You've become a YEC before my very eyes!
I'll need to look more into other physicalities (did I just make up a word? Possibly.) causing the Big Bang in order to argue about it.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You've become a YEC before my very eyes!Granted we would accept the rest of the argument for the universe requiring an external cause:
It would only have to be external to "the universe" as composed at the big bang, not necessarily outside the physical realm.
We actually have no experience with anything that is outside of the physical realm so concluding this from available evidence or logically concluding it would be quite impossible.
Saying things doesn't make it so.
If the fine-tuning argument went as follows, you'd have a point:Very true. I totally agree. Saying that God makes the fine-tuning constants what they are -- or what have you -- is just that. An assertion.
(Or are you skeptical about what I put in brackets; that the average theist can't spell "fine-tuning" etc. Sounds more offensive than it really is; if you look back through history you'll find that this is true.)
If the fine-tuning argument went as follows, you'd have a point:
"Therefore, an intelligence causes fine-tuning"
Unfortunately, that's not actually how the argument goes.
To prove that intelligence is an explanation for these things?
I caught your original post just in time
If the fine-tuning argument went like this, you might have had a point:Believe me, I have seen it. Maybe the phrasing was a little careless in my previous post, but I simply don't see theists pull their weight with the FTA. There are no explanations, it is full of assertions and assumptions. Same with the various CAs that I have seen. Or arguments involving morality. (Or with how come the golden ratio. Or the pretty flowers.)
If the fine-tuning argument went like this, you might have had a point:
"P1: Look at the pretty flowers!
Therefore, God exists."
1. We never have observed anything "coming into existence". All we observe is permanent change/transformation of that which already is. So we don´t even have any basis whatsoever for making postulations as to what´s required for something to come into existence.You don't have to observe the universe coming into existence to conclude that nothing can come from nothing without a cause... this is like saying that in some other world , maybe the law of identity doesn't apply.
The main problem with the fine-tuning argument is: It assumes the result to be the intended result.If the fine-tuning argument went like this, you might have had a point:
"P1: Look at the pretty flowers!
Therefore, God exists."
So what is this proposition based upon, what is it concluded from?P1 of the Kalam is just another version of the proposition that something can't come from nothing without a cause. You don't have to observe anything to conclude that.
P1 of the Kalam is just another version of the proposition that something can't come from nothing without a cause. You don't have to observe anything to conclude that.
P1 of the Kalam is just another version of the proposition that something can't come from nothing without a cause. You don't have to observe anything to conclude that.
It just can't!!!So what is this proposition based upon, what is it concluded from?
You've become a YEC before my very eyes!
I'll need to look more into other physicalities (did I just make up a word? Possibly.) causing the Big Bang in order to argue about it.
If the fine-tuning argument went like this, you might have had a point:
"P1: Look at the pretty flowers!
Therefore, God exists."
Of course it's possible that we could be off on the cosmological constant; it's also possible that I'm a brain in a vat. But we don't come to logical conclusions like that; we come to logical conclusions based on the knowledge we have, not some future discovery that maybe could be contradictory. Ironically, when the atheist appeals to things we could discover in the future, they are the ones appealing to ignorance; they are the ones appealing to something which we do not know.Fine tuning does require the premise that the universe can be tuned externally, in reality we have no idea why the constants are what they are.
Given what we know for instance the predicted value for say the cosmological constant was off by over a hundred orders of magnitude, which is quite possibly the worst scientific prediction ever in the history of man.
Of course it's possible that we could be off on the cosmological constant; it's also possible that I'm a brain in a vat. But we don't come to logical conclusions like that; we come to logical conclusions based on the knowledge we have, not some future discovery that maybe could be contradictory.
Ironically, when the atheist appeals to things we could discover in the future, they are the ones appealing to ignorance; they are the ones appealing to something which we do not know.
You don't have to observe the universe coming into existence to conclude that nothing can come from nothing without a cause...
Heck, we have systems of logic on this world where it doesn't. What's your point?this is like saying that in some other world , maybe the law of identity doesn't apply.
Speaking of which, what knowledge do "we" have about the range and distribution of various physical constants? While you're at it, explain the mechanisms used to fix the values of those physical constants as we observe them here in the universe.we come to logical conclusions based on the knowledge we have
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?