Total posts: 948
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Where is the empirical validation for your statements? If you can't provide any corroborating empirical evidence should I discard them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
1) the fine-tuned universe is "detectable" but it is not an empirical means of detection. This can be used to infer God's existence.
We should always compare what we're arguing to the definition. We are here arguing about whether a prime, eternal consciousness exists.
Beginning from the perspective that if God is undetectable, then God is non-existent frames the issue the wrong way. This relies on an implicit assumption that the universe has no creator until shown otherwise. This is wrong. We begin with having no assumptions about whether the universe does or does not have a creator. If we don't have enough evidence to determine the claim either way, we simply remain in a state of ignorance and neither affirm existence nor non-existence.
Logic defines the parameters in which the universe exists. Nothing in the universe can be used to prove logic. Logic is invariant, universal, and abstract. If quantum mechanics refuted logic then sharing statements of knowledge would not be possible.
Do you think that the scientific literature on the fine-tuned constants and parameters are exhibitions of ignorance?
P1) the fine-tuned universe is explained by either design, physical necessity, or chance.
P2) the fine-tuned universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
C) therefore, the fine-tuned universe is explained by design.
Making a series of statements using logic alone and logic to defend each premise is possible without empirical validation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Innate knowledge does not entail full awareness. We're imperfectly rational, especially as children. This means that reinforcement and guidance is helpful. Children sometimes naturally act compassionately and honestly.
Why should we be honest? It allows us to accurately share how much we know and strengthens our moral character.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Does the creator of a simulation "affect" the simulation? After all, the creator was the mind behind it all.
Does logic detectably affect the universe? If yes, then logic must be "empirically validatable." But is logic validated empirically? No, I don't think so.
The fine-tuned universe refers to "dimensionless constants" so they're mathematical objects, not empirical ones.
Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy?
Does "objectively detect" mean something empirically verifiable? We can use logic to determine whether it is true or not, even if we can't evaluate the claim using empirical evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because it's true. How do I know? Innate knowledge.
Well why should we seek truth? Doesn't truth lead us to perfection, the highest ideal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I agree that morality exists abstractly rather than concretely. Other things exist in the same manner, like information, math, logic, truth, etc.
When it comes down to it, I don't think that anything perceived is "real." Our perceptions of reality are a construct of information-processing. They're an assimilation of mental properties that don't have independent existence. What does a colorless, shapeless, textureless, object look like? Those features don't physically exist.
What's more real is what doesn't depend on observer-relative perception. Morality, math, logic, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Be compassionate, honest, responsible, humble, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
A cat is something that can be verified empirically but an prime, eternal consciousness is not.
I'll illustrate the point with an example. Let's say that there's a simulation and a virtual character says that he doesn't think that the world he's in has a programmer because he hasn't seen the programmer in the same way he hasn't seen a cat in his world. Don't you think that character is making a categorical error?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Morality is an awareness of whether our thoughts and actions are affecting other living things in a loving or unloving way. Our conscience prompts us to do what is selflessly loving but this is at odds with our inherently selfish animal nature. We are aware of morality intuitively and our moral knowledge can be improved upon through rational introspection.
Created:
Posted in:
It depends on how you define objective morality. If there are things that one ought to do irrespective of anyone's input, then yes. If by objective morality you mean the ability to define an objective standard of our choosing, and then compare behavior to that standard, then no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Given the weight of the evidence, is it more likely that God does or doesn't exist?
This places an equal burden of proof between affirming the positive and negative claim.
When we observe the absence of something where it was claimed to exist, this is inductive evidence we can then use to justify disbelief. With a prime, eternal consciousness though this is not something observable. So we would need to rely on non-empirical means to evaluate the claim.
It's worth mentioning that the source of a claim or the number of variations it has doesn't invalidate it.
Is the universe indicative of design or does it seem to be the byproduct of mindlessness?
Created:
Posted in:
Our universe, where life is extremely prohibited, is still fine-funed.
Here is the definition once more and if there is nothing left to say that hasn't already been said we can transition to a different topic:
"The fine-tuned universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range of values, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I know that (A = A) is true, with complete certainty, because it's not possible for something to violate the law of identity.
When you make a claim like "We as human beings cannot know objective truth with complete certainty" then are you applying that same standard to that sentence? Statements such as these are taken to be invariant, universal, and abstract. Yet, if your statement were true, this would be a contradiction and self-defeating line of reasoning.
On the fine-tuning argument we are repeating our positions so I don't feel there is anything new to add.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Can you prove that? (Ad infinitum)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
The fine-tuning might be by chance, necessitated by physics, or, it might be by design. According to Hawking, the laws of physics were broken down during the big bang. The odds of the fine-tuning being due to chance is incomprehensibly small, and shrinking. The fine-tuning strongly suggests a deliberate structure. So why isn't that the most rational inference given the evidence we currently have?
Fine-tuning is required in order for matter to exist. Speculation that non-carbon based life might've existed is pure speculation and isn't a defeater for the fine-tunedness. The fine-tunedness is based on science. It's a matter of inferring the best explanation to explain it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Can you prove that the axiom is true?
Created:
Posted in:
We've pretty much agreed on the definitions so you can disregard that piece. I'd edit my post but don't see the button anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
If you are only considering the more specific definition of theism, then yes, but if you're using the definition of theism more broadly to mean belief in the existence of God(s), then no. Atheism is lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of God(s). The opposite of A-theism is theism. So anything that cannot be considered compatible with atheism, like the existence of a prime, eternal consciousness, is theism (broadly) until narrowed further.
How did you determine that the fine-tunedness of the universe was happenstance and not the result of deliberate design? The puddle analogy assumes that the desired conclusion is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Deism refers to belief in the existence of a God who created the universe and doesn't intervene. Theism, broadly, refers to belief in the existence of God(s) . Theism, more narrowly, refers to an interventionist or tri-omni God. The fine-tuned universe argument is compatible with all of the above.
What do you find is the best refutation of the argument?
Created:
Posted in:
Is something only rational to believe if it can be proven true? Why does something need to be conclusively proven in order to reach the threshold of a rational belief?
My standard for rational belief is whether the weight of the evidence is for or against.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well we might have an interesting transition here from fine-tuning to morality. Let's say that someone were to use the fine-tuning argument to infer a moral authority that would want them to prevent gay marriage. Would they be doing something morally wrong? And if so, on an imagined moral foundation or on a moral realist foundation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't have a PhD in physics either but my common-sense approach is that we have evidence of a fine-tuned universe and no evidence, at this point, of any others. This leaves design theory with better explanatory power until more evidence to the contrary becomes available.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Our universe compared with what would have existed had one of the fundamental constants been infinitesimally smaller or larger.
Speculation that different life forms could've arisen is not a defeater for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The fine-tuned universe is based on science, not conjecture. Positing a universe in which non-carbon based life forms would exist is pure conjecture. This also does not take into account that fine-tuning allows for an environment in which matter can even exist.
The universe is strongly suggestive of a fix. The more rational conclusion, given what the evidence suggests, is that it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Exhibits 1-6 strongly suggest it. It's important to note that the fine-funed universe proposition defintion includes the phrase "...as it is understood." We can speculate that non-carbon based life forms may have arisen but it's pure conjecture. Fine-tuned constants allow for an environment in which matter can exist.
Created:
Posted in:
The fine-tuned universe proposition.
Definitions and examples below are taken from Wiki.
"The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."
EXHIBIT 1:
N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 10^36. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.
EXHIBIT 2:
Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.
If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.
EXHIBIT 3:
]Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.
EXHIBIT 4:
Lambda (λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10^−122. This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant were not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.
EXHIBIT 5:
Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.
EXHIBIT 6:
D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if any other than 1 time dimension existed in spacetime."
Our universe is highly, if not overwhelmingly, indicative of a fix. So using an inference to the best explanation, the fine tuned universe proposition is better indicated by design rather than not. Therefore, since the fine tuned universe proposition is better indicated by design, this is evidence that favors God's existence. We should believe a claim if there's more information indicating that it's true rather than untrue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Inference to the best explanation of the data
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
A state of being aware and possessing volition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, but logic is a non-empirical means to truth.
Are there any differences between the powers of consciousness versus non-consciousness?
If yes, then we can compare the data in our universe to both of those options and see which one has greater explanatory power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
"Testing", "observing", or "detecting", all imply using empirical means to evaluate a non-empirical claim. We would need to rely on logic to evaluate the claim.
The only things we can be "knowably certain" of are things that could not possibly be otherwise. The three fundamental laws of logic, for instance, are things we can be knowably certain of. Science, in principle, is inherently inductive. It doesn't include anything that is knowably certain. So you should have that in mind when you mention the word "confirmed."
We should believe that a claim is true or untrue on the basis that the weight of the evidence is for or against the claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
But how would a greater understanding of natural processes make the existence of a prime, eternal consciousness more unlikely? The more we learn about the universe the more it appears to have a deliberative structure. The deeper we go, on smaller scales, like biology, we discover clever intricacies. It just doesn't seem to make sense that this would go against the notion of God.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll start off with definitions.
Theism means belief in the existence of God. Atheism means without belief in the existence of God.
"God" refers to a prime, eternal consciousness.
Back to the definition of atheism. There are are two groups of atheists: The first group of atheist is one who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God. The second group of atheist disbelieves in the existence of God.
The first group of atheist, one who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, has no rationally held beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God by definition.
The second group of atheist, one who disbelieves in the existence of God has a belief about reality that is either true or untrue. Accordingly, there must be information that supports that view in order for it to be rationally warranted. Likewise, there must be information that supports the view that God exists in order for it to be rationally warranted.
So the question becomes: is there more evidence that the claim is true or is there more evidence that the claim is untrue?
Indirectly, there's evidence in support of God from quantum mechanics, the fine-tuned universe, an uncaused first cause, moral realism, and purpose in the natural universe. It's better explained by a primary consciousness.
Isn't theism more rational than atheism?
Created:
Posted in:
The laws of logic can't be otherwise, so yes, it does.
Created:
Posted in:
The ultimate reality would be a state of consciousness where everything is felt and known.
Created:
Yeah but 1 percent of GDP is still hundreds of billions of dollars, no small amount. We should require justification for marginal increases or decreases. Plus we have NATO, which means that our actual military power far exceeds US-owned assets.
Created:
Posted in:
In other words, anyone who says that we can never be certain that anything is true has a self-defeating statement.
Created:
Posted in:
I see some problems with this theory. Naturally selective processes are mindless. Mindless forces can't have aims or goals. Since morality is ultimately the result of evolution, and evolution is a mindless process, any aims or goals are solely the product of imagination. We both acknowledge that 'costs' and 'benefits' are always relative to some goal, yes?
The second problem, even assuming that morality is based on Darwinian evolution, would be explaining how our perceptions of "good' moral behavior contradicts eugenics. We should only treat those who can pass on desirable traits with love and respect, like those who aren't disabled, diseased, disfigured, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
"Benefits" and "costs" are always relative to some goal. Some people place more importance on themselves and some people place more importance on others. The OP doesn't make a distinction between which one is "more moral." If people had opposite goals, what you said in your OP would still ring true. It' a bit like making a declaration that "morality is about wellbeing" and summing it up with "that's all there is to morality."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is not impossible to prove a negative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
"Until you can demonstrate a claim I have no reason to accept it. Rejecting your claim is not a claim in and of itself it is merely the default position in the absence of sufficient evidence."
Define "reject." It makes more sense to remain non-acceptant of a claim that you have no evidence for rather than rejecting it.
"Can you think of any reasonable argument for accepting a proposition as true without sufficient evidence?"
No, but keep in mind that "sufficient" evidence is not objective.
Likewise can you demonstrate any theistic or supernatural claim?
We discuss this more in depth. Theism is better evidenced than atheism, and by atheism I mean the view that there's no God.
Created:
Posted in:
Kavanaughs name was never mentioned in the 2012 therapy session. I believe she was harassed at somewhere at some point but not by Kavanaugh.
Created:
Posted in:
Something that possesses supernatural powers but to a maximally great degree.
Created:
Posted in:
I believe that the external world is an illusion. The things not seen, like math, logic, and consciousnes, are the only things that aren't a construct of information-processing. Everything that can known to us through the senses is an assimilation of mental properties that don't actually exist other than in our minds. We all derived from a fundamentally existent consciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
Things that exist haven't been determined to be designed nor undesigned. You can't assume that things are non-designed merely if design can't be proven
Created:
Posted in:
The question unjustifiably assumes that the universe is not designed.
Created:
The question has the built in assumption that the laws of logic cannot be violated. If the laws of logic cannot be violated, then God cannot not be God. Therefore, God cannot do anything that God cannot do.
Created: