uncaused causes

[dcyates]

I don´t think the question gets any clearer when rephrased in loaded terms.

"Team effort" constitutes loaded terms? Hmm.
Anyway... It would clarify things for me, and I'm the one who asked the question.

 

[quatona]

"Team effort" constitutes loaded terms? Hmm.
Anyway... It would clarify things for me, and I'm the one who asked the question.

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.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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?

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

 

[dcyates]

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.

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.

 

[dcyates]

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

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.

 

[Davian]

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.

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.

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.

So much for that then.

 

[dcyates]

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.

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.

So much for that then.

Indeed.

 

[Davian]

That the universe is fine-tuned is undeniable.

Denied. All you have done is assert 'fine-tuning'.

That was easy.

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.

LOL - trying to shift the burden of evidence? Fail.

You are the one asserting 'fine-tuning' - *you* back up your assertion.

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.

I did not say there are or might be "other universes".

I said, *you* will need access to other universes to provide evidence for your assertion of "fine-tuning".

ETA: (The big bang was not an "explosion", lol)

 

[Elioenai26]

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.

dcyates you do well in your labor for the Lord.

Continue to persevere in your defense of the gospel.

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.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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.

Thanks for the wholehearted agreement.

The main difference between my view and the one you state is that for me the Cosmic Egg (i.e., whatever existed at the beginning of time/change) transformed into what we see today instead of being transcendent, and it was simply the universe in a different form. I see little point in referring to the universe as a deity since it isn't itself a "someone", but is at best only the natural context for the emergence of someones, such as you and I.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That the universe is fine-tuned is undeniable.

Neil Degrasse Tyson - Stupid Design - YouTube

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, not necessarily. Remarkable patterns can emerge from natural forces, without the need for an intervening intelligence.

 

[Davian]

dcyates you do well in your labor for the Lord.

Continue to persevere in your defense of the gospel.

The gospel? When did that come up?

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.

You are in a great position to learn. Let us see what you do with it.

 

[JonF]

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.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

 

[JonF]

Look as a devout Christian the claim it is a necessary truth that: there must be a first mover or a first cause implies there must be a God seems to fall flat.

I believe there is a God, but that doesn't mean I blindly support bad arguments for it. This argument reminds me of zeno's paradoxes. They sound good but knowledge of math and physics concepts like singularities, monotonic bound infinite series, limits, calculus, and relativity, etc all seem to present alternative answers.

Again I believe there is a God, I just think these types of arguments aren't a good way to support that belief.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So why do you believe in God, JonF? I'm not asking to be argumentative. I'm sincerely curious.

 

[JonF]

I'm a calvinist. So I'd look at the doctrine of irresistible grace, limited atonement, and unconditional election for my views. Personally I find claims about God to be non scientific since I believe they a non-falsifiable non-verifiable. God claims IMHO are first principles nearly by definition.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I appreciate that you believe in God. I appreciate that you think that God is non-scientific, non-falsifiable, and non-verifiable.

But why do you believe in God?

 

[JonF]

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.

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Right, but why are the doctrines believable?