When you asked "So you are suggesting...?" I thought you were trying to rephrase my question and asked me if I agreed with your paraphrasing."Team effort" constitutes loaded terms? Hmm.
Anyway... It would clarify things for me, and I'm the one who asked the question.
So what do you maintain was this "something" that made it impossible for a state of affairs in which there was nothing at all, to become the universe as we know it today?
Personally, I'm not aware of any Christian apologist who makes the argument that the existence of a finely-tuned universe necessitates belief in specifically the Judeo-Christian God as he is revealed in the pages of the Bible. Rather simply that deriving the existence of A god from the existence of a finely-tuned universe is logically an inference to the best explanation. It is only then that it is argued that what can be gleaned from the existence of a finely-tuned universe about that god looks remarkably similar to the Judeo-Christian God as he is revealed in the pages of the Bible.When you asked "So you are suggesting...?" I thought you were trying to rephrase my question and asked me if I agreed with your paraphrasing.
Forgive me for interjecting here, but I would just want to add that I wholeheartedly agree with you: Since the existence of anything makes it impossible for there to have ever been a state when there was nothing at all, that pre-existent, eternal 'something' is what we theists would rather call 'Someone', that being God.The existence of anything makes it impossible for there to have ever been a state of affairs when there was nothing at all, assuming of course that the principle "from nothing, nothing comes" holds true under all circumstances.
eudaimonia,
Mark
No it is not, as all we have at this time is what we would call the *appearance* of fine-tuning. Without access to other universes, this cannot be verified.Personally, I'm not aware of any Christian apologists who makes the argument that the existence of a finely-tuned universe necessitates belief in specifically the Judeo-Christian God as he is revealed in the pages of the Bible. Rather simply that deriving the existence of A god from the existence of a finely-tuned universe is logically an inference to the best explanation.
So much for that then.It is only then that it is argued that what can be gleaned from the existence of a finely-tuned universe about that god looks remarkably similar to the Judeo-Christian God as he is revealed in the pages of the Bible.
That the universe is fine-tuned is undeniable. The very fact that there is any order to the universe at all is strongly indicative of an intelligence behind it -- unless, that is, you can provide even a single example of an explosion resulting in greater order and complexity.No it is not, as all we have at this time is what we would call the *appearance* of fine-tuning. Without access to other universes, this cannot be verified.
Indeed.So much for that then.
Denied. All you have done is assert 'fine-tuning'.That the universe is fine-tuned is undeniable.
LOL - trying to shift the burden of evidence? Fail.The very fact that there is any order to the universe at all is strongly indicative of an intelligence behind it -- unless, that is, you can provide even a single example of an explosion resulting in greater order and complexity.
I did not say there are or might be "other universes".As far as "other universes" are concerned, I think the very suggestion goes to show just how far into the improbable and fantastic that some people will go in order to deny the existence of a God before whom they absolutely refuse to be accountable.
That the universe is fine-tuned is undeniable. The very fact that there is any order to the universe at all is strongly indicative of an intelligence behind it -- unless, that is, you can provide even a single example of an explosion resulting in greater order and complexity.
As far as "other universes" are concerned, I think the very suggestion goes to show just how far into the improbable and fantastic that some people will go in order to deny the existence of a God before whom they absolutely refuse to be accountable.
Indeed.
Forgive me for interjecting here, but I would just want to add that I wholeheartedly agree with you: Since the existence of anything makes it impossible for there to have ever been a state when there was nothing at all, that pre-existent, eternal 'something' is what we theists would rather call 'Someone', that being God.
That the universe is fine-tuned is undeniable.
The very fact that there is any order to the universe at all is strongly indicative of an intelligence behind it -- unless, that is, you can provide even a single example of an explosion resulting in greater order and complexity.
The gospel? When did that come up?dcyates you do well in your labor for the Lord.
Continue to persevere in your defense of the gospel.
You are in a great position to learn. Let us see what you do with it.Those of us who frequent this portion of the website are in such a great position to really learn so much that is going to help us in our ministries.
This is a grace from God and I pray you are benefited as I am.
I don't think very many people who have seriously looked at these argument find it cogent anymore. Even a cursory knowledge in math or physics should present you with ideas that make it not necessary from a scientific stand point not - both logically and ontological necessary that is.
I told you why... Did you look up the doctrines I named? They do a pretty good job stating why. I guess I could copy and paste Wikipedia for you or something.