Basic Creationism Is Supported By Science

[partinobodycular]

Forces and constants that so too are as they are by, what the atheist position appears to conclude, chance.

I doubt that an atheist would conclude that the physical constants are what they are simply as a matter of chance. It's far more likely that they're a matter of inevitability not chance, but until we can determine what causes the physical constants to be what they are we can't conclude one way or another whether they're the product of chance, inevitability, or design. But historically, those things which have at first appeared to be supernatural have inexorably fallen into the realm of the natural, and it's very likely that the explanation for the physical constants will do the same.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is no onus where there is no attempt to prove anything. I suppose we will just have to wait and see if such a purpose is ever discovered.

You have implicitly asked members who think there is no purpose to justify/explain that position. Several have done so - in my case in some detail. You seem unwilling to reciprocate. It's a little frustrating.

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm not sure that I've ever investigated the atheist position in such a way. I do genuinely find it strange.

If you think it through it's fairly obvious that an atheist would not be aware of a 'reason for living' in the broad sense. If there were a 'reason for living' then, logically there must be a 'reasoner' - some kind of supernatural entity which provides the reason for living. In your case this would be the Christian God.

In my case I see no evidence for a god and no evidence of an overriding 'reason for living'. That doesn't mean I lack personal goals and objectives which are a natural outgrowth of the survival instinct we all possess.

I suspect that the main function of a God belief is not to provide a reason for living but to act as a form of security - a hedge against the unknown and less controllable aspects of life, including the fears associated with death.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

Your analogy relating to me existing still doesn't size up to the larger question of why.

It goes to the very heart of it. Are you a random result of forces we don't fully understand or has it been planned that you are here?

 

[Bradskii]

When I go to play a game of baseball, I play with interests in winning, interests in becoming a stronger and better player, interests in developing skills.

Your view is like appearing in the middle of a baseball game, no reason or rhyme for the game even existing to begin with, no reason behind you even being in the game, no trophy or skill development accomplishment or trophy at the end, everything in the end just disappears and was for nothing.

There's no winning. There's no prize. No trophy. There's no final at season's end. The game just goes on and on and your only aim is to stay in it as long as you can.

So in that sense, there is no meaning. There's nothing to play for. But you may as well soak up the experience while your innings lasts. You've been given a 'chance to squint at a sky so blue that it hurts your eyes just to look at it. To feel the tingling in your arm as you connect with the ball. To run the bases - stretch a double into a triple, and flop face-first into third, wrap your arms around the bag.'

Enjoy the game.

 

[Job 33:6]

I doubt that an atheist would conclude that the physical constants are what they are simply as a matter of chance. It's far more likely that they're a matter of inevitability not chance, but until we can determine what causes the physical constants to be what they are we can't conclude one way or another whether they're the product of chance, inevitability, or design. But historically, those things which have at first appeared to be supernatural have inexorably fallen into the realm of the natural, and it's very likely that the explanation for the physical constants will do the same.

If God operates through natural means, it would come as no surprise to us that we would observe physical explanations for things.

So we have chance, inevitability, or design. Atheists certainly aren't falling into the design camp. But even inevitability is essentially just blind luck at the end of the day. No reason, no rhyme, these various constants and their specific values just are as they are.

Figures who back multiverse theory at least have an explanation for why the constants would be as they are. But inevitability sounds more like a remaining option for atheists that do not want to believe that we hit the lottery.

 

[Job 33:6]

You have implicitly asked members who think there is no purpose to justify/explain that position. Several have done so - in my case in some detail. You seem unwilling to reciprocate. It's a little frustrating.

There has been no justification. There has been some guess work if that's what you mean. I haven't seen a single person explain why the universes constants are as they are. But rather simply shrug their shoulders and say "welp, it just is what it is, maybe we will find purpose in the future but until then I don't believe there is in any purpose or meaning behind It all".

 

[Ophiolite]

There has been no justification. There has been some guess work if that's what you mean. I haven't seen a single person explain why the universes constants are as they are. But rather simply shrug their shoulders and say "welp, it just is what it is, maybe we will find purpose in the future but until then I don't believe there is in any purpose or meaning behind It all".

Well, we are clearly talking past each other. I'll give it one more try:

• There is no substantive evidence to support the existence of a purpose for the universe in general, or human lives in particular.
  
• All arguments presented in this thread for there being a purpose appear to be based on the notion that it is inconceivable there is no purpose. That argument is a logical fallacy.
  
• Our studies in a diversity of sciences explain a huge number of phenomena from the macro to the micro, with not a hint of purpose in any of them.
• That is the justification for thinking the simplest explanation is that the universe has no purpose.

Now, on what basis do you reject that as a justification?


And for the record, I repeat my distaste for the concept of belief. I don't "believe there is any purpose or meaning behind it all". I accept that, at present, based upon available evidence and argument, that is the simplest explanation for what we observe. Produce significant evidence of a purpose and I'll switch after appropriate review. But so far the only "evidence" is an Argument from Incredulity.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you think it through it's fairly obvious that an atheist would not be aware of a 'reason for living' in the broad sense. If there were a 'reason for living' then, logically there must be a 'reasoner' - some kind of supernatural entity which provides the reason for living. In your case this would be the Christian God.

OB

While I think a reason could be supernatural, it doesn't have to be. A reason really wouldn't even need to have anything to do with an intelligent being, though it could.

 

[Job 33:6]

There's no winning. There's no prize. No trophy. There's no final at season's end. The game just goes on and on and your only aim is to stay in it as long as you can.

So in that sense, there is no meaning. There's nothing to play for. But you may as well soak up the experience while your innings lasts. You've been given a 'chance to squint at a sky so blue that it hurts your eyes just to look at it. To feel the tingling in your arm as you connect with the ball. To run the bases - stretch a double into a triple, and flop face-first into third, wrap your arms around the bag.'

Enjoy the game.

It's not just a trophy that is missing. It's a reason for the game itself.

You said "soak up the experience", but why is there even an experience to soak up to begin with and why even feel compelled to soak it up?

No purpose. It just is as it is without any reason.

 

[Bradskii]

No purpose. It just is as it is without any reason.

That's one view (and it's mine). But you haven't directly answered the question. To which there is only two answers.

A. It has been designed so that you, and I mean you specifically, are here.
B. You are a random event.

You're a Christian so I have no doubt that you'd consider everything (including yourself) to be here by the will of God (but you could confirm that if you will). In which case, all this talk about why the universe appears to be fine tuned seems to be a waste of time. It was fine tuned by God so that you and I could be here.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, we are clearly talking past each other. I'll give it one more try:

• There is no substantive evidence to support the existence of a purpose for the universe in general, or human lives in particular.
  
• All arguments presented in this thread for there being a purpose appear to be based on the notion that it is inconceivable there is no purpose. That argument is a logical fallacy.
  
• Our studies in a diversity of sciences explain a huge number of phenomena from the macro to the micro, with not a hint of purpose in any of them.
• That is the justification for thinking the simplest explanation is that the universe has no purpose.

Now, on what basis do you reject that as a justification?


And for the record, I repeat my distaste for the concept of belief. I don't "believe there is any purpose or meaning behind it all". I accept that, at present, based upon available evidence and argument, that is the simplest explanation for what we observe. Produce significant evidence of a purpose and I'll switch after appropriate review. But so far the only "evidence" is an Argument from Incredulity.

All you've done here is just repeat yourself multiple times.

In one hand you've said that you "accept" that there is no purpose or meaning behind it all, but then you turn and say that your mind could switch upon receiving sufficient evidence to the contrary.

This is what we call belief.

Which is to say that you believe that there is no purpose or meaning behind it all as you have not observed evidence to the contrary.

This is a belief and it's fine to have one. Personally, I just don't think it makes sense that everything could be here, a seemingly organized universe, sentient beings that can further go out and build complex technological structures, with the intellect to investigate the deepest aspects of the universe, all perhaps just by what is considered some seemingly purposeless or random, meaningless coincidence.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's one view (and it's mine). But you haven't directly answered the question. To which there is only two answers.

A. It has been designed so that you, and I mean you specifically, are here.
B. You are a random event.

You're a Christian so I have no doubt that you'd consider everything (including yourself) to be here by the will of God (but you could confirm that if you will). In which case, all this talk about why the universe appears to be fine tuned seems to be a waste of time. It was fine tuned by God so that you and I could be here.

Yes, I believe it was fine tuned by God.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, I believe it was fine tuned by God.

Then there's no mystery.

 

[Ophiolite]

All you've done here is just repeat yourself multiple times.

I'll be curt and say all you've done is fail to understand multiple times.

This is what we call belief.

This is what you call belief.

Personally, I just don't think it makes sense that everything could be here, a seemingly organized universe, sentient beings that can further go out and build complex technological structures, with the intellect to investigate the deepest aspects of the universe, all perhaps just by what is considered some seemingly purposeless or random, meaningless coincidence.

I would be embarrassed to use an Argument from Incredulity as a justification for anything. I suppose some form of kudos are due you for having the confidence(?) to use it.

Thank you for the exchange. I think we've achieved clarity of where we disagree, so there is no more to be said, at least on my part.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll be curt and say all you've done is fail to understand multiple times.

This is what you call belief.

I would be embarrassed to use an Argument from Incredulity as a justification for anything. I suppose some form of kudos are due you for having the confidence(?) to use it.

Thank you for the exchange. I think we've achieved clarity of where we disagree, so there is no more to be said, at least on my part.

Isn't there a saying, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Saying that you don't have evidence to believe in a reason for why we exist, is not sufficient to suggest that you "accept" that there is no reason. Especially when you then turn and say, if you receive evidence to the contrary, you would then change your mind.

This is belief, whether you're ready to acknowledge this or not. It's an open ended case, as others have suggested already.

And as noted above, there is no onus on me to justify things if I never intended to prove anything to begin with. This is all merely examination of the atheist position.

 

[Ophiolite]

Saying that you don't have evidence to believe in a reason for why we exist, is not sufficient to suggest that you "accept" that there is no reason.

No. I accept that at present, in the absence (currently) of any meaningful evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is that there is no reason.

If I look out of my window, see no clouds, see no rain fall, see no puddles, see no people walking with umbrellas, see no cars operating their windscreen wipers, see no water droplets on my windowpanes, then I accept that it is almost certainly not raining. To accept the alternative explanation that it is raining because, well, raining might happen (indeed has happened in the past) would be ludicrous.

I look at the findings of science: no purpose has been detected in geology, or botany, or zoology, or astrophysics, or cosmology, chemistry, or physics; no purpose has been detected at the scale of the quark, or the neutron, or the atom, or the molecule (even one as large as DNA), or organisms, or chairs, or mountains, or planets, or galaxies. Everywhere we look there is no purpose, except in purposes chosen by humans. Yet you think it reasonable to propose that the universe and everything in it has a purpose, despite that lack of evidence. Purpose was invented by humanity and it relates to things at a human scale, not a reason for the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't there a saying, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Saying that you don't have evidence to believe in a reason for why we exist, is not sufficient to suggest that you "accept" that there is no reason. Especially when you then turn and say, if you receive evidence to the contrary, you would then change your mind.

This is belief, whether you're ready to acknowledge this or not. It's an open ended case, as others have suggested already.

And as noted above, there is no onus on me to justify things if I never intended to prove anything to begin with. This is all merely examination of the atheist position.

Yes, there is such a saying. And it is demonstrably wrong.

The saying should be "The absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." There are cases where an absence of evidence tells us that an event did not happen.

 

[partinobodycular]

But even inevitability is essentially just blind luck at the end of the day. No reason, no rhyme, these various constants and their specific values just are as they are.

Figures who back multiverse theory at least have an explanation for why the constants would be as they are. But inevitability sounds more like a remaining option for atheists that do not want to believe that we hit the lottery.

No, inevitability isn't just blind luck. It isn't just blind luck that causes light to travel in a straight line through spacetime. It's the very nature of light itself that causes it to travel in a straight line...it's INEVITABLE. And it's not unreasonable to think that the physical constants are just as inevitable as the invariability of light, and lacking any evidence to the contrary there's no reason to invoke some mystical designer to explain them. Now if you could give us some evidence for said designer then scientists and most atheists would definitely consider it. Until then we'll have to place God in the same category as Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[partinobodycular]

Yes, I believe it was fine tuned by God.

But this places you in a bit of a conundrum. Because it means that you don't have free will.

If reality was designed specifically to have YOU in it then your parents HAD to meet. They had no choice in the matter. And all the events that caused them to meet had to happen as well. As with everyone else. So you end up with every event that has ever happened being designed and decided from the beginning, not by you or me, but by God. Every sin ever committed was designed and decided by God.

So which is it? Do people have free will? In which case your existence is simply a matter of dumb luck. Or is free will just an illusion because everything, from the physical constants to your existence, was designed by God?