Right. Yes, as I mentioned earlier this would be the evidence for God basically which we can’t produce but we can believe that He does exist based on this fine tuning fact.
Believers take a leap of faith here basically because concrete evidence of His existence doesn’t exist.
It’s only opposite in your imagine d false dichotomy. You’re harping on that ‘reasoning based on educated guesses’ and ‘paranormal events’ involving visual hallucinations are reality.
Again how does free will, whatever that is, help me with mysteries outside your cave?
Order does not imply meaning.
I can’t parse that.
If fine tuning were a fact no leap of faith would be be necessary.
Okay someone raised on a conservative Christian family is indoctrinated into believing in God for no other reason than indoctrination.
Same logic applies for a Muslim family.
But when you’re raised as an atheist, you are free to approach the subject of God without indoctrination. Makes sense?
Then you look for reasons and arguments.
This is not true from my point of view while this could be true from your point of view and I don’t know if you’re an atheist or not so you’d need to define your position a bit.
Faith doesn’t happen because we distort reality, but when reality is distorted than faith happens.
Oh I see. You took a HARD turn here and saying that fine-tunning doesn’t exist?
Okay. That’s fine with me if you want to believe that. But that’s like believing that the Earth is flat.
No. Being raised by conservative Christians or Muslims doesn’t necessitate indoctrination at all.
Being raised an atheist is no guarantee of freedom to approach the subject of God without indoctrination.
My position is that order does not imply meaning. It’s entirely up to you to demonstrate otherwise.
Not in my faith.
Where did I take that TURN? Barrell making does exist I’m sure. Fine tuning by an intentional tuner is not demonstrable. Self tuning by nature is.
Thanks.
Frankly, I’m only familiar with William Lane Craig’s version of the Kalaam argument which goes like this:
-
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
-
- The universe began to exist.
-
- Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.
My opinion? I’m not a fan: I deny the 2nd premise.
- Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.
Regarding the ontological argument, I insufficiently familiar with it; so an opinion would be premature.
3 Likes
Seems like you’re logic here mean “No. I don’t like this”. “No. I don’t like that”.
That’s not how this works because I don’t want to convince you. I’m explaining how one arrives at meaning based on what they see. If you don’t want any meaning out of order that’s fine too and I don’t want you to convince me of that either.
No. Self tuning by nature is not demonstrable, unless you’d like to show how.
Why do you deny the 2nd premise?
I’m not that familiar with Craig’s version, but I probably have some notes on it.
The problem with the Kalam argument you have, is that the cause of the universe may itself have a cause, like another universe or an angelic being that is itself contingent.
The argument from contingency is supposed to be pretty good. I haven’t used it before, but have seen it used occasionally.
What would a universe without beginning look like for you?
Craig not only denies “infinite regress” but says it’s impossible. That’s about the limit of my interest in his argument.
Kinda big and purty old.
3 Likes
Then it would need to be included in the argument. An infinite progression is still possible.
Infinitely small as well. That quantum blip would be the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
You’ll need to take that up with Craig or one of his minions. I became disinterested in the argument before I mastered all of its details.
Yep, … parts of it are dimensionless.
1 Like
It’s against my religion??
1 Like
Tip of the iceberg
1 Like
Edward Feser is a name I forgot to mention.
He is an American Catholic Philosopher, a lively debater, and writes a bunch:
“… none of the best-known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this stupid argument. Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Aquinas, not Duns Scotus, not Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. (Your Pastor Bob doesn’t count. I mean no one among prominent philosophers.) And yet it is constantly presented, not only by popular writers but even by some professional philosophers, as if it were “the” “basic” version of the cosmological argument, and as if every other version were essentially just a variation on it.”
1 Like
That time had a beginning gives lots of folks difficulty, so they come up with alternatives.
Gary, The problem we are looking at is that science can calculate backward to the second picosecond of time where the Planck epoch (big bang) initiated in the initial singularity. Einstein’s relativity is very well tested and not likely to be significantly revised unless a bright person discovers gravitons and comes up with the theory of everything. No scientist, theologian, or philosopher can give an authoritative answer to what happened in the first picosecond of time.
Theologically, the Creator in the Bible is identified in John 1: 1-3. The Word of the Creator spoke creation into being in what is called ex nihilo (from nothing) creation. His word delivered the initial singularity in the first picosecond of time & space and the ‘big bang’ rolled out the universal electromagnetic field containing all of the ‘building materials’ for everything.
Scientifically, nine to ten billion years later our galaxy and Earth are brought into the universe and Genesis describes the steps of de novo (new beginning) creation. The Word of God excites the electromagnetic field to create everything physical as found on the Standard Model of Elemental Particles. Science works with the Word of God in total control or automatically as evolution monitors seasonal renewal and maintenance. (But that is another subject.)
“Without faith, it is impossible to please God.” Begin with the creator in John 1: 1-3 and everything else works through the scientific laws we have discovered. Genesis then is an eyewitness account of God’s ex nihilo and de novo creation.
The atheist denies the existence of God, but he has no better answer to how Minkowski’s spacetime started, and science cannot go to the first picosecond. At least, by faith, we have an eyewitness.
2 Likes
Can you deconstruct that to symbolic propositions?
I couldn’t possibly convince you. Nothing can. You are the one making the extraordinary claim with no evidence.
It isn’t necessary. Please demonstrate how c, e, G and h are divine.
He doesn’t need a better answer, he already has it. Theism is a worse ‘answer’.
This touched on something I just saw:
“Taylor also presents a second argument, of a broadly teleological sort. It is decidedly not a variation on Paley’s design argument (of which, as longtime readers know, I am not a fan). It is much more interesting and metaphysically deep than that.”
“… The arrangement could intelligibly be conveying that message only if there is some intelligence behind its origin, which brought it about for the purpose of conveying the message. If, instead, the arrangement came about through unintelligent and purposeless causes, then it cannot intelligibly be said to convey that message, because it could not in that case intelligibly be conveying any message at all .”
Yes, it’s called faith. I’m explaining how one arrives at faith.
Here is the reasoning how one can have faith in a Creator