, or that the universe would not be able to support life.

The existence of these constants and their fine-tuning is acknowledged by scientists who are theists as well as atheists. For that matter when it became clear at how clearly this evidence of these pointed to a creator, atheistic scientist came up with a number of pseudoscience theories such as the existence of a multiverse. The multiverse and other such theories are referred to as "pseudoscience" by many scientists because they ignore the Scientific Method of being able to provide repeatable proof. In the 1970's scientists acknowledged that there were 4 of these constants. Today they acknowledge 40+ with some scientists speculating that they could be as many as 167 of them. We are talking about the force of gravity, the cosmological constant, the electromagnetic force, the velocity of light in vacuum, the charge of the electron, the mass of the electron, Planck's constant, nuclear forces such as what they call the "strong force" and the "weak force", as well as many more. Had the strength of ANY of these forces and constants varied in the slightest the universe would not exist or not be able to support life.

When trying to explain away these forces a number or them like to use a die. This way there are only 6 possibilities so getting the setting right would be no problem. And besides with the thousands upon thousands of universes proposed by the multiverse, one of them is bound to get the settings right. However the scale is slightly larger than 1 through 6. It has been suggested that if you had a ruler which in 1/2" increments stretched across the universe most of these forces could have been set anywhere along that scale. If it were off by just 1/2" then once again the universe would never exist or not be able to support life.

In one paper titled "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" three atheistic scientist from Stanford actually when talking about the evolution of elements in the early universe that it would require a "statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures." They went on to appeal to the multiverse to explain it away. They also went on to acknowledge that what we would refer to as "God" was a possibility when they said "Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation." (link below. Page 19) If what they refer to as an "agent" had "reasons of its own" they are acknowledging that it would require intelligence and the power to restart the universe. It is also rather strange that they would entitle the paper as "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant". In a scientific paper why would anything that they found be labeled "disturbing"?


"Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant": https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25354992.pdf
Planck's Constant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
Multiverse::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Fine-tuning of the Universe:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

[brunumb]

But one more time, what is your evidence that God does NOT exist.

If you can't understand the nonsensical nature of that request then it is not surprising that you can't understand what I have said.

[TRANSPONDER]

SCIENCE says the universe is finely-tuned. You can insist that it is we who are finely tuned to live within this universe if you like, but science says that you are wrong.

It's not as cut and dried as you suggest. Try this for starters:
Is the 'fine-tuned universe' an illusion?
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-fine-tune ... usion.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

I referred to the arguments against the fine-tuning in my opening remarks. The fine-tuning has been looked at for decades by scientists of all religions or lack thereof. With today's science it can be seen and the implications that they point to an intelligence are well know. Both of your references refer to some theories advanced by atheistic scientists such as Hawking and Krauss in an attempt to explain away the fine-tuning such as the multiverse and its unlimited number of universes. Our universe "just happens" to get all the values right. However while the fine-tuning can be shown clearly by modern science, the multiverse and other explanations rely purely on hypotheses. There is absolutely no way of proving that the multiverse actually exists. This is why many scientists refer to such hypotheses as "pseudoscience" because it bypasses the Scientific Method. If an when these ideas climb out of the pseudoscience category and can actually be tested, then, and only then would it be a theory worth listening to.

You either miss the point, or are (is? ) wrong, or both.

Nobody denies the fine - tuning. But it is contested that the only explanation for it is an Intelligence. The 'Implications' are well known indeed, but they are not conclusive because we don't know either way. They may turn out to be right, or there may turn out to be a natural (scientific) explanation. But until then, they are actually not even 2% cumulative evidence for and intelligent creator. We may need a 13th atheist Axiom "Bad evidence is no evidence at all".

Wasn't it you who quoted another prominent atheist who said that if something showed even 1% evidence then it should be considered evidence? So then thank you for your 2% assessment. I am only 98% away from convincing you. Personally I see it as a 9 out of 10; not perfect because although the doubtful and unscientific the concept of a multiverse could theoretically explain the fine tuning and there is no way to "prove" the Divine as well. I do consider the multiverse as a poor explanation because it violates Occam's Razor that the simplest solution is the best, and imagining countless universes with no logical accounting for their existence is far more complex than considering that an intelligence is behind it. Even the atheistic scientists who wrote "Disturbing Implication of a Cosmological Constant" saw the clear indication that its existence could be a clear indication of the "miraculous" and even referred to God when they said "Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation." (Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/25354992.pdf, page 19. 31 July 2002) Once again "reasons of its own" acknowledges intelligence.

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #10]

No.You have fallen into the age old fallacy of Gaps for God, ID and the 'odds against'fallacy which is a basic one from Paul's appeal to nature to the unexplained fine tunes universe. We do not know what the reason for the nuclear constant is, so you argue that it can't be anything but done by an Intelligence(though of course,you don't know how). The refutation is that if and when we do know why it is what it is, why a universe exists (1) l`1z\a\

(1) I have actually seen an explanation but I can only recall the conclusion 'because it has to' (naturally and through chemical evolution).

There is no logical fallacy called "God of the Gaps". And yes, one of the key points given to try to dismiss the fine-tuning argument is appealing to the multiverse as I state in my opening statement. Their reasoning goes that if there are actually an unlimited number of universes then our universe just happens to be the one that got all the values correct. But whereas the fine-tuning has been shown as true and is accepted by all scientists, there is nothing truly scientific for the "multiverse" because it cannot be, and most likely could never be proven. It ignores the Scientific Method of being able to test it and as a result falls into the category of "pseudoscience". I find it interesting that because the multiverse concept was conceived specifically to attempt to counter the fine-tuning found in the universe, might we refer to it as the "Microverse of the Gaps"?

Ok, 'God of the gaps'is an example of appeal to unknowns which is the informal logical fallacy 'argument from ignorance'i (n the sense of not knowing). This of course refutes your 2nd point. Ok, I get how multiverses argues how we have a particular constant (it could have been others). That it isn't proven is irrelevant. Goddunnit isn't proven either, but you don't see that because (of course) you are assuming Intelligent design as the established theory that has to be disproved. Logically, that is invalid. Logically, the god - hypothesis is no more than a placeholder claim without a Natural explanation. A multiverse purely as hypothesis, at least puts a natural explanation in place, whereas 'God' is just an act of will; a miracle, and explains nothing.

I have always acknowledged that there is no way to prove God. It is impossible to prove the existence of anything outside of our universe. This includes not only God but the multiverse as well as it is all theoretical. But Dyson, Kleban, and Susskind (the three Stanford professors who wrote Disturbing Implications... acknowledge the possibility of God when they said "Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation." (Ibid.) So, I am curious that why you would refer to it as "an argument from ignorance" or that "the god hypothesis is no more than a placeholder claim" when the scientists at Stanford said specifically that it was a "possibility". As you admit the microverse is only HYPOTHESIS, and as a result it puts it too is "an act of will... and explains nothing" other than a possibility. So why can't you acknowledge that at least the two hypotheses share equal ground as Dyson, Kleban and Susskind did rather than simply denying the possibility of God. Let the predominance of EVIDENCE be your guide, which is the reason I am posting this series.
[/quote]

You are almost getting it - you apparently know the subject, but you still don't get it that this isn't piling up cumulative evidence for a god. Not knowing either way means that it is no evidence, either way. If you choose to regard the lack of an explanation (yet) by science as 1 or 2% evidence for an Intelligence, science can point to previous unexplained question having natural arguments as 1 or 2% for natural processes.

You force a denialist position on me that I don't have."why can't you acknowledge that at least the two hypotheses share equal ground as Dyson, Kleban and Susskind did rather than simply denying the possibility of God. " I don't deny the possibility. I say that nobody knows as yet, and the default explanation is physical processes because we know they exist. in fact I could argue that, as what we know has been explained by natural physics, without need for a god, the percentage Unexplaineds is a smaller percentage case for God than the larger percentage natural explanations. But since that is a can of worms, I prefer "We don't know" and is no evidence either way as yet. Not even 1% in Your favor.

So,you have nothing but a gap for God, and the materialist default is by default, the default explanation, and a god is not. in short you effort to wangle a god into credibility by piling up 2% possibilities into a persuasive theist case is a sham.

i had a look at the rather clickbait -titled 'disturbing implications' but I can see nothing that points to a god, just a mystery. Not a cosmic intelligence, but an unknown (as yet) answer or explanation.

"What then are the alternatives? We may reject the interpretation of de Sitter space based on complementarity. For example, an evolution of the causal patch based on standard Hamiltonian quantum mechanics may be wrong. What would replace it is a complete mystery."

further on, it has conclusions to say that there may actually be no cosmological constant. I had to go and check that I didn't misread you as saying that indicated some kind of ID. You did, but it was YOUR interpretation that read 'Unknown entity'as an intelligent one. I don't recall seeing God mentioned either. I am not going to read the damn' thing again, so perhaps you can quote it.

[JoeyKnothead]

I truly hope that you are not being serious and do actually see the difference between the fine-tuning of the universe and evolution of life on Earth.

Funnily enough, that's exactly my worry for you.

If the universe were so "fine tuned" for life, how come there ain't no elephants on Mars?

[TRANSPONDER]

I truly hope that you are not being serious and do actually see the difference between the fine-tuning of the universe and evolution of life on Earth.

Funnily enough, that's exactly my worry for you.

If the universe were so "fine tuned" for life, how come there ain't no elephants on Mars?

Man surely isn't to blame for that one, so I guess it must be Satan.

Cue 'Martian Aztecs'. They hunted the elephants to extinction. Yes some with the eye of faith could even see Aztec Ziggurats on Mars.

[brunumb]

I truly hope that you are not being serious and do actually see the difference between the fine-tuning of the universe and evolution of life on Earth.

Funnily enough, that's exactly my worry for you.

If the universe were so "fine tuned" for life, how come there ain't no elephants on Mars?

They escaped through the windows of heaven.

[JoeyKnothead]

I truly hope that you are not being serious and do actually see the difference between the fine-tuning of the universe and evolution of life on Earth.

Funnily enough, that's exactly my worry for you.

If the universe were so "fine tuned" for life, how come there ain't no elephants on Mars?

They escaped through the windows of heaven.

Great one to start the day!

[DaveD49]

But one more time, what is your evidence that God does NOT exist.

If you can't understand the nonsensical nature of that request then it is not surprising that you can't understand what I have said.

Asking for your evidence is nonsensical???? Then why is your asking for proof or evidence of God reasonable? I am offering evidence for God. You may not accept it but most rational people do, including scientists who are atheists. Dyson et.al. even said that God was a possibility in the paper I listed.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Dyson et.al. even said that God was a possibility in the paper I listed.

Possible in the same way it's possible Santa gets stuck coming down the chimney.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #32]

Transponder: "You are almost getting it - you apparently know the subject, but you still don't get it that this isn't piling up cumulative evidence for a god. Not knowing either way means that it is no evidence, either way. If you choose to regard the lack of an explanation (yet) by science as 1 or 2% evidence for an Intelligence, science can point to previous unexplained question having natural arguments as 1 or 2% for natural processes.

You force a denialist position on me that I don't have."why can't you acknowledge that at least the two hypotheses share equal ground as Dyson, Kleban and Susskind did rather than simply denying the possibility of God. " I don't deny the possibility. I say that nobody knows as yet, and the default explanation is physical processes because we know they exist. in fact I could argue that, as what we know has been explained by natural physics, without need for a god, the percentage Unexplaineds is a smaller percentage case for God than the larger percentage natural explanations. But since that is a can of worms, I prefer "We don't know" and is no evidence either way as yet. Not even 1% in Your favor.

So,you have nothing but a gap for God, and the materialist default is by default, the default explanation, and a god is not. in short you effort to wangle a god into credibility by piling up 2% possibilities into a persuasive theist case is a sham.

i had a look at the rather clickbait -titled 'disturbing implications' but I can see nothing that points to a god, just a mystery. Not a cosmic intelligence, but an unknown (as yet) answer or explanation.

"What then are the alternatives? We may reject the interpretation of de Sitter space based on complementarity. For example, an evolution of the causal patch based on standard Hamiltonian quantum mechanics may be wrong. What would replace it is a complete mystery."

further on, it has conclusions to say that there may actually be no cosmological constant. I had to go and check that I didn't misread you as saying that indicated some kind of ID. You did, but it was YOUR interpretation that read 'Unknown entity'as an intelligent one. I don't recall seeing God mentioned either. I am not going to read the damn' thing again, so perhaps you can quote it."

Your trust in physical science because we know it exists is commendable. I have a deep respect for anything that can be proven. There should be NO conflict between science and faith as BOTH are from God. Science can tell us the truth about the physical universe. Faith ponders what may lay beyond the universe. But neither the believe in theism OR atheism should enter into science. If "science" is invented in an attempt to disprove something because it points to God then that is a misuse of science. From what I have read that is exactly how the concept of the multiverse came into being.

I also respect that you say that you do not deny the possibility of God rather than just dismiss Him outright. But then in your very nest sentence you close the door on Him when you said "I don't deny the possibility. I say that nobody knows as yet, and the default explanation is physical processes because we know they exist. in fact I could argue that, as what we know has been explained by natural physics, without need for a god, the percentage Unexplaineds is a smaller percentage case for God than the larger percentage natural explanations. " And also please take note of this. We are NOT comparing a possible action of God to PHYSICAL or NATURAL science that can be proven. If that were the case I would say provable science wins every time. But rather it is being compared to THEORETICAL Science in which nothing can be proven. I read that Krauss, a leading theoretical physicist, has never had one of theories actually proven. Is that an attack against Krauss? NO!! It is the field he works in. Nothing can be proven. As a result you are dealing with two "unprovables" here. So rather than just shutting the door against God in favor of the microverse why can't you at least open the door a little to allow for the possibility of God, and certainly you can see that the scientifically accepted "fine-tuning" that IF He actually did that, He deserves a little credit..

You are incorrect is saying that I misinterpreted what I actually cited from "Disturbing Implications..." as being an intelligent agent. They made clear reference to His intelligence when they said that He acted "for reasons of its own." If the "agent" had reasons, then He was reasonable, thus a working brain, and therefore intelligent. But you are correct the word "God" was not mentioned, but an "agent" was referred to that was intelligent because He had "reasons of its own" not a part of the universe is implied by his "restarting" the universe as is that He had the will and power to do so." Can you think of any other being other than God that this would describe? Here is the actual quote you requested: "Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation."

The "miraculous" and the above quote are on page 19 of the paper, about half way down.

[DaveD49]

I truly hope that you are not being serious and do actually see the difference between the fine-tuning of the universe and evolution of life on Earth.

Funnily enough, that's exactly my worry for you.

If the universe were so "fine tuned" for life, how come there ain't no elephants on Mars?

Sadly, one more time, you have proved yourself not worth talking to. Come back in another 10-15 years.