Are Universal Constants proof of design?

[LordTimothytheWise]

Again, I did not say anything about insecurities in general, only that apologetics addresses those who are not firmly secure in their faith without something else to supplement it. And what the *** is this about "atheism's relation to the Oedipus COmplex"? If you're going to complain about non-believers making unfounded accusation against Christians, might do well to not sling the mud yourself.

Atheism and the Oedipus complex.

You are projecting. You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say. You'll note that I didn't mention anything about atheists, only non-believers. And that encompasses a lot of non-believers- atheists, agnostics, and believers in non-Christians religions.

Oh of course, I am projecting now. Yet when have I said that atheism was irrational, or that no one can believe in it rationally? No, the black and white perspective... that was all you. All I said was that those who take such a black and white picture of the world as that all theists are all clearly irrational for their theism and that there is no evidence at all. Period. For the existence of God, is naive. That is what I am on about. That is the black and white reality that you see. eg. That I am the sheep, and I haven't reasoned anything out, while you, the stalwart defender of all rationality has to condescend to me, the silly theist. Yet I am the one that is projecting my feelings that the world is black and white onto you. Oh gee I wish I would have known before. How silly I am.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wow, frankly, I think your absolute unwavering denial that there is any evidence of the existence of God is incredibly naive.

Naturally: our position on the existence of gnomes is equally naive, until we find evidence of them. You may have found evidence for God, but he hasn't. It's a little arrogant to assume that he's wilfully denies a truth, rather than simply ignorant of facts you yourself are privy to. Instead of slapping him with trite stereotypes, I think you'd garner more respect for your position if you simply cited the evidence he claims (perhaps rationally, perhaps irrationally) doesn't exist.

You seem to buy wholeheartedly into the popular diatribe that religion is evil and blind and that anyone who thinks there is merit in these belief systems must be equally blind.

Evil can have merit. Most so-called 'militant atheists' acknowledge the good religion does, despite calling it evil; it's great evils are not vindicated by what small good it does. But, yes, it seems that most atheists seem to buy into the idea that any and all theists are necessarily idiots (but then, the sentiment seems to go both ways...).

Perhaps it has never occurred to you, but in reality, things are different. But Oh no, but who would ever reasonably question that theism has been intellectually defeated on every front, and anyone who is willing to put stock in it is obviously just doing so because they want to believe, and not because there is actually any reasonable amount of rationality in it at all. Well I am glad your world is so black and white, and you can be so secure that everyone else is wrong. Clearly we all know that the physical constants are not what we have understood through empirical tests, or scientific analysis, they are clearly just crap that theistic nutjobs came up with in their attic to prove that their God exists. ugh. The sad attempts I have seen to dismiss them as irrelevant have been on the whole, utterly lacking. Until I see better arguments against the physical constants and fine tuning (or other arguments that you likely have an even more shallow understanding of) besides "maybe there's a multiverse" (and maybe there is but that's missing the point) please don't rail on about how irrational I am or my beliefs are... thx.

Pointing out another's hypocrisy doesn't counter the charges of irrationality. Whatever he's done, however irrational he is, has no bearing on whether your beliefs are irrational. "An eye for an eye" is a terrible code to live by.

I don't think you should have a hard time understanding exactly what I mean when I say there is evidence for Christianity. What is so ambiguous about that statement?

Perhaps he's asking what specific pieces of evidence you're referring to? Just a guess.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Perhaps he's asking what specific pieces of evidence you're referring to? Just a guess.

Possibly, but imho that is probably an incorrect guess, as he seems to already think he knows all my arguments.

Instead of slapping him with trite stereotypes, I think you'd garner more respect for your position if you simply cited the evidence he claims (perhaps rationally, perhaps irrationally) doesn't exist.

I doubt it. He never actually responded to the points I made already about atheists dismissing valid arguments, so I would wager he would follow that tactic. In any case, I haven't seen any really negation of the initial OP unless someone posted it on a page I neglected to read, of course though that was also dismissed as irrelevant.

Pointing out another's hypocrisy doesn't counter the charges of irrationality. Whatever he's done, however irrational he is, has no bearing on whether your beliefs are irrational. "An eye for an eye" is a terrible code to live by.

True as that may be, my initial point wasn't to provide arguments for the existence of God and all that, only that one is naive to take a veiw that theists are all somehow silly and irrational which he responded to ironically with that very naivity without producing anything new, but simply re-asserting it maybe throwing in a few predjudices and unsupported arguments along the way.

 

[sandwiches]

Wow, frankly, I think your absolute unwavering denial that there is any evidence of the existence of God is incredibly naive. You seem to buy wholeheartedly into the popular diatribe that religion is evil and blind and that anyone who thinks there is merit in these belief systems must be equally blind. Perhaps it has never occurred to you, but in reality, things are different. But Oh no, but who would ever reasonably question that theism has been intellectually defeated on every front, and anyone who is willing to put stock in it is obviously just doing so because they want to believe, and not because there is actually any reasonable amount of rationality in it at all. Well I am glad your world is so black and white, and you can be so secure that everyone else is wrong. Clearly we all know that the physical constants are not what we have understood through empirical tests, or scientific analysis, they are clearly just crap that theistic nutjobs came up with in their attic to prove that their God exists. ugh. The sad attempts I have seen to dismiss them as irrelevant have been on the whole, utterly lacking. Until I see better arguments against the physical constants and fine tuning (or other arguments that you likely have an even more shallow understanding of) besides "maybe there's a multiverse" (and maybe there is but that's missing the point) please don't rail on about how irrational I am or my beliefs are... thx.

Well, is there objectively verifiable evidence for a god, specifically for the Christian god over, say, the Hindu gods??

 

[Maxwell511]

Clearly we all know that the physical constants are not what we have understood through empirical tests, or scientific analysis, they are clearly just crap that theistic nutjobs came up with in their attic to prove that their God exists. ugh. The sad attempts I have seen to dismiss them as irrelevant have been on the whole, utterly lacking. Until I see better arguments against the physical constants and fine tuning (or other arguments that you likely have an even more shallow understanding of) besides "maybe there's a multiverse" (and maybe there is but that's missing the point) please don't rail on about how irrational I am or my beliefs are... thx.

Most physicists can talk all day about fine tuning and physical constants. The fact is they are talking outside their scope of study and their scope of knowledge. Some assume that the constants for this universe are necessary for consciousness to emerge because consciousness has emerged in this universe. That is not necessarily true.

Theologians can talk all day about fine tuning and physical constants. The fact is they are being irrational if they believe that God is omnipotent. Some assume that the constants for this universe are necessary for consciousness to emerge because consciousness has emerged in this universe. This is not necessarily true and if it was would mean that an omnipotent being is somehow being constrained.

Most theologians are more clever than most physicists on this matter however. They say God created the universe and did not design it. You are being irrational because you go with most irrational theists and say that God designed the universe. He may have created it but he did not design it. Saying God designed the universe is the modern theological equivalent of saying that God has a physical appearance and looks like man because we are created in his "image". Design is a human action not a divine one, you may as well say that God eats tacos if you are going to drag such a being down to our level.

 

[Tenka]

Atheism and the Oedipus complex.

The funniest thing about that article is that the exact mechanism Vitz claims is at the root of atheism actually occurred to himself but in the inverse. He viewed his atheist psych professors as father figures and emulated them until eventually he 'grew up', became a psyche professor himself and converted into the oedipal zealot he is today.