Evolution or Creationism?

[Oncedeceived]

It is fine tuned in the same way that the coffee is finely tuned to fit the inside of the coffee cup.

Well there you go, case in point. The empirical evidence is that the universe is fine tuned for life to exist on earth and you are denying empirical evidence due to your own subjective biases. The majority of those in the field agree it is fine tuned and yet you ignore that evidence or claim it isn't evidence due to subjective biases.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well there you go, case in point. The empirical evidence is that the universe is fine tuned for life to exist on earth and you are denying empirical evidence due to your own subjective biases. The majority of those in the field agree it is fine tuned and yet you ignore that evidence or claim it isn't evidence due to subjective biases.

What you have are assertions, not empirical evidence. Where is your empirical evidence that supports your claim that our universe is too improbable to come about through natural means?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You do realize that the majority of Astrobiologists, cosmologists, and physicists agree that the universe is fine tuned.

In the same way you are asserting a universe intelligently 'fine-tuned' for life by a supernatural, maximally powerful being? No, not remotely. That's an equivocation fallacy.

Oh I know He has a sense of humor and He gives me insights into His thoughts at times. Which is meaningless to you and I would not think that unfounded as I would feel the same way if I had not experienced God's personality.

How is information about this god gleaned?

How do you discern a personal experience of god from imagination?

How do you discern a personal experience of god from an experience with an impostor supernatural being pretending to be god?

How do you discern a personal experience of god from any number of unknown natural phenomena?

That will do for a start. Until you answer these extremely basic epistemological questions, I dismiss your assertions of purported 'god' insight out of hand, unapologetically and unceremoniously.

The Creator of the universe (and you too by the way) is certainly not on the same par as a childhood imaginary friend.

On a completely superficial level, you're right. The ancient middle eastern desert god Yahweh is not the same conceptual entity as the imaginary friend of my childhood acquaintance, in the same sense that Darth Vader is not the same conceptual entity as Sauron, a leprechaun is not the same conceptual entity as a unicorn, a vampire is not the same conceptual entity as a crockoduck, etc.

However, on an actual, practical level, pertinent to the point I was making, they are exactly identical. Yahweh is just as likely to 'get' me as is the imaginary friend of my childhood acquaintance, because all imaginary beings possess an equivalent level of ability to affect me in reality. Which is to say, none whatsoever.

I mean if a Being creates the universe and the laws that it operates by (very intelligent), the life forms that live in it is very much permissive in your denial. He will let you spend eternity by choice. So scare tactics might not concern you, you must have thought it through and decided hell is better than life in the presence of God.

Actually, I thought it through and concluded there is not only no reason whatsoever to believe any such being exists, nor any place called 'hell', but also plenty of reasons not to.

It is not general apologetics. It is in keeping with evolution vs. creation so go for it.

I disagree but I'm happy to let the mods decide. Go ahead and lay it out. You can start by restating your assertion - that my position makes reason unreliable - as a syllogism. Doesn't have to be a classical syllogism. Use as many premises as you think are necessary to make your case.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What you have are assertions, not empirical evidence. Where is your empirical evidence that supports your claim that our universe is too improbable to come about through natural means?

The quote you just replied to was in regard to the universe being fine tuned.

 

[Loudmouth]

The quote you just replied to was in regard to the universe being fine tuned.

You are claiming that the properties of universe are too improbable to come about by chance, and so they must have been designed. Is that not your argument?

 

[DeepWater]

I think it is completely illogical to think that the universe just exists for no reason, that man has reason from a process devoid of reason and that only the natural world explains the natural world.

Actually, what is illogical is for science to imply that things that "big banged", didn't have a start.
They would have you believe that it was all "here" by accident and just sort of eventually manipulated itself into a clever design because time does that, if given enough time.
The truth is, nothing can just begin to exist, and that includes matter, time.
Everything that exists in time, has a start from which it began, originally.

So, the fact is, everything that exists in TIME, has a beginning.
God does not exist in time, He exists outside of time, in a place named ETERNITY and this is how we understand that He has no beginning and no ending.
But within time, this box of created creation,....it has a beginning, and it has an end.
And all of it was made by the ONE who does not exist within it except to live in us and us "in Christ".

 

[DeepWater]

God is good all the time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In the same way you are asserting a universe intelligently 'fine-tuned' for life by a supernatural, maximally powerful being? No, not remotely. That's an equivocation fallacy.



How is information about this god gleaned?

How do you discern a personal experience of god from imagination?

How do you discern a personal experience of god from an experience with an impostor supernatural being pretending to be god?

How do you discern a personal experience of god from any number of unknown natural phenomena?

That will do for a start. Until you answer these extremely basic epistemological questions, I dismiss your assertions of purported 'god' insight out of hand, unapologetically and unceremoniously.



On a completely superficial level, you're right. The ancient middle eastern desert god Yahweh is not the same conceptual entity as the imaginary friend of my childhood acquaintance, in the same sense that Darth Vader is not the same conceptual entity as Sauron, a leprechaun is not the same conceptual entity as a unicorn, a vampire is not the same conceptual entity as a crockoduck, etc.

However, on an actual, practical level, pertinent to the point I was making, they are exactly identical. Yahweh is just as likely to 'get' me as is the imaginary friend of my childhood acquaintance, because all imaginary beings possess an equivalent level of ability to affect me in reality. Which is to say, none whatsoever.



Actually, I thought it through and concluded there is not only no reason whatsoever to believe any such being exists, nor any place called 'hell', but also plenty of reasons not to.



I disagree but I'm happy to let the mods decide. Go ahead and lay it out. You can start by restating your assertion - that my position makes reason unreliable - as a syllogism. Doesn't have to be a classical syllogism. Use as many premises as you think are necessary to make your case.

Actually what is illogical is for science to imply that things that "big banged", didn't have a start.
They would have you believe that it was all "here" by accident and just sort of eventually manipulated itself into a clever design because time does that, if given enough time.
The truth is, nothing can just begin to exist, and that includes matter, time.
Everything that exists in time, has a start from which it began, originally.

So, the fact is, everything that exists in TIME, has a beginning.
God does not exist in time, He exists outside of time, in a place named ETERNITY and this is how we understand that He has no beginning and no ending.
But within time, this box of created creation,....it has a beginning, and it has an end.
And all of it was made by the ONE who does not exist within it except to live in us and us "in Christ".

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, what is illogical is for science to imply that things that "big banged", didn't have a start.
They would have you believe that it was all "here" by accident and just sort of eventually manipulated itself into a clever design because time does that, if given enough time.
The truth is, nothing can just begin to exist, and that includes matter, time.
Everything that exists in time, has a start from which it began, originally.

So, the fact is, everything that exists in TIME, has a beginning.
God does not exist in time, He exists outside of time, in a place named ETERNITY and this is how we understand that He has no beginning and no ending.
But within time, this box of created creation,....it has a beginning, and it has an end.
And all of it was made by the ONE who does not exist within it except to live in us and us "in Christ".

All the church say amen!

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, what is illogical is for science to imply that things that "big banged", didn't have a start.

Clouds have a start. Does that mean that they came from nothing, or that they require a designer?

The truth is, nothing can just begin to exist, and that includes matter, time.

Clouds just begin to exist, and yet they come about spontaneously in accord with natural laws.

God does not exist in time, He exists outside of time, in a place named ETERNITY and this is how we understand that He has no beginning and no ending.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are claiming that the properties of universe are too improbable to come about by chance, and so they must have been designed. Is that not your argument?

You claimed that the universe was not fine tuned and now you are changing it around.

 

[Loudmouth]

You claimed that the universe was not fine tuned and now you are changing it around.

Is that not the fine tuning argument you are using?

You are claiming that the properties of universe are too improbable to come about by chance, and so they must have been designed. Is that not your argument?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is that not the fine tuning argument you are using?

You are claiming that the properties of universe are too improbable to come about by chance, and so they must have been designed. Is that not your argument?

That is not the point when you deny that the universe is even fine tuned.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is not the point when you deny that the universe is even fine tuned.

Yes, it is the point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it is the point.

Do you agree that the universe is fine tuned for life?

 

[LACanuck]

Do you agree that the universe is fine tuned for life?

Actually no. Any more that I believe that the pothole is finely tuned to fit the water that fills it.

Life as we know it is finely tuned to fit the universe in which we find ourselves. A universe with a different set of properties might result in a different form of life. Or no life at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you agree that the universe is fine tuned for life?

I don't agree that there is evidence showing that our universe is so improbable that it required a designer.

"The fine tuning argument states that these values occurring in such a precise state by mere chance is highly improbable, and that there must have been a creator to fine tune these values in order for our universe to exist as it does and for life to exist on Earth."
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fine-tuning_argument

 

[whois]

Does the falsification of ToE imply a creator? Why not?

no.
there is a theory in quantum physics called the uncertainty principle that says the results of some experiments depend on an observer (life) being present.
this could imply that life is connected with quantum physics somehow.
it's my opinion that this connection is going to be along the time line and will prevent such paradoxes such as time travel.
our universe is called space-time for a reason.
it's not pure space because it has stuff in it.
it's not pure time, because it too (time) has "stuff" in it.
this "stuff" is what we call life.
-my opinion.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Does the falsification of ToE imply a creator? Why not?

No, because then those that worship under false idols would run out of excuses.

 

[LACanuck]

no.
there is a theory in quantum physics called the uncertainty principle that says the results of some experiments depend on an observer (life) being present.
this could imply that life is connected with quantum physics somehow.
it's my opinion that this connection is going to be along the time line and will prevent such paradoxes such as time travel.
our universe is called space-time for a reason.
it's not pure space because it has stuff in it.
it's not pure time, because it too (time) has "stuff" in it.
this "stuff" is what we call life.
-my opinion.

There is no requirement in quantum physics that requires the observer to be living. For example, a device capable of determining which slit in the two-slit experiment that the photon went through is sufficient. The device does not have to be a being.