Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

In my opinion The best piece of evidence that is the fine tuning of the universe.

When I saw the video of plants and birds and animals in the desert, but particularly the plants and how they grew, my mind was saying, how could this possibly have all come about by natural forces? Beyond beauty -- magnificent. My inclination is that it could not have just emerged by natural selection or survival of the fittest. However it may have come about -- the evidence is mind-boggling to see these plants grow and develop. But that's me now. In the past I might have enjoyed seeing it and walked away shrugging my shoulders, thinking yeah, that's what evolution produced. Now I do not. Why? Because of the fine tuning. Fabulous, wonderful and awesome.

 

[Pogo]

Well what would you accept as evidence for God, or more specific what would you accept as evidence that God created the universe

Something that we can mutually observe and have others do so as well

 

[YoursTrue]

Creation itself is so wonderfully fabulous. I remember something from a song -- "the heavens declare the glory of God." But one has to look at it with the right mindset.

 

[leroy]

When I saw the video of plants and birds and animals in the desert, but particularly the plants and how they grew, my mind was saying, how could this possibly have all come about by natural forces? Beyond beauty -- magnificent. My inclination is that it could not have just emerged by natural selection or survival of the fittest. However it may have come about -- the evidence is mind-boggling to see these plants grow and develop. But that's me now. In the past I might have enjoyed seeing it and walked away shrugging my shoulders, thinking yeah, that's what evolution produced. Now I do not. Why? Because of the fine tuning. Fabulous, wonderful and awesome.

Yes in my opinion naturalists /atheists have problems in explaining both the origin of life and once we have life ¿why did microbes evolved in to something more complex?

 

[leroy]

Something that we can mutually observe and have others do so as well

The fine tuning of the universe would be an example of evidence that fulfills your criteria……… but you will change your criteria in the next post anyway

 

[Pogo]

The fine tuning of the universe would be an example of evidence that fulfills your criteria……… but you will change your criteria in the next post anyway

Because fine tuning is a subjective criteria, for example if the universe is so fine tuned, why is it so hostile everywhere except here where we have evolved to exist.

I have not changed the criteria, only asked you why do you consider this evidence in spite of it's general inapplicability
We are looking for objective things that all can agree upon, not things that we "feel".

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes in my opinion naturalists /atheists have problems in explaining both the origin of life and once we have life ¿why did microbes evolved in to something more complex?

From my research and reading of scientists, that's what I'm seeing. As an old-er song goes,
"Fools give you reasons,
Wise men never try."
Pretty song from the musical South Pacific...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my opinion The best piece of evidence that is the fine tuning of the universe.

Which I find unconvincing for quite a wide variety of reasons. If you can handle reading deeply, I suggest this article on the subject from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In any case, the argument relies 100% on there being only 1 universe -- ours. Because if there are many universes ("the multiverse"), then that one of them might be "fine tuned for life as we know it" because not so implausible.

And also, the "life as we know it" is because we only have the life here on this planet to help us understand just kind of life may be possible, and may well exist, in this universe or in a multiverse.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When I saw the video of plants and birds and animals in the desert, but particularly the plants and how they grew, my mind was saying, how could this possibly have all come about by natural forces? Beyond beauty -- magnificent. My inclination is that it could not have just emerged by natural selection or survival of the fittest. However it may have come about -- the evidence is mind-boggling to see these plants grow and develop. But that's me now. In the past I might have enjoyed seeing it and walked away shrugging my shoulders, thinking yeah, that's what evolution produced. Now I do not. Why? Because of the fine tuning. Fabulous, wonderful and awesome.

And you acknowledge, of course, that this "fabulous, wonderful and awesome" result of fine-tuning also includes all of the killer plants, the killer animals, the microbes that infect and kill us -- this "nature, bloody in tooth and claw" that also exists among all the beauty that you're willing to consider? Because all that is here, too. And it's all just as natural or supernaturally planned-for as the stuff you like.

I find it easier to accept that the rose, the flamingo, the human are all the result of natural causes of which we now know a little, as are the worm that causes children to go blind, or the filarial worms that cause horrifying disgurement of the lower limbs, than that these were as deliberately "designed" as were those organisms that you prefer, but which they kill anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

And you acknowledge, of course, that this "fabulous, wonderful and awesome" result of fine-tuning also includes all of the killer plants, the killer animals, the microbes that infect and kill us -- this "nature, bloody in tooth and claw" that also exists among all the beauty that you're willing to consider? Because all that is here, too. And it's all just as natural or supernaturally planned-for as the stuff you like.

I find it easier to accept that the rose, the flamingo, the human are all the result of natural causes of which we now know a little, as are the worm that causes children to go blind, or the filarial worms that cause horrifying disgurement of the lower limbs, than that these were as deliberately "designed" as were those organisms that you prefer, but which they kill anyway.

I don't think scientists exactly know how that infestation began, I am not sure, and it is certainly tragic, and yes, scientists have developed a pill to stem the growth of the parasite. Jesus did give sight to a blind man. I have my theories as to how that scourge in Africa may have started, I won't go any further now except to say that blindness will be done away with in the future by means of God's intervention. Not now, and yes, I'm glad there are practical scientists who developed an antidote to the awful situation.

 

[leroy]

Because fine tuning is a subjective criteria,

It is not subjetive.

FT simply means that atoms, molecules, stars, planets (and other stuff required for life) can only exist within a narrow range of values on different constants and initial conditions.

For example if gravity would have been 1% stronger, the whole universe would have collapsed in to a black hole shortly after the big bang. (therefore no atoms, no molecules, no stars, no planets and therefore no life)

This is 100% objective, one (well scientists) can determine objectively what would happen if gravity would have been stronger, we can determine objectively that atoms, molecules etc. can´t exist in a black hole, and we can determine objectively that we can have life without molecules

for example if the universe is so fine tuned, why is it so hostile everywhere except here where we have evolved to exist.

That is a good question, but starwman, FT simply means that life permitting values are narrow.

If you want to claim that God doesn’t exist because most of the universe is hostile to life….. go ahead, develop your argument, but this has noting to do with FT and your argument (even if sound) would. Not affect any of the premises of the FT argument

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design.
Premise 2: The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity.
Premise 3: The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to a designer.

As you can note, it doesnt matter if you show that 99.99999% of the universe is hostile to life, ………. None of the premises would be affected.

I have not changed the criteria, only asked you why do you consider this evidence in spite of it's general inapplicability
We are looking for objective things that all can agree upon, not things that we "feel".

Ok, so nothing in the FT argument is based on what we feel.

So I would appreciate if you star your post with “yes Leroy you where correct, and I was wrong the FT of the universe is not subjective, but rather an objective property of the universe.

And given that I have my doubts on weather if you understand the argument or not , you have to explain to me the argument with your own words

When I say FT argument I am referring to the version of the argument that William lane Craig proposes…………….. it is perfectly valid to say “ohh no idea Leroy, I have never heard about that argument”

 

[leroy]

In any case, the argument relies 100% on there being only 1 universe

Seems to be a valid assumption..............but no, even assuming many universes the argument is still very good

-- ours. Because if there are many universes ("the multiverse"), then that one of them might be "fine tuned for life as we know it" because not so implausible.

The Boltzmann brain paradox deals with many universes, and explains why even if you have potentially infinite universes , design would still be the best explanation for FT……… (are you familiar with this paradox?)

Also postulating potentially infinite universes opens the door for a whole bunch of absurdities ……..for example according to the multiverse hypothesis, there are universes that are only 6,000 years old but it look 14B years old. ¿how do you know that we don’t live in such universe?.......perhaps YEC are correct after all

And also, the "life as we know it" is because we only have the life here on this planet to help us understand just kind of life may be possible, and may well exist, in this universe or in a multiverse.

Any life made out of atoms and molecules would apply to this argument. I am pretty sure this rage is wide enough to account for any alien that you can imagine

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is good evidence in favor of the existence of God

If that were true, the atheists disagreeing with you here would be theists. Most are pretty experienced empiricists and critical thinkers.

Also, education and theism would correlate positively rather than inversely. The more people learned, the more they would be aware of that evidence.

zero (or very little) evidence for leprechauns

It's the same evidence theists have. You say that the universe is fine-tuned? Perhaps leprechauns did that.

Well what would you accept as evidence for God, or more specific what would you accept as evidence that God created the universe?

Anything that makes a supernatural explanation more likely than a natural one would be evidence for a god. So far, nothing exists that fits that bill. You would need further evidence to say that you've correctly identified the qualities of that god or gods.

The best piece of evidence that is the fine tuning of the universe.

That's an argument that the god to which you refer is not omnipotent and didn't create the laws of physics, but discovered what they were and set the constants according to those external constraints.

in my opinion naturalists /atheists have problems in explaining both the origin of life and once we have life ¿why did microbes evolved in to something more complex?

We're partway there. Theists have no explanation. God did it is not an explanation any more than Norman did it is. How? What forces were involved?

according to the multiverse hypothesis, there are universes that are only 6,000 years old but it look 14B years old

Where did you get that? The multiverse hypothesis is that a mother substance of some indeterminate nature is the source of countless numbers of universes of every possible type including the finely tuned ones. What you're describing is probably impossible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't think scientists exactly know how that infestation began, I am not sure, and it is certainly tragic, and yes, scientists have developed a pill to stem the growth of the parasite. Jesus did give sight to a blind man. I have my theories as to how that scourge in Africa may have started, I won't go any further now except to say that blindness will be done away with in the future by means of God's intervention. Not now, and yes, I'm glad there are practical scientists who developed an antidote to the awful situation.

I was trying to hint at the vast, vast reality of nature, and you're trying to pretend I was talking about 1 worm. It is so like you to try such pretense.

And whether or not Jesus gave sight to a blind man (you've never seen such a miracle, nor did any of your ancestors further back than you could trace, no has anyone alive today nor their ancestors as far back as they can trace -- but somebody wrote it in a book so of course you accept it as reality) doesn't change the fact of the sheer brutality of life on this planet. Everything on this planet is part of a food chain -- including you, though humans have found more ways to stave off the inevitable, including cremation so we can afford being food for worms.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was trying to hint at the vast, vast reality of nature, and you're trying to pretend I was talking about 1 worm. It is so like you to try such pretense.

And whether or not Jesus gave sight to a blind man (you've never seen such a miracle, nor did any of your ancestors further back than you could trace, no has anyone alive today nor their ancestors as far back as they can trace -- but somebody wrote it in a book so of course you accept it as reality) doesn't change the fact of the sheer brutality of life on this planet. Everything on this planet is part of a food chain -- including you, though humans have found more ways to stave off the inevitable, including cremation so we can afford being food for worms.

And you've never seen when or if the universe was created or developed or anything else like it. You didn't even see the birth of your parents.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was trying to hint at the vast, vast reality of nature, and you're trying to pretend I was talking about 1 worm. It is so like you to try such pretense.

And whether or not Jesus gave sight to a blind man (you've never seen such a miracle, nor did any of your ancestors further back than you could trace, no has anyone alive today nor their ancestors as far back as they can trace -- but somebody wrote it in a book so of course you accept it as reality) doesn't change the fact of the sheer brutality of life on this planet. Everything on this planet is part of a food chain -- including you, though humans have found more ways to stave off the inevitable, including cremation so we can afford being food for worms.

The earth certainly has the capacity to sustain itself. On the other hand, horrible things happen, and some of those are what you might call natural. Not everyone would, but I can see how mutations can cause a baby born with two heads, and I can understand how such horrible things as river blindness can occur. So I'm not going to argue the issue, I could discuss more, but now I consider it between you and your mind (because I don't think you believe in God, meaning the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus, that's why I say you and your view).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is not subjetive.

FT simply means that atoms, molecules, stars, planets (and other stuff required for life) can only exist within a narrow range of values on different constants and initial conditions.

For example if gravity would have been 1% stronger, the whole universe would have collapsed in to a black hole shortly after the big bang. (therefore no atoms, no molecules, no stars, no planets and therefore no life)

This is 100% objective, one (well scientists) can determine objectively what would happen if gravity would have been stronger, we can determine objectively that atoms, molecules etc. can´t exist in a black hole, and we can determine objectively that we can have life without molecules




That is a good question, but starwman, FT simply means that life permitting values are narrow.

If you want to claim that God doesn’t exist because most of the universe is hostile to life….. go ahead, develop your argument, but this has noting to do with FT and your argument (even if sound) would. Not affect any of the premises of the FT argument

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design.
Premise 2: The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity.
Premise 3: The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to a designer.

As you can note, it doesnt matter if you show that 99.99999% of the universe is hostile to life, ………. None of the premises would be affected.


Ok, so nothing in the FT argument is based on what we feel.

So I would appreciate if you star your post with “yes Leroy you where correct, and I was wrong the FT of the universe is not subjective, but rather an objective property of the universe.

And given that I have my doubts on weather if you understand the argument or not , you have to explain to me the argument with your own words

When I say FT argument I am referring to the version of the argument that William lane Craig proposes…………….. it is perfectly valid to say “ohh no idea Leroy, I have never heard about that argument”

So, what causes -- in the absence of absolutely everything -- the existence of a "god," one with intelligence, intention, power?

See, if you see a "god" that created the universe, then it must have at very minimum those attributes. Worse, for your case, is that fact that our universe appears to have come into existence at one particular moment in time (the "big bang"), and yet if it did not come into existence at the same moment your presumed Creator did, then said Creator must have been in existence for an infinite amount of time before getting around to creation -- since time is an integral part of creation. This is a conundrum. There is no getting around it. Either "God" and his creation are coeval, or "God" spent eternity with all its faculties doing nothing, and then suddenly changed its mind.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And you've never seen when or if the universe was created or developed or anything else like it. You didn't even see the birth of your parents.

100% non-sequitur. What argument are you trying to make?

 

[leroy]

Most are pretty experienced empiricists and critical thinkers.

Not, true based on my experience

It's the same evidence theists have. You say that the universe is fine-tuned? Perhaps leprechauns did that.

Leperchanous are physical beings, with a body and a green hat and things like that…………… they could have not been the cause of the universe nor FT, because they can´t live without a FT universe

Anything that makes a supernatural explanation more likely than a natural one would be evidence for a god. So far, nothing exists that fits that bill. You would need further evidence to say that you've correctly identified the qualities of that god or gods.

Íl say that God is a better explanation for FT than any naturalistic alternative.............many natrualistic expalnations have been suggested, pick one and I´ll tell you why God wins in my opinon

That's an argument that the god to which you refer is not omnipotent and didn't create the laws of physics, but discovered what they were and set the constants according to those external constraints.

do see why is that (in red ettes) the case.............why discover and not create?

Where did you get that? The multiverse hypothesis is that a mother substance of some indeterminate nature is the source of countless numbers of universes of every possible type including the finely tuned ones. What you're describing is probably impossible.

If there is a potentially infinite number of universes, then by chance alone there would be universes where radioactive elements decay faster than their predicted rate………… giving the impression of an old age, when it is actually young.

BTW also talking snakes and talking dunkies are also expected to appear every once in a while in a multiverse………..

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So I'm not going to argue the issue, I could discuss more, but now I consider it between you and your mind (because I don't think you believe in God, meaning the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus, that's why I say you and your view).

My goodness -- it's taken you this long to figure that out?