Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
What evidence do you have that God would do something other than create a universe that is comprehensible, consistent and uniform so that the intelligent beings He created could acquire knowledge?
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.
And uniformity and consistency is what is to be expected in the absence of supernatural beings changing things. It goes back to newton, an object at rest stays at rest as long as no force acts in it. In the absence of supernatural beings we can expect things to just do what they do.
What evidence do you have that God would do something other than create a universe that is comprehensible, consistent and uniform so that the intelligent beings He created could acquire knowledge?
What evidence do you have that God would do something other than create a universe that is comprehensible, consistent and uniform so that the intelligent beings He created could acquire knowledge?
What evidence do you have that God would do something other than create a universe that is comprehensible, consistent and uniform so that the intelligent beings He created could acquire knowledge?
None. It's simply an unnecessary extra assumption.
That's the point. It doesn't. To quote Laplace "I have no need for that hypothesis"
I disagree. Without the uniformity of the universe it would be impossible to do any science whatsoever. So whether you conclude that it is just what it is or whether you are a theist and know that it is because of God; you still have to have it to have knowledge at all.
The Bible comes to mind -- God has tried (and failed) in the past to keep humanity down whenever they tried to acquire knowledge He didn't want them to have...
I can live with that, If you can.
Yep. I have no problem with other people's beliefs (it's their actions that matter).
A character in a book. Why does anyone need to know about deities to do science, your beliefs, and untestable assertions, notwithstanding?
Then I have observed evidence that universes contain constants.
I am saying that you don't have the empirical knowledge to claim that our universe is improbable. The empirical knowledge you need is the exactly the empirical knowledge you claim we don't have. We don't know if there are other universes or not, and that is exactly the knowledge you need in order to claim that our universe is improbable.
Under your rules, any universe would be fine tuned.
Supports what claim?
Then please show me the probability calculations you are using. Prove me wrong.
Please show me your calculations.
Where?
You have never shown that the universe was fine tuned so that there would be life.
Then how can you claim that it was not by chance? If we lack the evidence as to whether it was by chance or not, how can you claim that it is improbable?
Using your definition of fine tuned any universe would be fine tuned.
Hence the "God who" comment. They (scientists) don't need to know about deities.
That God created the universe. That God exists. That my worldview is supported by evidence.
For what probability? The one that Smolin used? I don't know what you are asking for.
There is nothing within the laws of physic as we understand them that points to a natural origin of the constants being so fine tuned.
Why not? If the constants of this universe were different, then our universe would be different, and the unique features found in that different universe would be dependent on just those constants. That is fine tuning.
What evidence? (this question has been asked without an answer multiple times now)
I am asking for the probability that our universe would have emerged with the constants we observe by chance.
Do you really think that or are you only listening to Davian.There is nothing that points away from it either. You are simply pointing to a gap in our knowledge and inserting your deity.
If it were different it would not have the fine tuning, that is the point.
Do you think that just saying that over and over makes it true? I think that anyone with any unbiased position would see that I have. You may not agree with it but it is there.
That was never my claim. I said it was improbable but that was not what my claim was.
Do you really think that or are you only listening to Davian.
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?