Become a theist

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 496
#31
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
Life on this planet is fit for its inhabitants.

I do not understand how this should be the case in a fine-tuned universe. I once made a thread to this effect on DDO:


I think the idea I try to get across in the OP of that thread went over the head of most that read it, despite it being such a simple idea. Life as we know it cannot exist in most of the universe.

Even if every planet in the entire universe were miraculously made to be perfectly fit for life most of the universe would still be incapable of supporting life.

Even if our solar system was all there was in the entire universe and hundreds of thousands of earthlike planets were added to it the vast majority of the universe would still be incapable of supporting life.

One has to ask why our civilization just happens to exist on a planet, and not only that but a planet where the conditions for the natural development of such a civilization are physically possible. Please stop reading this for about thirty seconds and just think about that for a moment. Why is it that our civilization exists in the one place we know of that it is possible for it to naturally exist?

Surely if a creator being capable of designing the universe such as Aten, Gaia, Ymir, Vishnu, Ngai, Zamba, Atum, Pangu, Xamaba, or any of a dozen others were responsible then our civilization could exist anywhere. Earth could be, for example, several times further from the sun and still support life just fine. We would hypothetically not even notice a difference until we developed astronomy and began to better understand the physical laws of the universe. Would this not be within their power?

So why instead do we happen to be in the one tiny part of the universe where the development of life is physically possible? Some people would say that such is the case because this is the one tiny part of the universe where life is physically possible. Of course we would develop here. Others would instead choose to believe that the entire cosmos exists literally for their benefit alone.

#32
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Because God could do it, that means God has to do it?


If this planet were the only planet in the entire universe that supported life like this, that would certainly be enough to impress me. 

You could think of it another way. There is an entire universe of causality pressing down to make what is going on here possible.

#33
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@Fallaneze
If there's no evidence against God, but there is evidence for God, the claim "God exists" is more likely true than not. How is that not sufficient to warrant belief that the claim is true?

Because if you don't actually KNOW it's true, then you could be wrong, and if you believe something that's wrong, you're delusional. Something having a favorable probability is nothing more than reason to investigate further. If it were reason to believe it to be true, then if we saw some idiot come down a chimney on Christmas, we'd believe Santa Clause exists.

I really don't understand how you're unable to comprehend the simplest of concepts pertaining to evidence, proof, and reason to believe. I mean I understood this shit as a child. It's novice level shit dude. Theists never cease to amaze me with their naivety and stupidity.
#34
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Fallaneze
Why do you want others to become theists?
#35
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
Because God could do it, that means God has to do it?

No, I do not think that. I do however think that the fact that we happen to exist in the one place that it is naturally possible to do so is something that should not be ignored considering how unlikely that is given how indescribably small the portion of the universe we are capable of inhabiting actually is.

If the universe was fine-tuned for life, we would be able to live in it. For the most part, we aren't.
Topic's author
#36
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
If a claim is more plausibly true than false, it is more rational to believe the claim rather than withhold belief or disbelieve it. We don't need solid proof of a belief. Again, the threshold is whether it's more plausibly true than false.

#37
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yet here we are living.

I don't see the inhabitaility of most of the universe as an argument against fine tuning. Clearly there is such an order to the universe that it isn't even fully graspable. If the entire universe was uninhabitable, and there was just this Earth, that would be more of an argument that the entire universe is tuned so that the the note of Earth can ring out than an argument against fine tuning.

But I think that the crux of the issue here is not the fine tuning argument itself, but a misunderstanding about what is meant by "God". The Ultimate Reality is God, and the fact that there is any perceived order or reality at all is all the evidence you need to believe that there is a way things truly are.

And when that evidence convinces you, it is no longer simpy evidence but proof.

The existence of God is a certainty.
Topic's author
#38
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Castin
Because I want people to come to terms with how lousy the evidence is for atheism and how the evidence favors theism.
#39
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Brutaltruth likes to insult people because his passions lord over him. That is why he blocks people who frustrate him, like me.


He is too weak to debate anyone he doesn't think are jobbers.
#40
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted


The universe is so fine tuned that 99.99999999999999999999999% of it is fatal to life.
Which makes life on earth very fine-tuned.

#41
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
It's not surprising that you can't differentiate between the universe and earth. Narrow minded is an adequate description.
#42
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God, and the fact that there is any perceived order or reality at all is all the evidence you need to believe that there is a way things truly are.

I guess if your definition of god is reality rather than referring to some form of supernatural being... well, I am not a solipsist so I believe that reality exists. Seems like a pretty useless definition though and I doubt that is actually what you mean when you use the word god.
#43
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Men invent gods. That evidence for atheism is overwhelming.
#44
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit


One has to ask why our civilization just happens to exist on a planet, and not only that but a planet where the conditions for the natural development of such a civilization are physically possible. Please stop reading this for about thirty seconds and just think about that for a moment. Why is it that our civilization exists in the one place we know of that it is possible for it to naturally exist?
The odds are astronomical. Why would a chance universe be capable of sustaining itself?

The vastness of the universe gives good reason to think of a mighty Creator. If you don't want to support such a view then how does the universe begin without agency or cause (I.e., why does the Big Bang happen, if you support the Big Bang)? Can you answer the why question, or make sense of the universe?


Surely if a creator being capable of designing the universe such as Aten, Gaia, Ymir, Vishnu, Ngai, Zamba, Atum, Pangu, Xamaba, or any of a dozen others were responsible then our civilization could exist anywhere. Earth could be, for example, several times further from the sun and still support life just fine. We would hypothetically not even notice a difference until we developed astronomy and began to better understand the physical laws of the universe. Would this not be within their power?
How can the earth be further from the sun and still support life? Please give your evidence for this statement.


So why instead do we happen to be in the one tiny part of the universe where the development of life is physically possible? Some people would say that such is the case because this is the one tiny part of the universe where life is physically possible. Of course we would develop here. Others would instead choose to believe that the entire cosmos exists literally for their benefit alone.

Which is the case for the fine-tuning argument.

#45
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted


Become a theist
What's the going price for a prefrontal lobotomy?
When the recourse is an ad hominem you have nothing factual.

#46
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted



It's not surprising that you can't differentiate between the universe and earth. Narrow minded is an adequate description.
Another ad hominem! I pointed out that even though that 99.999...% of the universe is uninhabitable the earth, which is in the universe, is not. So the earth goes against the outstanding odds you gave of it being fatal to life. 

#47
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
In excess of 80% of this planet is uninhabitable to humans. If that's fine tuning never build an aeroplane will ya?
#48
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@PGA2.0
How can the earth be further from the sun and still support life? Please give your evidence for this statement.

It can't. Not in the real world anyway. But if there was an omnipotent creator such as Ahura Mazda or Eiocha then it would easily be within their power, would it not?
#49
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The Orthodox Church has always understood God as being That which Truly Is. The Ultimate Reality. The Supreme Being. The Absolute Truth.

It means exactly what it means. In fact, so integral is this to everything that it would be impossible to make sense of our faith without this.

What confuses people is that we use the medium of creation to express what is fundamentally uncreated. It is really impossible to avoid no matter how lucid one communicates. The church teaches in parables, or comparisons even for this reason. 

And so the enemies of God are made into fools, because when they deny God they are literally denying truth itself. God gives grace to the humble, but resists the proud.

The definition is not useless though. If this was the case, the word wouldn't be used by us.
#50
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth

If there's no evidence against God, but there is evidence for God, the claim "God exists" is more likely true than not. How is that not sufficient to warrant belief that the claim is true?

Because if you don't actually KNOW it's true, then you could be wrong, and if you believe something that's wrong, you're delusional. Something having a favorable probability is nothing more than reason to investigate further. If it were reason to believe it to be true, then if we saw some idiot come down a chimney on Christmas, we'd believe Santa Clause exists.
And it could be right and if you don't know then what is more sensible and reasonable to believe and what is the case for God (I defend only the biblical God and will argue against any other as being nothing but the construct of the imagination)? Since you are a philosopher the question is how does a universe materialize naturally and which natural theory or paradigm (or the one you support - what is it?) is right if any?

If you can't say, then I see you divorcing yourself from the subject under discussion since you have made a judgment above.


I really don't understand how you're unable to comprehend the simplest of concepts pertaining to evidence, proof, and reason to believe. I mean I understood this shit as a child. It's novice level shit dude. Theists never cease to amaze me with their naivety and stupidity.

Regarding evidence, the problem is that none of us were there. So, the data needs interpretation. Can you guarantee the conditions now are the same that they were then, and if not then how do we get them right? What I am saying is how do you know that the present is the key to the past since we are working from the present when we examine the past, and I'm speaking of our origins - the origins of the universe and the origins of life? Speaking of life, if you want to go by the facts, where have you ever witnessed life coming from something non-living? 

As an atheist, your worldview would see life coming from the non-living since you do not ascribe it coming from a living Being - God, would it not?

#51
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The odds are astronomical. Why would a chance universe be capable of sustaining itself?
Ask that question from within a universe incapable of sustaining itself.

#52
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted


In excess of 80% of this planet is uninhabitable to humans. If that's fine tuning never build an aeroplane will ya?
So what? It is still habitable to other forms of life, so it is not fatal to life like 99.999...% of the universe and it is fine-tuned for those forms. Another fine-tuning is that humans require a specific kind of environment in which to live naturally. We do not live in water as our natural environment, yet fish, another living thing, do.
#53
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@disgusted
It sustains itself for billions of years so that you can play for years to come. How long do you need to sustain it for? once it has finished its course it will be done again anyways. Creation is cyclical, and you little bully will never vanish into nothingness so enjoy it and stop complaining. All matter must runs its course and decompose the only thing eternal is the conscious soul. 
#54
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit

How can the earth be further from the sun and still support life? Please give your evidence for this statement.

It can't. Not in the real world anyway. But if there was an omnipotent creator such as Ahura Mazda or Eiocha then it would easily be within their power, would it not?
I do not accept the evidence for these idols you call gods. 
#55
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@PGA2.0
That is my point. There is no evidence for these deities or others such as Shangdi or the Demiurge. The fact that the universe and life exists and there are stories giving these deities credit for that is not evidence.
#56
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Matt Dillahunty, host of "The Atheist Experience", said that the fine-tunedness of the universe was evidence of God but was not "sufficient" evidence of God.
A "fine-tuned universe" is inconclusive scientifically because of sample bias.

However, even if you wanted to accept that a "fine-tuned universe" was "evidence" in favor of some sort of creator gods, THAT LEAVES YOU WITH LOGICAL DEISM.  It is an astronomical leap to any specific particular flavor of "theism".

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Marduk.

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Brahman.

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Nanabozho.

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Pangu.

All of these are equally valid statements.

If there's no evidence against God, but there is evidence for God, the claim "God exists" is more likely true than not. How is that not sufficient to warrant belief that the claim is true?
For the exact same reason we don't believe in Santa Claus.  There is certainly "evidence" that Santa Claus is real, but that evidence is not sufficient.
Topic's author
#57
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Evidence is just facts or information indicating whether something is true. The fine-tuned universe is more consistent with design rather than not. Using an inference to the best explanation, the fine tuned universe evidences design and therefore a designer ("God").
#58
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted

The odds are astronomical. Why would a chance universe be capable of sustaining itself?
Ask that question from within a universe incapable of sustaining itself.
Well, thanks for making sense of it for me! How does that make sense of a chance universe sustaining itself? How can something that is not 'about' anything do this or anything? Your reply - it just does. How is that any better of an answer than what you charge theists with, no proof, just assumptions?

As usual, you seldom answer a question, just give another assertion. What your assumption is is that because we are here that your worldview justifies itself. Based on what you have built your worldview upon, that the universe sustains itself because the universe is here, is circular reasoning. It is your PRESUPPOSITION, not mine. It answers nothing, just asserts. And if you funnel everything through that assumption you look for every explanation through that thought process.
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
How does that make sense of a chance universe sustaining itself? How can something that is not 'about' anything do this or anything?
You seem to be under the impression that the teleological fallacy somehow justifies the fine-tuned-universe fallacy.

A "fine-tuned universe" is inconclusive scientifically because of sample bias.

However, even if you wanted to accept that a "fine-tuned universe" was "evidence" in favor of some sort of creator gods, THAT LEAVES YOU WITH LOGICAL DEISM.  It is an astronomical leap to any specific particular flavor of "theism".

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Marduk.

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Brahman.

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Nanabozho.

(IFF) fine-tuned-universe (THEN) Pangu.

All of these are equally valid statements.

#60
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit

Life on this planet is fit for its inhabitants.

I do not understand how this should be the case in a fine-tuned universe. I once made a thread to this effect on DDO:

Why? the human destination for experience is the planet earth. That is why we have the bodies we have and the arrangement of our galaxy. It is fine tuned for the human form to evolve into what it is now. 


I think the idea I try to get across in the OP of that thread went over the head of most that read it, despite it being such a simple idea. Life as we know it cannot exist in most of the universe.

Life as we know it for human bodies, not souls. Souls take on different forms and anatomies according to the atmosphere they inhabit. So while souls on planet earth cannot survive in other places of the universe in a human body the soul can inhabit other forms, that correlate with their environment. The structures of the embodiments change according to what place it is in. No one is claiming a human can survive anywhere but earth, but that is just bodies. Souls actually exist on many varying states of consciousness and forms. 

Even if every planet in the entire universe were miraculously made to be perfectly fit for life most of the universe would still be incapable of supporting life.

Life for the creatures on earth you mean, not for souls and other bodies types. The Creator knows exactly what to do, the bodies that are supplied match the environment for that soul to survive. So in other words, other life forms in this universe are going to be different creatures, or have different anatomies that withstand where they are. Soul travel is another form of investigation of the planets and galaxies outside this one.

Even if our solar system was all there was in the entire universe and hundreds of thousands of earthlike planets were added to it the vast majority of the universe would still be incapable of supporting life.

You don't know anything about the vast majority of the universe, why are you asserting that? I think the point that human bodies cannot survive leaving earth has been made clear, only it is a strawman because the soul can inhabit any place the Creator has set up..... in a different form/body.