• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence for God's existence

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
the RF courtroom is always in session.

circumstantial, conjecture, overruled!

what can we come to know by way of subjectivity alone? I believe there is knowledge in the purely subjective, but you have to be objective about it.

I sometimes get overwhelming feelings of peace, or joy to where I feel it in my bones. it happens at inspired times. it's very hard to say this is all purely neurological, that demeans my experience. There is a certain quality to the feelings and they are distinct and identifiable. I don't attach God to these feelings. but the feelings do make sense.

perhaps there is a language to what one feels!
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
How do you know that these didn't apply?

I'd like to keep this discussion grounded in logic, so rather than going into how I know, let's just assume for argument's sake that I know.

and can you please give me the rest of the information other than "she prayed and died"?

I'm not sure what other information is required here. She did the same thing Evelyn and Lissette did in your anecdote. What else do you need to offer an explanation as to why these two lived, but the other died?

But regardles... I am extremely sorry for the loss.

I appreciate the sentiment, honestly, but I'm not fishing for sympathy here. As I said, I would like to keep the discussion based in logic.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I'd like to keep this discussion grounded in logic, so rather than going into how I know, let's just assume for argument's sake that I know.
Then, as I said, you can construct anything to fit your position (for argument sake). And, as I said and logic says, I'm not God to know everything that went on in her life and in her faith to determine why the outcome. There are many nuances that I have encountered and I certainly don't know them all... thus the question, "what is all the information". If you don't have all the information, how can one answer a question?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Because there is an adversary and there is free will.

That there is an adversary is just as unproven as that there is a God.

The problem is that there is NO WAY to determine the difference between an existing God and no God at all (as you have even admitted). And that makes it more reasonable to assume no such thing exists.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Here is evidence that every living, breathing soul can relate to; I read this just this morning in one of my devotionals.
Our hearts beats 72 times a minute, 100,000 times a day, 3,600,000 times a year. And, if I live what would be considered a “normal lifespan,” it will beat 2.5 billion times. It only weighs about 11 ounces yet will pump about 2,000 gallons of blood through 60,000 miles of blood vessels each day. Rather amazing, to say the least.
AND, the one true God that created each of us sustains each pumping heart for every beat. Amazing. If He doesn't exist, our hearts would not beat.
ronandcarol

An interesting perspective.

My car has gone 75,000 miles and is two and a half years old. It gets 25 miles per gallon. That means the fuel pump has pumped 3.29 gallons of gas per day. That's 1200 gallons a year. It only weighs 3.6 pounds. Rather amazing to say the least.

Does that mean if God doesn't exist, my car wouldn't run?
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
That there is an adversary is just as unproven as that there is a God.
As I said...

For the believer there is believing
For the unbeliever there is rationalizing.

And it isn't so much as there is no proof but rather it is the interpretation of the proof that there is a difference.

Those who have been possessed by demons would wholeheartedly disagree with you, but I'm sure you would have a rationalized explanation
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Then, as I said, you can construct anything to fit your position (for argument sake).

I didn't construct a scenario. You did. I expanded it.

And, as I said and logic says, I'm not God to know everything that went on in her life and in her faith to determine why the outcome.

I do know everything that went on in her life and in her faith. So far you've presented nothing of substance that would explain any difference between Renee and the two ladies in your anecdote. They all prayed. That's what we have to go on at this point.

There are many nuances that I have encountered and I certainly don't know them all... thus the question, "what is all the information". If you don't have all the information, how can one answer a question?

As I said, I have all of the information. What would you like to know?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I didn't construct a scenario. You did. I expanded it.

I do know everything that went on in her life and in her faith. So far you've presented nothing of substance that would explain any difference between Renee and the two ladies in your anecdote. They all prayed. That's what we have to go on at this point.

As I said, I have all of the information. What would you like to know?
No, I didn't construct a scenario... I answered a question.

You constructed the scenario.

Ok... On what foundatonal basis was the prayer made.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
That there is an adversary is just as unproven as that there is a God.

The problem is that there is NO WAY to determine the difference between an existing God and no God at all (as you have even admitted). And that makes it more reasonable to assume no such thing exists.
I disagee on all accounts. The evidence is there, it is the interpretation of the evidence that we differ on.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
If you're looking for objective evidence of God's existence, you won't find any. It simply isn't there.

However, there is plenty of subjective evidence vis-à-vis sense experience. These experiences, unfortunately, are neither verifiable nor falsifiable, since they cannot be measured or observed by anyone other than the individual that had such an experience.

Party pooper.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
As I said...

For the believer there is believing
For the unbeliever there is rationalizing.

And it isn't so much as there is no proof but rather it is the interpretation of the proof that there is a difference.

Those who have been possessed by demons would wholeheartedly disagree with you, but I'm sure you would have a rationalized explanation

The point is that *reality* doesn't depend on interpretation. Only opinions do. It isn't a matter of interpretation whether there is an elephant in my room. It isn't a matter of interpretation how far away stars are. It *is* a matter of interpretation whether tomatoes taste good.

There is no 'possession by demons', only types of mental illness.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
The fine-tuning argument can be explained if given enough odds for a fine-tune universe to exist. In a multi-verse where basically an infinite universe could exist, why wouldn't there be a fine tuned universe? Heck I bet there probably are an infinite fine tuned universes out there.

We're so narrow-minded OR full of ourselves that we believe anything to do with us must have purpose and meaning.


The multiverse is a good philosophical alternative to the "design" interpretation of the fine tuning problem but a "falsifiable scientific theory" it is not and nor is it ever likely to become one.

In principle, the multiverse propsal is almost indistinguishable from the "Deist God" in its appeal to a logically sound and elegant idea with great explanatory power but which is forever unobservable and devoid of any testable predictions.

Simply put, if your best response to the argument that "the finely tuned and seemingly arbitrary initial conditions, laws and constants of the universe requires belief in the invisible, immaterial agency of a supreme being who exists outside the universe, to be adequately explained", is to posit the existence of something else outside our universe (a "multiverse") which is equally invisible to our observation and equally unprovable as a result...then you are essentially giving ground to the theist notion that, as it stands, there is no naturalistic explanation for fine tuning within the parameters of the observable universe (the only universe we know to exist and which we can study with scientific tools) and that answers need to be sought in unfalsifiable metaphysical realities beyond it.

Umm, I do hope that you see the "elephant in the room", so to speak, with such a bizarrely self-defeating rebuttal. To actually defeat the theistic argument, it would be far more logical to start from the premise that the universe we live in (it being the only one we actually know exists and therefore the only one we can study and scrutinize using the scientific method), is indeed the only universe and that the apparent fine tuning of this universe can be explained on its own terms, by its own "inner logic", such that we don't need to imagine or envision any greater, metaphysical realities beyond what we can actually observe and test in our search after an explanation for why the universe is the way that it is, exceedingly improbable as this would seem to be if mere chance alone is to blame, with the life-permitting physical laws (and numerical values thereof) that it has.

If you are unable to do this: which is to say, if the presumption or assumption that fine tuning has an explanation from within the parameters of our universe that does not compel one to invoke or make reference to something beyond the universe that we can't actually see or prove, is found to be unsatisfactory as an explanation accounting for the sheer improbability of the data; then you simply cannot dismiss the "Intelligent Design fine tuning argument" out-of-hand as a viable and philosophically sound answer to the problem.

It is certainly a logical possibility that we live in an ever expanding megaverse of unlimited physical possibilities but unfortunately no one will ever be able to provide empirical evidence based upon scientifically robust tools of observation and falsifiable testing that is indicative of the "eternal inflationary multiverse" model (on account of the particle horizon and the speed of light i.e. inflation causes the universe(s) to expand at a rate exceeding the speed of light, meaning that universes are causally disconnected at practically infinite distances making communication between them or observation of them impossible for all eternity, among other factors).

The "multiverse" is consequently a very poor answer to the theist fine tuning argument: seeking to refute an untestable but philosophically compelling notion ("the Deist God") with an equally untestable but philosophically compelling notion (an infinite multiverse of inflationary bubble universes each with randomly assigned physical laws and constants).

Multiverse propositions are therefore the ultimate in circular reasoning for an atheist-naturalist minded person to employ in countering theistic arguments based on fine tuning - amounting to intellectual disarmament of the highest order.

Also, something else merits attention here: the inflationary multiverse doesn't even get by "fine tuning" in the first instance since the "multiverse generator" and "cosmic inflation" itself (upon which the very possibility of a multiverse in space-time is predicated), would both require incredible fine tuning to operate and for the mathematical equations to work. The cure is thus worse than the disease and this has been noted by none other than Paul Steinhardt, one of the original pioneers of the "inflationary multiverse" hypothesis in the 1980s (who has since turned against it and is far more critical of the idea than I am, denying that it is even "explanatory"):


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/


Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive

Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University

Steinhardt: From the very beginning, even as I was writing my first paper on inflation in 1982, I was concerned that the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. Andy Albrecht and I (and, independently, Andrei Linde) had just discovered the way of having an extended period of inflation end in a graceful exit to a universe filled with hot matter and radiation, the paradigm for all inflationary models since. But the exit came at a cost -- fine-tuning. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.

We have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. Instead we have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities could emerge in a multiverse?).

I have to admit that I did not take the multiverse problem seriously at first even though I had been involved in uncovering it. I thought someone would figure out a resolution once the problem was revealed. That was 1983. I was wrong.

To me, the accidental universe idea (the notion that the features of the observable universe are accidental: consequences of living in this particular region of the multiverse rather than another), is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales. In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation.

Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.

If some atheists feel comfortable with the idea of explaining the problem of fine tuning and thereby quashing the suggestion of some Supremely Intelligent Designer, by having recourse to a greater, unseen reality beyond our observable universe (an infinite multiverse of inflationary bubble universes, endlessly popping into existence and where every conceivable set of physical laws and constants is realised somewhere)...a reality that is unfalsifiable and imperceptible to any instrument of measurement or analysis which could be created and utilized by humankind, putting it beyond the reach of the scientific method....then be my guest but please tell me how this doesn't amount to some kind of "faith" as described by the Book of Hebrews?


Hebrews 11: 1-3

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

So far as I can read the situation: we appear to be at an inescapable impasse with the fine tuning problem whereby our best explanations to account for it (an inflationary multiverse or God) are essentially untestable philosophical answers arising from an unspoken recognition on both sides that our best chance of addressing fine tuning is to envisage a greater, unobserved reality outside the universe because on its own terms our universe looks far too improbable, unnatural and inexplicably fortunate to exist.

That's not science, that's metaphysics (even if dressed up in sciency-sounding terminology with respect to "cosmic inflation", "the multiverse" and "string theory"). But perhaps we're left with just precisely that because these are questions for which science has no answers, limited as it is to the study of the observable, testable universe.

If the various fine tunings cannot be explained from first principles using the evidence of our own observable universe - as brute facts, out of some as-of-yet unknown physical necessity or as supreme good luck - then we may never pass beyond this great impasse.

During a recent Ted Talk, Harry Cliff, a particle physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), warned: “The next few years may tell us whether we'll be able to continue to increase our understanding of nature or whether maybe, for the first time in the history of science, we could be facing questions that we cannot answer.” He added that scientists are approaching this limit as “the laws of physics forbid” further understanding of the Universe.

Mr Cliff says that his theory is based on two numbers - the finely tuned strength of the Higgs Boson Field and the cosmological constant (the energy of the vacuum of space that causes the universe to expand) - which account for everything that the Universe is made up of, and if these numbers are slightly off, then “there would be no physical structure in the Universe.”

Mr Cliff concluded his Ted Talk by saying: “We may be entering a new era in physics. An era where there are weird features in the universe that we cannot explain. An era where we have hints that we live in a multiverse that lies frustratingly beyond our [scientific] reach. An era where we will never be able to answer the question why is there something rather than nothing.” One could equally paraphrase Mr Cliff to say: "An era where we have hints that we live in a designed universe courtesy of a Creator who lies frustratingly beyond our [scientific] reach." Hence the impasse.
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What evidence do you have that God exists? You can share your personal testimony of answered prayers or you can say God left signs in nature or say whatever you feel like saying in response to this op.

I'm just frustrated with God that so many people swear he doesn't provide them evidence of his existence.

I was recently asked to provide evidence of God's existence... I should be able to. After all, Jesus said his followers would do the works that he does and Greater Works.

Yet no one is doing those works.

Jesus said the faith of a mustard seed can move mountains. Not a single mountain is budging, so I assume nobody has the faith of a mustard seed.

I personally think God is a prick for refusing to provide evidence that he really cares about people or loves them. Then he leaves us with a Bible that contradicts itself and has many verses that command people to do the opposite of what other versus commanded... And he leaves us with prophetic visions that lead people astray because they're full of symbolism that is difficult to interpret.

The behavior of God is responsible for atheism, heresy, confusion, and division. He insists that people live by faith, and declares that he loves us so much, while at the same time refusing to do something so little as give some clear instruction or leave the skeptics some evidence.

Then he threatens to toss people into a lake of fire For Eternity for an infraction so small as not believing in him! Please excuse me while I vomit... Sometimes Yahweh makes me sick!View attachment 19103
You are my evidence.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
The multiverse is a good philosophical alternative to the "design" interpretation of the fine tuning problem but a "falsifiable scientific theory" it is not and nor is it ever likely to become one.

In principle, the multiverse propsal is almost indistinguishable from the "Deist God" in its appeal to a logically sound and elegant idea with great explanatory power but which is forever unobservable and devoid of any testable predictions.

Simply put, if your best response to the argument that "the finely tuned and seemingly arbitrary initial conditions, laws and constants of the universe requires belief in the invisible, immaterial agency of a supreme being who exists outside the universe, to be adequately explained", is to posit the existence of something else outside our universe (a "multiverse") which is equally invisible to our observation and equally unprovable as a result...then you are essentially giving ground to the theist notion that, as it stands, there is no naturalistic explanation for fine tuning within the parameters of the observable universe (the only universe we know to exist and which we can study with scientific tools) and that answers need to be sought in unfalsifiable metaphysical realities beyond it.

Umm, I do hope that you see the "elephant in the room", so to speak, with such a bizarrely self-defeating rebuttal. To actually defeat the theistic argument, it would be far more logical to start from the premise that the universe we live in (it being the only one we actually know exists and therefore the only one we can study and scrutinize using the scientific method), is indeed the only universe and that the apparent fine tuning of this universe can be explained on its own terms, by its own "inner logic", such that we don't need to imagine or envision any greater, metaphysical realities beyond what we can actually observe and test in our search after an explanation for why the universe is the way that it is, exceedingly improbable as this would seem to be if mere chance alone is to blame, with the life-permitting physical laws (and numerical values thereof) that it has.

If you are unable to do this: which is to say, if the presumption or assumption that fine tuning has an explanation from within the parameters of our universe that does not compel one to invoke or make reference to something beyond the univetsr that we can't actually see or prove, is found to be unsatisfactory as an explanation accounting for the sheer improbability of the data; then you simply cannot dismiss the "Intelligent Design fine tuning argument" out-of-hand as a viable and philosophically sound answer to the problem.

It is certainly a logical possibility that we live in an ever expanding megaverse of unlimited physical possibilities but unfortunately no one will ever be able to provide empirical evidence based upon scientifically robust tools of observation and falsifiable testing that is indicative of the "eternal inflationary multiverse" model (on account of the particle horizon and the speed of light i.e. inflation causes the universe(s) to expand at a rate exceeding the speed of light, meaning that universes are causally disconnected at practically infinite distances making communication between them or observation of them impossible for all eternity, among other factors).

The "multiverse" is consequently a very poor answer to the theist fine tuning argument: seeking to refute an untestable but philosophically compelling notion ("the Deist God") with an equally untestable but philosophically compelling notion (an infinite multiverse of inflationary bubble universes each with randomly assigned physical laws and constants).

Multiverse propositions are therefore the ultimate in circular reasoning for an atheist-naturalist minded person to employ in countering theistic arguments based on fine tuning - amounting to intellectual disarmament of the highest order.

Also, something else merits attention here: the inflationary multiverse doesn't even get by "fine tuning" in the first instance since the "multiverse generator" and "cosmic inflation" itself (upon which the very possibility of a multiverse in space-time is predicated), would both require incredible fine tuning to operate and for the mathematical equations to work. The cure is thus worse than the disease and this has been noted by none other than Paul Steinhardt, one of the original pioneers of the "inflationary multiverse" hypothesis in the 1980s (who has since turned against it and is far more critical of the idea than I am, denying that it is even "explanatory"):


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/


Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive

Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University

Steinhardt: From the very beginning, even as I was writing my first paper on inflation in 1982, I was concerned that the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. Andy Albrecht and I (and, independently, Andrei Linde) had just discovered the way of having an extended period of inflation end in a graceful exit to a universe filled with hot matter and radiation, the paradigm for all inflationary models since. But the exit came at a cost -- fine-tuning. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.

We have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. Instead we have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities could emerge in a multiverse?).

I have to admit that I did not take the multiverse problem seriously at first even though I had been involved in uncovering it. I thought someone would figure out a resolution once the problem was revealed. That was 1983. I was wrong.

To me, the accidental universe idea (the notion that the features of the observable universe are accidental: consequences of living in this particular region of the multiverse rather than another), is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales. In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation.

Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.

If some atheists feel comfortable with the idea of explaining the problem of fine tuning and thereby quashing the suggestion of some Supremely Intelligent Designer, by having recourse to a greater, unseen reality beyond our observable universe (an infinite multiverse of inflationary bubble universes, endlessly popping into existence and where every conceivable set of physical laws and constants is realised somewhere)...a reality that is unfalsifiable and imperceptible to any instrument of measurement or analysis which could be created and utilized by humankind, putting it beyond the reach of the scientific method....then be my guest but please tell me how this doesn't amount to some kind of "faith" as described by the Book of Hebrews?


Hebrews 11: 1-3

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

So far as I can read the situation: we appear to be at an inescapable impasse with the fine tuning problem whereby our best explanations to account for it (an inflationary multiverse or God) are essentially untestable philosophical answers arising from an unspoken recognition on both sides that our best chance of addressing fine tuning is to envisage a greater, unobserved reality outside the universe because on its own terms our universe looks far too improbable, unnatural and inexplicably fortunate to exist.

That's not science, that's metaphysics (even if dressed up in sciency-sounding terminology with respect to "cosmic inflation", "the multiverse" and "string theory"). But perhaps we're left with just precisely that because these are questions for which science has no answers, limited as it is to the study of the observable, testable universe.

If the various fine tunings cannot be explained from first principles using the evidence of our own observable universe - as brute facts, out of some as-of-yet unknown physical necessity or as supreme good luck - then we may never pass beyond this great impasse.

During a recent Ted Talk, Harry Cliff, a particle physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), warned: “The next few years may tell us whether we'll be able to continue to increase our understanding of nature or whether maybe, for the first time in the history of science, we could be facing questions that we cannot answer.” He added that scientists are approaching this limit as “the laws of physics forbid” further understanding of the Universe.

Mr Cliff says that his theory is based on two numbers - the finely tuned strength of the Higgs Boson Field and the cosmological constant (the energy of the vacuum of space that causes the universe to expand) - which account for everything that the Universe is made up of, and if these numbers are slightly off, then “there would be no physical structure in the Universe.”

Mr Cliff concluded his Ted Talk by saying: “We may be entering a new era in physics. An era where there are weird features in the universe that we cannot explain. An era where we have hints that we live in a multiverse that lies frustratingly beyond our [scientific] reach. An era where we will never be able to answer the question why is there something rather than nothing.” One could equally paraphrase Mr Cliff to say: "An era where we have hints that we live in a designed universe courtesy of a Creator who lies frustratingly beyond our [scientific] reach." Hence the impasse.


Well, I would never assert that it is true.

And you are correct that we should keep our conjectures within boundaries of what we can physically observe.

So, being in agreement with you we can cross off multiverse and God from our list for the exact same reasoning.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, I would never assert that it is true.

And you are correct that we should keep our conjectures within boundaries of what we can physically observe.

So, being in agreement with you we can cross off multiverse and God from our list for the exact same reasoning.

OK, so what explanation do you propose for the apparent fine tuning of the laws of nature, constants (i.e. cosmological constant) and initial conditions of the universe (i.e. low entropy), on the basis of what we can physically observe and test, after setting aside the multiverse or a Creator as possibilities?

There is a reason why the inflationary multiverse has become very (how should I say it) "in vogue" among a good number of prominent atheist scientists and intellectuals (like Professor Sean Carroll). Part of the reason is that brute fact, anthropic reasoning by itself or accident (sheer improbable good fortune) or some as-yet unknown physical necessity are not typically deemed to be very persuasive or compelling arguments in favour of a naturalistic resolution of the fine tuning problem.

So a good number of our greatest minds have become wedded to untestable, metaphysical speculation that is only superficially different from traditional theism, simply because they cannot find a logically coherent, loophole-free explanation for fine tuning on the basis of the physical universe that we can actually observe and test. And they've made that mental "leap of faith" for very valid reasons, I have to admit; only it doesn't actually help them against theists - rather it hinders their arguments by appearing to cede ground to the logic which breeds theism, in the way I've already described in my preceding remarks.

Even the late great Christopher Hitchens conceded prior to his untimely death that fine tuning was one of the few (to his mind) genuinely thought-provoking arguments used by theists. See:

 
Last edited:

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
OK, so what explanation do you propose for the apparent fine tuning of the laws of nature, constants (i.e. cosmological constant) and initial conditions of the universe (i.e. low entropy), on the basis of what we can physically observe and test, after setting aside the multiverse or a Creator as possibilities?

There is a reason that the inflationary multiverse has become very in vogue among a good number of prominent atheist scientists and intellectuals (like Professor Sean Carroll). Part of that reason is that brute fact, anthropic reasoning by itself or accident (sheer improbable good fortune) and some as-yet unknown physical necessity are not typically deemed to be very compelling answers.

I just call it random luck or the unknown until it can be proven. We do not need to raise the level of a conjection to a theory.

This is just akin to seeing the image of God in random formations and then assuming he exists.
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
There is always a "rationalizing" away of that which God does even as they did during the times of Jesus.

Lissette had an inoperable brain tumor and was given a death sentence of months. After prayer, it shrunk and then disappeared. Doctors didn't understand why.
Evelyn had stage four cancer and given a death sentence. After prayer, it disappeared... this was years ago. Doctors didn't understand why.

The believer will say it is a miracle. The unbeliever will say that sometimes it just spontaneously reverses itself but that God was not involved.

So, @PopeADope , which one of the two categorie do you relate to?
Only prayer and not chemo or radiation?

I have my baby daughter in my lap with 104 degree fever at midnight trying to keep the temperature down with water mixed with alcohol... I say "Lord, I can't afford to take her to the hospital but if you don't do something, I will have to take her". 3 minutes later she is completely normal.
So many potential lawsuits just in that one story.

Let's say that Renee conformed to all that was outlined above. Why did she die while the others lived?
As we learn in Job, sometimes it's just because God was an insecure buttwipe and smited undeserving people because someone goaded Him into it.

Our hearts beats 72 times a minute, 100,000 times a day, 3,600,000 times a year. And, if I live what would be considered a “normal lifespan,” it will beat 2.5 billion times. It only weighs about 11 ounces yet will pump about 2,000 gallons of blood through 60,000 miles of blood vessels each day. Rather amazing, to say the least.
AND, the one true God that created each of us sustains each pumping heart for every beat. Amazing. If He doesn't exist, our hearts would not beat.
I don't understand how "heart beats, therefore God" follows. When the heart stops beating, we use CPR and AEDs, not prayer.

He does forgive... Job didn't quite understand either but came to the conclussion that regardless, God knew more than he did.
He knew He was smiting Job for a bet. God never tells him the truth about why this happened at all. He admits to Satan there is no good reason to do it, but He does it anyway.
 
Top