Fine tuning, a new approach

[JaneC]

God is not part of the natural world.

You say "God is not part of the natural world but I still believe God is there", why would anyone even think you are anything other than a perfectly rational human being?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Moving the goalposts, much?

If you are going to make silly watchmaker claims, just say so, so I can redirect you to one of the many many rebuttals of that PRATT.

You claimed that factories were fine tuned and they are products of intelligence. Fact.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's funny because that's what Krauss' "nothing" is: whatever is left after you remove space, matter, energy and time.



As I have just explained to you in the very post you are replying to.... clearly it is not that simple.

Only Krauss thinks its not that "simple".

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not about changing definitions. It's about correct use of words.

The things you mentioned are CLAIMS, not explanations.

"god created the universe" is not an explanation about the origins of the universe. Rather, it is a CLAIM about how the universe originated.

An explanation actually explains things. "god dun it" is not an explanation. It's just an assertion that teaches you nothing at all, which isn't usefull in any way and which can't be verified in any way.

It has exactly zero explanatory power.

That is your opinion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You say "God is not part of the natural world but I still believe God is there", why would anyone even think you are anything other than a perfectly rational human being?

I am not sure if you are aware that you are in the minority in the world. There are millions and millions of people who believe in a Supreme being and the majority of them are perfectly rational human beings.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't get such statements.....

If we assume for a second that for example the multi-verse exists. Then this multi-verse would be part of the natural world, right?

So if a god exists, why wouldn't this god be part of the natural world?
Sure, you can state that he "lives" on some other plain of existence then this puny universe or whatever... but that plain of existence would STILL necessarily be part of the natural world, of natural reality, right?

See, this is what you get with such special pleading.....
All rules you subject everything else to, suddenly doesn't apply to your god of choice. Not because of some specific logical reason or something, nope... actually just because otherwise the special pleading argument falls apart.

See, if the "supernatural" were actually real, it would be natural.
The only thing "super" about it, would be that it would exist in a plain (or dimension or whatever) that isn't accessible to us folk stuck in 4-dimensional space-time.

But that which is labeled "super"natural, would still be a part of reality just like 4-dimensional space-time that we commonly observe.

Your god wouldn't be any different.

No, God would not be part of the natural world. He would have created the natural world.

 

[lesliedellow]

Then please try and explain it without resorting to 'Goddidit', because 'Goddidit' is not an answer it's a cop out, it's like saying the 'winkledeesquink' did it, it answers nothing.

You assume that Goddidit and a natural explanation are mutually exclusive, which is something no theistic scientist would agree with. The problem with finding a scientific explanation for the Big Bang, however, is that it requires you to reach back beyond time t=0, and the moment you do that, you are in the realm of metaphysics - with or without God being involved.

In fact, however, the Surface of Last Scattering precludes the possibility of being able to make observations even as far back as t=0.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You assume that Goddidit and a natural explanation are mutually exclusive, which is something no theistic scientist would agree with. The problem with finding a scientific explanation for the Big Bang, however, is that it requires you to reach back beyond time t=0, and the moment you do that, you are in the realm of metaphysics - with or without God being involved.

In fact, however, the Surface of Last Scattering precludes the possibility of being able to make observations even as far back as t=0.

Yep.

 

[lesliedellow]

I am not sure if you are aware that you are in the minority in the world. There are millions and millions of people who believe in a Supreme being and the majority of them are perfectly rational human beings.

She is one of those atheists who think that even Nobel Prize winners must be irrational if they do not share her atheism. There is a word for that, and it begins with the letter b.

 

[Oncedeceived]

She is one of those atheists who think that even Nobel Prize winners must be irrational if they do not share her atheism. There is a word for that, and it begins with the letter b.

Right, and it seems that all scientists that give any credence to the argument for God are equally irrational even if they are atheists themselves.

 

[Loudmouth]

She is one of those atheists who think that even Nobel Prize winners must be irrational if they do not share her atheism. There is a word for that, and it begins with the letter b.

One of the most common human biases is thinking less of people who don't agree with us. This is something we all battle.

 

[JaneC]

I am not sure if you are aware that you are in the minority in the world. There are millions and millions of people who believe in a Supreme being and the majority of them are perfectly rational human beings.

I know that, I also know there are many many millions of people who are still as superstitious today as people were two hundred years ago, while those people are alive there will continue to be religions, thankfully man has at last moved to the point where information is becoming available to everyone no matter where they live on the planet, that alone will see the slow demise of religions in every country in the world, we won't be around to see that time but we can be sure it will eventually come, man will one day drag themselves out of the superstitious mire they have been in since they first climbed out of the trees.
The only countries that might have problems are those countries where religion is used to keep the people down and afraid.

 

[lesliedellow]

The only countries that might have problems are those countries where religion is used to keep the people down and afraid.

Now is that a fact?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HC02Ae03.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html

Communist governments are not exactly famous for promoting religion. More commonly they try to suppress it, because "The Party" doesn't like the competition.

 

[46AND2]

Evidence that he says he has:
he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.
Nothing means nothing, no laws, no space, no matter, no energy and no time.

That's not what he said. If you would have posted the whole paragraph:

But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

He said OUR universe had a beginning. But his whole argument is that he believes there are OTHER UNIVERSES. Essentially what he is saying is that nothing of OUR UNIVERSE existed.

So yes, you are quotemining. You are not taking that statement in the context of his overall point.

 

[46AND2]

That simply is false. Look it up. ALL scientists agree that there was no space, energy, matter or time until our universe comes into existence.

Wow. Upping your game, now it isn't just "most" but "all."

Since you couldn't support your claim of "most" I'm guessing you'll not try to support your "all" claim, either.

 

[JaneC]

Now is that a fact?
Communist governments are not exactly famous for promoting religion. More commonly they try to suppress it, because "The Party" doesn't like the competition.

I was thinking more about the US, people there are kept down by religion {atheism and evolution were sent by the devil} and they are kept afraid by the media telling them that everything is going to pot and people are being killed every ten minutes, God is the only thing that can save the country from total destruction, the US is the most religious country outside of the Muslim world.

 

[KCfromNC]

God is not part of the natural world.

Looks like you're agreeing that the word nothing in your quote-mine doesn't really mean nothing then. Or maybe you're saying your source is wrong when he said that nothing existed before the big bang. You find quotes which seem to help a particular point but end up undermining your entire worldview. It is hard to put together a consistent view which matches up with reality, no?

 

[KCfromNC]

How is a person fine tuned in your estimation?

By 3+ billion years of evolution.

 

[KCfromNC]

.

Snipped irrelevant non-answers. Funny how that leaves nothing. I've seen that a lot recently when I ask for details about this particular argument for god.

Any luck finding an example of anyone who was embarrassed about learning about fine tuning? Or finding any scientists who have published results on exactly how unlikely the universe is? Because those were the claims I was curious about you being able to support and for some reason you went off on an unrelated tangent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's not what he said. If you would have posted the whole paragraph:



He said OUR universe had a beginning. But his whole argument is that he believes there are OTHER UNIVERSES. Essentially what he is saying is that nothing of OUR UNIVERSE existed.

So yes, you are quotemining. You are not taking that statement in the context of his overall point.

No, I provided the whole article and I posted what supported what I had said. It supported my claim that OUR universe did have a beginning and at that beginning there was no space, no matter, no energy and not time.