-->
@keithprosser
Sorry Keith, what you're asking for would require pages and pages of text. However, those explanations of processes are already available for you to read and understand, if you so desire.
Mini arguments for God's existence
Posts
Total:
126
I highly doubt this universe would exist without YOU.
-->
@Castin
Ultimately my view, as of now at least, is:fine tuned =/= deliberately designed
Yet, that is pretty much the entire reasoning behind the term, "Fine Tuned", which is just another way of trying to reverse engineer a process of nature based on the results of the process. I'll offer a simpler example of fine tune reasoning.
Water is fine tuned to freeze at 32 degrees Farenheit and boil at 212. If the temperature was 33 degrees and 211 respectively, water would not freeze or boil.
See how silly that is? That's the fine tuning argument.
-->
@Fallaneze
Did God offer that definition or was it man made?God is defined as a fundamental consciousness.
-->
@Goldtop
I'm happy that the AP/puddle argument is sound, but I can't help hoping something a bit more 'mechanistic' and less like a clever-clever word game will turn up, possibly if/when QM and relativity have been reconciled. It's down to personal taste, i suppose.
-->
@Fallaneze
The universe beThe beginning of the universe is explained by (1) chance, (2) physical law, or (3) free will.gan to exist.The beginning of the universe is explained by (1) chance, (2) physical law, or (3) free will.
Why offer only three alternatives when there are many more? For example...
The Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being known as the Great Green Arkleseizure. The Jatravartids live in perpetual fear of the time they call "the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief," somewhat similar to the Apocalypse. However, the Great Green Arkleseizure theory is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being as wide and strange as it is, other explanations are constantly being sought by different races throughout the Galaxy.
If you don't provide all the alternative explanations, then it gives the appearance of cherry picking.
You also have to define generalized terms such as "free will". So, lets see what you have to say about that.
Therefore, the Big Bang was caused by (3) free will, meaning that the event was not inevitable and therefore doesn't succumb to the quantification problem. The only plausible candidate for something possessing free will is consciousness.
So much confusion, so few words.
Free will does not automatically conclude something is inevitable, quite the contrary. Free will is the ability and capacity to make choices. In your example of the creation of the universe, free will would examine the choice of creating the universe or not creating it, hence the choice is not inevitable, the choice could have been made to not create it. Indeed, there may have been many more choices that we are not even aware.
Then, you go on to contradict yourself again by saying that free will is possessed by consciousness, which means the consciousness caused the free will to make a choice, therefore free will has already succumbed to the quantification problem. And we can continue further asking, what caused the consciousness and so on in the same endless quantification problem as any other alternative explanation.
That's two of your arguments down for the count.
-->
@Fallaneze
The universe began to exist.The physical universe expanded from a zero-dimensional point at which all laws in the universe were broken down. The best explanation for this singularity is something non-physical that also possesses causal power. The only plausible candidate for this is consciousness.
That one is just silly, completely ignoring to think. Something that is "Non-physical" means it is not of nature, that to our universe does not exist in any way shape or form. If in any way a phenomenon is detected, it must be physical, then it becomes part of our universe.
If something is non-physical, it can't contain power of any kind as far as we can understand. It simply makes no sense, so if one is going to use it to define a phenomenon, they are using sheer guesswork as they themselves cannot detect, observe or understand something non-physical having physical characteristics and traits.
It's also dishonest and deceitful to start out with an example using a scientific theory and then completely dismiss every bit of scientific evidence as implausible.
Another argument down, although calling it an argument is an overstatement.
-->
@Fallaneze
The arguments just keep going downhill.If our internal organs have a purpose, God exists.Our internal organs have a purpose.Therefore, God exists.
And still, you managed to use way too many words to get your entire argument across, which is this...
Internal organs, God exists.
-->
@keithprosser
Personally, when it comes to explanations of how nature works, I never let my personal taste get in the way.It's down to personal taste, i suppose.
-->
@Fallaneze
More deceit, yet another scientific theory being used as an example by someone completely illiterate of the subject matter, and instead creates false premises and erroneous conclusions.Without God, evolution is just a mindless process that has no aims or goals. You would need (1) intent (to reach the goal) and (2) knowledge (of the goal itself). Any prescribed function for our internal organs is predicated on goals.
Evolution does not have a goal and is simply a process of nature like any other process of nature, therefore it does not require a mind in order to work.
Your gish here is failing to gallop.
-->
@Goldtop
Water is fine tuned to freeze at 32 degrees Farenheit and boil at 212. If the temperature was 33 degrees and 211 respectively, water would not freeze or boil.See how silly that is? That's the fine tuning argument.
That's not quite right. The freezing and boiling points of water could well be 33 and 211 - it wouldn't affect the big picture much so God didn't have to carefully 'fine-tune' those constants.
Where he had to do fine-tuning was in things like setting the mass/charge ratio of the electron, the gravitation constant and the speed of light. Unless those values were very precisely co-ordinated stars might not form, or they'd burn out in few seconds...
-->
@BrutalTruth
They're intended to be arguments for a fundamental consciousness. Not moot.
-->
@keithprosser
Yep. The implications are fascinating.
-->
@Goldtop
It was my selected definition
-->
@keithprosser
Those values are NOT set, they are the results of processes as natural as any other, just like the process of water freezing or boiling. If they were different, then there would be a different universe with different processes. Stars form because of the process they go through to become stars, that's it. There is no fine tuning of anything, it's a meaningless statement.
-->
@Fallaneze
It was my selected definition
So, you made up the definition and then linked it to the poorly thought out assertions you provided?
-->
@Fallaneze
They're intended to be arguments for the existence of a god, as your OP explicitly states. Thus, since, by your own admittance, you aren't referring to any specific god, your arguments are moot.
-->
@BrutalTruth
That doesn't follow.
-->
@Goldtop
All definitions are made up.
-->
@Goldtop
If they were different, then there would be a different universe with different processes.
A very different universe in many cases! e.g. If gravity was a bit stronger stars would have to burn hotter to balance gravity and pressure.which is what keeps stars stable. Hotter stars burn their fuel faster - possibly too fast to allow intelligent life to evolve on planets.
-->
@Fallaneze
What doesn't it follow, and how? You said "Mini argument for God's existence" (using the word "God" implies a specific god, in fact), and literally the first thing you wrote was "God is defined as a fundamental consciousness." If you're not speaking of any specific god, then you either don't know how to speak English, or you're trolling. But, that's beside the point. Your argument is uncertain and you have failed to make a final decision(of which god you speak of), thus your argument is, by definition, moot.
You can either accept that, or protest it and be sent back to grade school to learn the definition of "moot."
-->
@BrutalTruth
My arguments intended to support God, defined as a fundamental consciousness, and they did. So I fail to see how the arguments are "moot" just because I didn't use a narrower definition of God. It just doesn't logically follow.
-->
@Fallaneze
Which god? "God" isn't a name, it's a classification. Like the word "human." If the word "human" were spelled with a capital H (Human) and used in a sentence, it would imply that only one human exists. But if someone didn't know which human it is that exists, I'd have to specify which one. So, which god are you referring to? If you don't specify a specific god, yet use the term "God," then your argument is by definition moot.
-->
@BrutalTruth
I'm only referring to one fundamental consciousness, not two or five or thousands. My arguments are only moot when you can point out problems with them.
-->
@Fallaneze
My arguments are only moot when you can point out problems with them.
Indeed. The problem with them is that you won't tell us which god you are referring to.
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm up for a good old " who am i "
Does your God have a ? Son named Jesus?
-->
@BrutalTruth
Your turn BT . Who am i style, who's ya God ? One question at a time..
Go
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Are you drunk or something?
No not me. I Don't do drinking.
I'm what they call a cadbury kid. Well my mates call me that , a glass and a half and I'm goneeeeee.
You gave up your turn. Its My turn.
Ummmmmmm.
Does your God .
No.
Has your God ever been described as a flaming bush ?
-->
@BrutalTruth
The one who's a fundamental consciousness.