One of the Best Arguments for God?

[POI]

we should focus the fine-tuning.

Both theists and skeptics will state this is one of the best arguments a believer has. But, is it sound reasoning? Below are some points to consider before continuing:

The fine-tuning argument for God is often considered to fail because it relies on the assumption that the extreme improbability of our universe's life-permitting conditions points to a designer, but this can be countered by the concept of a multiverse, where our observable universe could simply be one of many with vastly different conditions, making our seemingly fine-tuned universe less surprising statistically; additionally, critics argue that even if fine-tuning is real, it doesn't necessarily point to a God with the characteristics typically described in religions, and the argument can be seen as a "God of the gaps" fallacy, where unexplained phenomena are attributed to divine intervention.

Below are some key points against the fine-tuning argument:

The Multiverse Hypothesis: If there are an infinite or very large number of universes with different physical constants, then it becomes less improbable that we would happen to be in one where life is possible, even if the odds of that specific set of constants are very low in any single universe.

Anthropic Principle:This principle states that we can only observe a universe capable of supporting life because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it, which can partially explain the fine-tuning observation without invoking a deity.

Lack of Specificity: Even if fine-tuning is real, it doesn't necessarily point to a specific God with the characteristics described in religions, as the "designer" could be a very different entity.

The "God of the Gaps" Fallacy: Critics argue that invoking God to explain unexplained phenomena like fine-tuning is a form of this fallacy, where God is used to fill in gaps in our scientific understanding that may be explained by future discoveries.

Notable... "irreducible complexity" focuses on the structure of a system, while "fine-tuning" focuses on the specific values within a system that make it functional. But I feel it is still worth adding:

Irreducible complexity: Theists will argue for it. It is a system that is made up of multiple parts that work together, and where removing any one part causes the system to stop working. However, the Dover trial of the mid 2000's dispelled this assumption.

*************************

For Debate: Above provides some point(s) which would be a (cause for pause) in theists continuing to push for this argument. Why is the fine-tuning argument a good argument for a God or god(s) existence?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to POI in post #1

While fine tuning may be considered one of the best arguments for a creator, I don't consider it by any means the best. Still, there may be something to say for it.

Critics argue that invoking God to explain unexplained phenomena like fine-tuning is a form of this fallacy, where God is used to fill in gaps in our scientific understanding that may be explained by future discoveries.

This may provide a lot of room for consideration, but it's still technically the fallacy of Appeal to the Future.

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

Actually, it's not. It isn't just a matter of regression; it's a matter of reduction, what underlies it all whether it's eternal or not.

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

But as you yourself have admitted, a multiverse has not been established----leaving apparent fine-tuning as the only observable evidence. Between observable evidence and an untested [and perhaps untestable] hypothesis, which carries more scientific weight?

But we know nature is a thing. And nature is also demonstrable.

Nature's being self-evident doesn't make it self-explanatory.

IMHO, I see the teleological argument, cosmological argument, and all the rest in which the apologist will put forth, as really nothing more than mental masturbation.

The Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.

[SiNcE_1985]

^^^^

[POI]

No distinction will be made between the atheist & the agnostic. Both are under the same umbrella.

I disagree. There is distinction. We have three core positions:

1. Believer
2. Unbeliever/disbeliever
3. Undecided

Position 3 is where I land for both the assertion made of a 'god(s)' and 'aliens'.

You have a fine-tuned universe which began to exist...

You are appealing to 'science' here. As you have agreed below that 'science' is inept, then you no longer have the luxury in appealing to 'science' for 'god(s)'. You cannot have you cake and eat it too.

My gut tells me that there should be a God which exists.

You would not have to say this if God was instead actually demonstrated.

Opinions.

The reason I brought up this topic is that it is my opinion that THIS argument is likely NOT the best argument for God. I honestly do not think any of these mumbo-jumbo arguments convert hardly anyone. Most become believers for reason(s) unrelated to apologetics arguments. And if some do, it often times does not stick. Teleological and cosmological arguments are merely apologetic tools to re-enforce the believer's 'position'. Even public figure Dr. Craig admits this.

Just like there are many people of whose faith/belief in God have been strengthened because of those types of arguments.

Bingo! See above.

The arguments leave me convinced.

See above.

Yes to both questions.

Then I can logically ignore Roger Penrose and all the rest of the fellas you mention.

God.

??

But it isn't eternal.

Since neither of us can use 'science' as evidence, how might I address your assertion? I'm undecided. However, you assert a positive claim. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning. How might you do that without Mr. Penrose and friends?

Show me sentient life coming from inanimate material, and then we can talk.

My point here is that you refuse/reject theoretical sciences, (i.e.) evolutionary theory. I could give you all the evidence in the world, but you will reject it, just like you claim I will reject your "evidence", based upon a pre-existing 'world view.' 'Abiogenesis' is not well-founded enough to become theoretical. Maybe it never will be? Who knows? I'm not a scientist. However, the fact 'science' has not branded abiogenesis theoretical anyways makes "science" rigorous, thorough, and honest in this regard. Unlike pseudoscience, ala Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and all their friends. Does science have its own flaws? Sure. But so does pseudoscience.

Oh, well let me change it to the "supernatural certainty". Is that better?

No. It's still the same answer. God has not actually been demonstrated. It is just speculative or a hunch.

I agree, God.

So would the eternal existence of nature. Which would then no longer necessitate a god. But we already have demonstration for nature, and not god.

The more complex a system is, the more intelligence is required.

Can you demonstrate this assertion?

Oh, then that explains why evolution won.

No. Evolution won because it has been demonstrated.

I don't remember.

Post 118 of the 'Evilition' thread.

God denial.

This tells me everything I need to know.

[SiNcE_1985]

I disagree. There is distinction. We have three core positions:

1. Believer
2. Unbeliever/disbeliever
3. Undecided

Position 3 is where I land for both the assertion made of a 'god(s)' and 'aliens'.

You may make the distinction, but according to my religion, God doesn't make the distinction..which was/is my point.

There is no playing it safe with being undecided.

Those who hear the message and do not accept...well, the decision is made.

You are appealing to 'science' here. As you have agreed below that 'science' is inept, then you no longer have the luxury in appealing to 'science' for 'god(s)'. You cannot have you cake and eat it too.

I did not say nor imply that science is inept in general...I said that science is inept when it comes to explaining ORIGINS, specifically.

Let's see how many more times you misrepresent my position.

You would not have to say this if God was instead actually demonstrated.

Let me make myself clear...I am 100% certain that a Cosmic Creator exists.

The reason I brought up this topic is that it is my opinion that THIS argument is likely NOT the best argument for God.

Opinions.

And no one said it is the best, you even said that it is claimed to be "one of the best", which, i agreed.

It isn't my favorite, though.

I honestly do not think any of these mumbo-jumbo arguments convert hardly anyone. Most become believers for reason(s) unrelated to apologetics arguments.

If apologetics won't convert people to the faith, the least it can do is strengthen our faith, as it did mines.

And if some do, it often times does not stick. Teleological and cosmological arguments are merely apologetic tools to re-enforce the believer's 'position'. Even public figure Dr. Craig admits this.

Well, if it reinforces our position, then there is obvious value in it.

Then I can logically ignore Roger Penrose and all the rest of the fellas you mention.

I just watched an interview where the guy is marveling at the equation, and the astronomical precision of the Big Bang event.

Sounds like me and Penrose are on the same page here.

Since neither of us can use 'science' as evidence, how might I address your assertion?

Science is used to support premise 2 of the KCA, which is that the universe began to exist.

The second premise is not up for debate and can be found in any modern textbook on cosmology.

And if the premise being supported by science isn't enough, there are also at least two mathematical (philosophical) arguments supporting the finitude of the past, thus, the finitude of the universe.

And these arguments are completely independent of each other, meaning that even if you debunk one (which you can't) you still have to deal with the others, as each one stands on its own feet.

I'm undecided. However, you assert a positive claim. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning. How might you do that without Mr. Penrose and friends?

First Cause arguments (in some form or fashion) have been around for hundreds of years, well before Penrose & friends.

And those who formulated such arguments, obviously, they didn't have the scientific knowledge/backing that we have today, yet they were still able to get to the same place just by using logical reasoning instead.

My point here is that you refuse/reject theoretical sciences, (i.e.) evolutionary theory. I could give you all the evidence in the world, but you will reject it, just like you claim I will reject your "evidence", based upon a pre-existing 'world view.'

Um, not so fast.

Evolution..

1. Assumes a fine-tuned universe of which life can originate.

2. Assumes on the preexistence of life.

Neither #1 or #2 can be true without a Cosmic Designer.

If I assume a Cosmic Designer exists, then that will make me open to the idea of evolution.

But there is no way I am going to believe in evolution without a Cosmic Designer, because of my disbelief in #1 or #2 occurring without a Cosmic Designer.

If (and this is a big "if") evolution was proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, then i would have to abandon my current view of the Judeo-Christian creation account, or abandon Christian theism and become a wandering theist with no place to call home.

And even with all that being said...what is the common denominator?

Theism.

'Abiogenesis' is not well-founded enough to become theoretical. Maybe it never will be? Who knows? I'm not a scientist. However, the fact 'science' has not branded abiogenesis theoretical anyways makes "science" rigorous, thorough, and honest in this regard. Unlike pseudoscience, ala Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and all their friends. Does science have its own flaws? Sure. But so does pseudoscience.

Your modesty is applauded.

No. It's still the same answer. God has not actually been demonstrated. It is just speculative or a hunch.

If what you say is true, I wouldn't be 100% convinced as I am.

I am 100% convinced, therefore what you say isn't true.

So would the eternal existence of nature. Which would then no longer necessitate a god. But we already have demonstration for nature, and not god.

I get it, anything but the "G" word.

And it's not true that nature is eternal in its existence.

Geez, you were just on the record saying the debate is ongoing about whether nature is finite or infinite and how undecided you are...and now here you are making absolute statements as if you know it to be true.

Tsk, tsk.

Can you demonstrate this assertion?

Sure, consider the Mona Lisa painting.

The painting is that of a woman.

It took an intelligent mind to create the painting, will you agree?

No. Evolution won because it has been demonstrated.

Fine, keep teaching it then.

Post 118 of the 'Evilition' thread.

I'll have to check it out..I'm lazy now.

[POI]

I said that science is inept when it comes to explaining ORIGINS, specifically.

Then you cannot use 'science' to explain origins, which still means I can completely ignore Mr. Penrose.

Let me make myself clear...I am 100% certain that a Cosmic Creator exists.

Ah, then you now retract what you said about God with hypotheses and best explanations?

If apologetics won't convert people to the faith, the least it can do is strengthen our faith, as it did mines.

My point is that if it is one the best arguments for God, then why do so few know about it? Further, why is it not ever the catalyst argument for one's conversion from atheism to theism? Every time I hear conversion stories; I never hear of any of these mumbo-jumbo arguments.

Well, if it reinforces our position, then there is obvious value in it.

Since we are speaking about an argument for God, and this is one of the best, seems most should have at least heard of it, and many more people would become convinced because of this argument as well.

Science is used to support premise 2 of the KCA, which is that the universe began to exist. The second premise is not up for debate and can be found in any modern textbook on cosmology. And if the premise being supported by science isn't enough, there are also at least two mathematical (philosophical) arguments supporting the finitude of the past, thus, the finitude of the universe. And these arguments are completely independent of each other, meaning that even if you debunk one (which you can't) you still have to deal with the others, as each one stands on its own feet.

The second premise asserts a beginning. And to the bold, "science' is still exploring. (Academia/peer review) would not be publishing papers exploring eternal universe theory if this topic was settled.

First Cause arguments (in some form or fashion) have been around for hundreds of years, well before Penrose & friends. And those who formulated such arguments, obviously, they didn't have the scientific knowledge/backing that we have today, yet they were still able to get to the same place just by using logical reasoning instead.

Yes, but before 'science', it is mere unfounded assertion. And now that we have 'science', and there is still debate among academia and peer review, P2 is still an unfounded assertion.

Um, not so fast.

Evolution..

1. Assumes a fine-tuned universe of which life can originate.

2. Assumes on the preexistence of life.

Neither #1 or #2 can be true without a Cosmic Designer.

If I assume a Cosmic Designer exists, then that will make me open to the idea of evolution. But there is no way I am going to believe in evolution without a Cosmic Designer, because of my disbelief in #1 or #2 occurring without a Cosmic Designer. If (and this is a big "if") evolution was proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, then i would have to abandon my current view of the Judeo-Christian creation account, or abandon Christian theism and become a wandering theist with no place to call home. And even with all that being said...what is the common denominator?

Theism.

Well, we cannot speak about points 1. and 2., as we would necessarily have to cite 'science' and 'origins'. But sure, we can discuss 'evolution' in either this thread, or, I can point you to where you abandoned the exchange in the other thread, or, you can ignore it both here and there. It's your call?

Your modesty is applauded.

Thank you?

If what you say is true, I wouldn't be 100% convinced as I am. I am 100% convinced, therefore what you say isn't true.

Yes, I know, you already stated this. I'm scratching my noggin because you stated hypotheses and best explanation, which are mere assumptions and hunches. All you are stating is that your hunches are very strong. But even the strongest of hunches/assumptions can be wrong all the time. Theoretical science does not reach conclusions based upon strong hunches and assumptions.

I get it, anything but the "G" word. And it's not true that nature is eternal in its existence. Geez, you were just on the record saying the debate is ongoing about whether nature is finite or infinite and how undecided you are...and now here you are making absolute statements as if you know it to be true. Tsk, tsk.

You misunderstand. It's an if/than statement. And then applying basic logic or common sense to that evaluation. Which is the reason you are afraid of what would be if it were to turn out that the 'universe' is eternal. I, on the other hand, carry no baggage for either conclusion. If the 'universe' turns out to have a true beginning, then you may have a stronger case. But, until we know, it's all speculative mental masturbation.

Sure, consider the Mona Lisa painting. The painting is that of a woman. It took an intelligent mind to create the painting, will you agree?

I already touched on this. We know non-living and non-organic material, or a painting, needs humans to create them. We also know humans exist. What is your point?

[1213]

Did this argument play a role into your god belief...

I think i have always believed, but not because of the argument.

[POI]

Did this argument play a role into your god belief...

I think i have always believed, but not because of the argument.

You weren't born a believer. What argument(s) or experience(s) convinced you?

[POI]

Between a) observable evidence and b) an untested [and perhaps untestable] hypothesis, which carries more scientific weight?

Depends on what you consider as evidence.... Exactly what observable evidence exists for a)?

Nature's being self-evident doesn't make it self-explanatory.

Nice deepity.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to POI in post #18

Depends on what you consider as evidence.... Exactly what observable evidence exists for a)?

If you're familiar with your own subject here, you already have those details.


Nature's being self-evident doesn't make it self-explanatory.

Nice deepity.

Thank you for admitting the validity of my point.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I don't think 'fine tuning' is a good (or the best) argument theists have.

First, there is no difference between 'finely tuned' and 'what we observe'. If the universe just randomly popped into existence somehow and some life managed to emerge, that does not mean it was 'finely tuned'. It just means the conditions allow life.

Should the puddle in a pothole claim the pothole was finely tuned for it because it fits inside perfectly?

Given the vastness of our universe and what we have observed so far, it seems most of it is 'tuned' for death/non-life. It just so happens that on at least one tiny speck life managed to emerge.

I think the best argument theists currently have is "I am convinced, therefore I believe." Now, granted this is fairly useless in convincing anyone else, but they are showing that it is possible to become convinced. Exploring how they became convinced is where we find out if the process was "good".

So far, none of the methods/reasons I've seen for believers becoming convinced (myself included when I became a believer) are good and usually fall apart on closer inspection.

If we had solid evidence for a god, there would be no need of all these apologetic arguments. We don't have special apologetics for gravity, the existence of water, the effectiveness of fire, or the myriad of everything else we can all verify for ourselves.

In short, we don't need apologetics, we need convincing evidence. If there were some convincing evidence, it would be slammed on the table in every one of these debates.