-->
@3RU7AL
I think we don't know enough to say exactly why the universe is as it is, but we do know enough to say that no gods were involved.
Isn't theism more rational than atheism?
Posts
Total:
103
-->
@keithprosser
I think we don't know enough to say exactly why the universe is as it is, but we do know enough to say that no gods were (necessarily) involved.
-->
@keithprosser
It is completely reasonable to wonder why a particular constant holds the value it does - but the fine tuning argument takes it even further by asserting that the value is specifically set to some number, out of some arbitrarily large range. The second part to that is the assumed conclusion by selecting a specific option out of multiple equally valid known options, and an unknown number of unknown valid options.
In my view this whole argument is inside out - postdictive rationalization and data cherry picking, rather than a more outside in rationalization - where you describe what a designed universe would look like - then use that description to make predictions.
That inherently leads to what I’m going to call Ramshutu’s Gambit:
P1.) If God has a set of coherent motivations and desires for creating the universe and
P2.) God is more capable of creating a universe that full meets those desires and motivations than I am,
C.) If you can postulate a coherent set of desires and motivations for a God for which I can create a better suited universe - A God with those set of motivations and desires cannot exist. OR
C2.) The desires and motivations specified deviates from any postulated God.
-->
@3RU7AL
I think we don't know enough to say exactly why the universe is as it is, but we do know enough to say that no gods were (necessarily) involved.
Technically, you're right.... but we know it really! :)
-->
@Ramshutu
A) "The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a fact is ignored in favor of attacking its source.
The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[2] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits."
B) philosophers, scientists, and other important people throughout history, over thousands of years, have claimed evidence of God. This includes geniuses like Godel, Plato, Newton, Planck, etc. Evidence means facts and information indicating whether something is true. You can't limit an inquiry as to whether there's a creator of the universe to things within the universe. You won't find God in the same way you'd find a baseball in your backyard. Nor will you find math or logic to put in a test tube. Evidence includes: the fine-tuning of the universe, a first cause, moral realism, natural telos, etc.
Once again, claiming that finding no (empirical) evidence of God is grounds to reject the claim as untrue relies on an irrational assumption that God doesn't exist until shown otherwise. The only rationally warranted position, in the face of complete absence of evidence either way, is no position taken on whether God does or does not exist.
C) YES you can prove a negative. I can prove that there aren't any square circles or that there isn't a 1-mile tall skyscraper in my front pocket. You need to provide evidence of absence, not absence of evidence, in order to rationally warrant belief that God does not exist. To believe that something is true (like God does not exist) based on absence of evidence is an argument from ignorance.
-->
@Ramshutu
D) while we cannot definitively prove God does or doesn't exist, we can determine which belief is more rational given the weight of the evidence.
E) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Evidence that something is true can be obtained rationally as well as empirically.
F) I put the fine-tuned argument in sylllogistic form. Which premise do you dispute?
G) It depends on how you define the term "measurable." Evidence of God is obtainable - rationally.
H) We only need to determine what the most rational explanation is given the weight of the evidence.
-->
@Ramshutu
Not the most transparent of your posts, Ram!
As I understand it the theory of 'eternal inflation' suggest an infinite multi-verse continually spawning new big bangs and new universes with their own laws of physics. If that is so then the AP applies and i don't have a problem with that.
I do have more of a problem with the AP if this universe is the only universe. Obviously the AP applies there too, but to me it seems an enormous slice of luck if the universe just happened to be what was required for me to exist! I'd like a 'theory of everything' that tell us why the universe is as it is.
I think the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is fascinating, but I don't normally think of a god being involved - except when being facetious! perhaps reality is held together by mathematics or by the force of pure logical consistency - I really have no idea. One day it will be all explained in words of several syllables and greek symbols in Scientific American... but probably only after i'm dead.
I hope you will contribute to this thread:
A.) Yeah, I suspect you either don’t really get what a genetic fallacy is, or you don’t really get what my argument is. I am not specifically discounting your God because of all the other failures. The argument is saying both that the repeated failures of Gods in the past lends credibility to the idea that God doesn’t exist and it’s just made up - AND as multiple Gods already defined, it makes it more likely that a newly defined God based on a made up God with simple changes is also made up due to humans propensity to invent Gods - neither of those two positions are the genetic fallacy.
B.) I’m not limiting my investigation - again this is a misrepresentation. As I said: that no evidence has been found despite how far humanity has come is evidence against God. That evidence has been found - and turned out not to be evidence with further analysis is precisely what I’m basing this argument on.
C.) No you can’t prove a negative - you’re discussing paradoxes. We can disprove multiple Gods on paradoxes, but if you simply redefine God to something unprovable and generic - you can’t prove it doesn’t exist. For example, I can’t prove an invisible dragon that doesn’t interact with matter lives in my living room. But your count here completely misses the points
D.) You could definitively proove God exists, he could appear to us all at the same time - for example. Magic is verifiable. We can absolute determine the most rational examples - and this is what I have done - mainly being ignored or misrepresented. This was the whole point of D - providing explicit evidence that supports the atheist position - you appear to have simply dismissed that here.
E.) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if it is reasonable to believe their should be evidence. Again you miss the point. Now, you keep saying you can gain evidence rationally - as I said rationalism is only as good as the assumptions you make - if you can’t validate the assumptions - you can’t validate the conclusions. As you have no means to validate any of your assumptions presented so far in any part - this ceases to be evidence of anything at all. Again you appear to have ignored this.
F.) I’ve mentioned it multiple times. The premise that the values could be anything different is asserted without any reason or evidence - hence negatinf the validity conclusion.
G.) Again - no - every example provided so far relies on premises which rely on some premise you can’t confirm without verification. By all means show me a rational argument for God - and I will show you how the premises are dependent on assumptions that cannot be demonstrated.
H.) Yes - and I have done that - and it clearly shows that the weight is on the Atheists side as every fact so far is consistent with the idea that God does not exist
-->
@Ramshutu
A) you said that you weren't discounting my definition of God based on the various other gods that have been proposed and debunked, but then go on to discount my definition of God doing exactly that. That's a genetic fallacy. The evidence needs to be weighed on it's own merits.
B) what evidence has been found that turned out not to be evidence? I'm only interested in discussing evidence that relates to God as defined.
C) yes, you can prove a negative, and I've given two examples. A negative claim that contains a logical contradiction cannot exist. A skyscraper in my pocket 1 mile tall does not exist. Sagan's dragon is a violation of the law of identity and therefore doesnt exist.
"Notice, for a start, that "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable."
"Saying "You cannot prove a negative" has been called pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem."
The universe is more complex than we can ever understand.
If that isn't proof of The Ultimate Reality existing, I don't know what is.
It's ridiculous to say God doesn't exist, because not only does the order demonstrate this, but so does the chaos. That we can make sense of, and that we can't make sense of. All of it together shows that there is a fundamental reality that ties it all together.
And what god are you people disputing? Surely, you aren't disputing The One True God.
-->
@keithprosser
There is another hypothesis that our universe big bangs and the big crunches (collapses in on itself) over and over and over again.I think the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is fascinating,
Humans may not have evolved in 99.9999999% percent of these cosmic cycles, but it makes perfect sense that we'd be here asking questions in the one(s) where we did.
-->
@3RU7AL
The AP is ok, but I'd prefer something a bit stronger.... there might not be a better explanation but i can still hope forone!
-->
@Mopac
All.And what god are you people disputing? Surely, you aren't disputing The One True God.