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/

[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?

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

You won't be the first theist who prefers to ignore those who speak against your unconfirmable claims.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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."

Dave 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.

Science can tell us much about the 'physicaluniverse',asyouput it. What it can't remains unexplained, but still'physical'is the go -to theory. Anything else is pure speculation, not to mention faith -claims. It is NO evidence or even useful hypothesis.

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..

Logically we have to 'close the door'on the god -claim, not because it can be disproved, but because it hasn't been validated. It the same with scientific hypotheses that haven't been validated yet. Though of course the stuff about Indeterminacy, dark matter,string theory and the holographic universe as indeed abiogenesis and cosmic origins is still not explained or proven. The god -claim is just the same, though science has a better track recors than religion in that respect, nor does it have faithbased Dogma about String theory, nor does it try to tell us how to vote.

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.

I'll have another look but I suspect that you are too eager to read a cosmic intelligence into "for reasons of its own." not He. But even if the implication is a will and volition on the part of physics, that is not a validation, but the opinion of the writer. It could be for reasons of its'own which are natural physical ones not the will a thinking being,let alone a miracle.

"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.
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. However, even this does not rid the theory of the pesky recurrences. Only the first occurrence
would evolve in a way that would be consistent with usual expectations. Subsequently
the recurrences would be extremely unlikely to be consistent, in this sense."

Yes, I can see where the Theist might read 'He' into that but it never mentions He, God or an Intelligence. Just an unknown agency which operated in ways we don't know to effect the evolutionary universal process the paper is talking about. The upshot is I think that you did misinterpret it and the writer never intended (from the overall context) to suggest a god, even as a remote possibility.

P.s how did you find that passage? It doesn't look like the usual run of bedtime reading for a Believer. and the writer rather argues against a 'constant' and rather the argument is between an entropically limited universe (I suppose he means Cosmos rather than Our universe) or a variant of steady state or pulsating cosmos, which i rather like myself. It doesn't even seem to be 'atheist professor admits God is possible' passage that could be found with a keyword search. How did you find it?

[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."

Dave 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.

Science can tell us much about the 'physicaluniverse',asyouput it. What it can't remains unexplained, but still'physical'is the go -to theory. Anything else is pure speculation, not to mention faith -claims. It is NO evidence or even useful hypothesis.

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..

Logically we have to 'close the door'on the god -claim, not because it can be disproved, but because it hasn't been validated. It the same with scientific hypotheses that haven't been validated yet. Though of course the stuff about Indeterminacy, dark matter,string theory and the holographic universe as indeed abiogenesis and cosmic origins is still not explained or proven. The god -claim is just the same, though science has a better track recors than religion in that respect, nor does it have faithbased Dogma about String theory, nor does it try to tell us how to vote.

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.

I'll have another look but I suspect that you are too eager to read a cosmic intelligence into "for reasons of its own." not He. But even if the implication is a will and volition on the part of physics, that is not a validation, but the opinion of the writer. It could be for reasons of its'own which are natural physical ones not the will a thinking being,let alone a miracle.i

You have to open your mind. "An unknown agent INTERVENED..." with the development of the universe. Just with that little bit you can see intelligence, power (I certainly do not have the power to restart the universe. Do you?) and will. In other words a "being". And please understand, I am not saying that they believed that what they wrote was the truth. They are atheists. They acknowledged the possibility of God but then went on to dismiss the "miracle" and Him by appealing to the multiverse.

The paper was written before the Cosmological Constant was vastly accepted by the scientists of the day. This was their voice against it. But in my mind they did so, not because of the science, but because the implications of it would lead to God. I think this was the implication which they found so disturbing. I read the paper several times, and I won't try to say that I understood the math. But I did pick up a sense throughout the paper that the math was leading them to somewhere they didn't want to go.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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."

Dave 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.

Science can tell us much about the 'physicaluniverse',asyouput it. What it can't remains unexplained, but still'physical'is the go -to theory. Anything else is pure speculation, not to mention faith -claims. It is NO evidence or even useful hypothesis.

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..

Logically we have to 'close the door'on the god -claim, not because it can be disproved, but because it hasn't been validated. It the same with scientific hypotheses that haven't been validated yet. Though of course the stuff about Indeterminacy, dark matter,string theory and the holographic universe as indeed abiogenesis and cosmic origins is still not explained or proven. The god -claim is just the same, though science has a better track recors than religion in that respect, nor does it have faithbased Dogma about String theory, nor does it try to tell us how to vote.

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.

I'll have another look but I suspect that you are too eager to read a cosmic intelligence into "for reasons of its own." not He. But even if the implication is a will and volition on the part of physics, that is not a validation, but the opinion of the writer. It could be for reasons of its'own which are natural physical ones not the will a thinking being,let alone a miracle.i

You have to open your mind. "An unknown agent INTERVENED..." with the development of the universe. Just with that little bit you can see intelligence, power (I certainly do not have the power to restart the universe. Do you?) and will. In other words a "being". And please understand, I am not saying that they believed that what they wrote was the truth. They are atheists. They acknowledged the possibility of God but then went on to dismiss the "miracle" and Him by appealing to the multiverse.

The paper was written before the Cosmological Constant was vastly accepted by the scientists of the day. This was their voice against it. But in my mind they did so, not because of the science, but because the implications of it would lead to God. I think this was the implication which they found so disturbing. I read the paper several times, and I won't try to say that I understood the math. But I did pick up a sense throughout the paper that the math was leading them to somewhere they didn't want to go.

Very good and you are right that the paper questions (hypothetical conclusions) the Constant, which may not be a real thing. And i can see how a cosmic intelligence can be read into it. But it's the old problem - unknown agencies may include a possible intelligent one, but it doesn't have to be, and does not imply that it one. As I say It may intervene for reasons (physical processes) if its' own, not His own. At best, you may have found another gap for god,or bit of I/D (this is unexplained and a god may have done it) but gaps for god and unexplained puzzles are not evidence for a god,even a 1% cumulative bit and - unless one already believes - counts for no evidence at all.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44]

Transponder: "Very good and you are right that the paper questions (hypothetical conclusions) the Constant, which may not be a real thing. And i can see how a cosmic intelligence can be read into it. But it's the old problem - unknown agencies may include a possible intelligent one, but it doesn't have to be, and does not imply that it one. As I say It may intervene for reasons (physical processes) if its' own, not His own. At best, you may have found another gap for god,or bit of I/D (this is unexplained and a god may have done it) but gaps for god and unexplained puzzles are not evidence for a god,even a 1% cumulative bit and - unless one already believes - counts for no evidence at all."

I think that both you and I know that you are reaching pretty far when you say that that this "unknown agent" did not have to be an intelligent one. I am not reading in to what these three atheists wrote, nor am I alluding to any "God of the gaps". I am simply pointing to what was actually said. They said that the unknown agent "intervened"... looking at it I agree that intervention could be taken as either an act or will or an accidental intrusion of something else. I weigh in on the side of it being an act of will simply because at the time we are talking about, the very beginning stages of the Big Bang, and nothing else was there to intrude into the process. But the line with which that they were unmistakably talking about an suspected intelligence which existed prior to the universe is where they say "for reasons of its own". There is no getting around the fact that they are talking about an intelligent being here because only an individual intelligence could have "reasons of its own".

You like to refer to "God of the gaps" quite a lot. I suspect that is your mantra when talking to any theist. But it is not I that wrote this but rather the three atheists who wrote the paper. Once again, I think the better mantra would be "Multiverse of the gaps", even though the multiverse is completely unproveable, because it is used so often to try to fill the gaps where God fills so nicely. This is exactly what the authors of the paper tried to do. So you have two unproveables fighting over the same gap in our knowledge. Neither of them can be absolutely proven, but both are distinctly possible as admitted by the atheistic authors of the paper. The multiverse is built on conjecture. It does not come from the realm of real physics but rather Theoretical Physics. The belief in God is built on evidence such as the evidence I am presenting. You may not accept it as evidence because you have closed your mind to any evidence for God, but evidence it remains for the countless intelligent people who do see it and accept it as such.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
You may not accept it as evidence because you have closed your mind to any evidence for God, but evidence it remains for the countless intelligent people who do see it and accept it as such.

Two, two libels in one.

Charging someone with having closed their mind to 'evidence' might better have you wondering why folks reject the 'evidence', and why it might be you who's close minded to that.

This atheist accepts the theist sincerely believes as evidence any and all bits theists put up - I just reject their concludings therefrom.

Then to say, "countless intelligent people who do see it and accept it as such", opens you up to folks thinking you're an idiot for believing you're correct merely because 'intelligent' folks agree with you.

It's far better to stand on the merits of your argument, than on libels and slanders

[brunumb]

The belief in God is built on evidence such as the evidence I am presenting. You may not accept it as evidence because you have closed your mind to any evidence for God, but evidence it remains for the countless intelligent people who do see it and accept it as such.

The evidence you are presenting is much like the average American diet, high in gratification for the undiscerning but low in quality and nutritious value. It remains so for the countless intelligent people who do not see it as compelling or accept it as such. God is the ultimate Gap-filler. Invent a being that can do anything and you can apply it any time that there is some difficult or unanswered question. In reality, it answers nothing while actually generating more questions of its own.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44]

Transponder: "Very good and you are right that the paper questions (hypothetical conclusions) the Constant, which may not be a real thing. And i can see how a cosmic intelligence can be read into it. But it's the old problem - unknown agencies may include a possible intelligent one, but it doesn't have to be, and does not imply that it one. As I say It may intervene for reasons (physical processes) if its' own, not His own. At best, you may have found another gap for god,or bit of I/D (this is unexplained and a god may have done it) but gaps for god and unexplained puzzles are not evidence for a god,even a 1% cumulative bit and - unless one already believes - counts for no evidence at all."

I think that both you and I know that you are reaching pretty far when you say that that this "unknown agent" did not have to be an intelligent one. I am not reading in to what these three atheists wrote, nor am I alluding to any "God of the gaps". I am simply pointing to what was actually said. They said that the unknown agent "intervened"... looking at it I agree that intervention could be taken as either an act or will or an accidental intrusion of something else. I weigh in on the side of it being an act of will simply because at the time we are talking about, the very beginning stages of the Big Bang, and nothing else was there to intrude into the process. But the line with which that they were unmistakably talking about an suspected intelligence which existed prior to the universe is where they say "for reasons of its own". There is no getting around the fact that they are talking about an intelligent being here because only an individual intelligence could have "reasons of its own".

You like to refer to "God of the gaps" quite a lot. I suspect that is your mantra when talking to any theist. But it is not I that wrote this but rather the three atheists who wrote the paper. Once again, I think the better mantra would be "Multiverse of the gaps", even though the multiverse is completely unproveable, because it is used so often to try to fill the gaps where God fills so nicely. This is exactly what the authors of the paper tried to do. So you have two unproveables fighting over the same gap in our knowledge. Neither of them can be absolutely proven, but both are distinctly possible as admitted by the atheistic authors of the paper. The multiverse is built on conjecture. It does not come from the realm of real physics but rather Theoretical Physics. The belief in God is built on evidence such as the evidence I am presenting. You may not accept it as evidence because you have closed your mind to any evidence for God, but evidence it remains for the countless intelligent people who do see it and accept it as such.

I know that you are reading an intelligence into the wording, and even if the writer was hinting at an Intelligence, that doesn't mean he's right. It is a gap for God. In fact apart from reading your preferred meaning into it you ignore the context, effectively quotemining to suit yourself. I recall the article concludes with a remark that the constant might not be actual, thus apparently knocking out the only argument for an intelligent designer (1).

Now you prod at me for always mentioning that because it is what theist apologists so often do, because they have no evidence FOR a god, only gaps where a god can lurk, undisproved, because we don't know. This speculative hypothesis of an unknown intervening agent unaffected by anything else (is how I read it) is used by you as a gap for God, and Interpreted without valid reason to make it so, so no more pot -kettle from you, sunshine.

You do it again here: "the multiverse is completely unproveable, because it is used so often to try to fill the gaps where God fills so nicely." I doubt you'll see this because your mindset is set to Godffaith, but in fact you are putting a god there a priori (I have to use that term a lot, too) and then wave away any science that threatens to push it out. This is the reversed burden of proof and gap for god fallacy that renders pretty much all God - apologetics void, fallacious and irrational at the get - go, and they can never get it because they see Godfaith as a starting point to reason from. That's poor stuff even without cheap tricks like sneering at the number of times we have to correct the fallacies you keep making.

(1) cue 'well, if so, we can ignore him, as he's only a scientist and science is always getting things wrong'.