It seems to me that some Christians on here do not understand Atheists

[Reggie Miller]

Of course.

The real problem here is that everyone else is talking about the atheists who exist outside of your anxious, dissonant mind.

Perhaps a nice pink bow will help you to feel better.

 

[Reggie Miller]

You can't prove that no purple walrus juggling skulls on Mars doesn't exist, but you don't believe it does.
That's because we don't keep encyclopedias of things that can't be disproven, and that would be a silly way to believe. The onus is on you to prove a god exists, not on the atheist to disprove one (unless the atheist is saying gods CAN'T exist, and most atheists don't. Merely that they see no reason to believe one does.)

For you perhaps a spool of thread since you do seem to enjoy weaving your way through your posts.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

For you perhaps a spool of thread since you do seem to enjoy weaving your way through your posts.

I think the barber pole you posted is more apt, since I cut to the chase.

 

[ArtieE]

I already spent more than enough time pointing out the huge amount of differences to indicate to any rational persons that what is true of one probability has nothing to do with another type. If your still posting this same issue here then you are not interested in reasonable discussions about these issues. Yes both are improbable, but one is unimaginably more improbable than the other and they are two very different types of improbability which makes any comparison meaningless.

I don't see any difference between saying that the universe would have to be fine tuned for life to exist and saying the universe would have to be fine tuned for you to exist. Can you calculate the probability of a universe with exactly you in it existing by chance?

 

[Reggie Miller]

I think the barber pole you posted is more apt, since I cut to the chase.

Yeah. Tobad you're just chasing your tail.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yeah. Tobad you're just chasing your tail.

I don't chase fantasies. That's your job.

 

[1robin]

I don't see any difference between saying that the universe would have to be fine tuned for life to exist and saying the universe would have to be fine tuned for you to exist. Can you calculate the probability of a universe with exactly you in it existing by chance?

This is not really a complaint but you post very similar things to the best internet troll in history (Ken M). You might want to check him out, he is the funniest troll, ever. Anyway:

If I remember correctly I have posted over and over again that those two types of statistics are not that similar. I even think I posted a few reasons why. One being that there is a physical necessity for humans to produce human DNA where as there is no physical necessity why the universe has the values it does, or why it even exists at all. What chance does nothing have to produce any amount or type of anything. The answer is zero percent. So if you ever want to finally come out and admit your using them as if they were similar then you must state why they are despite being radically different.

 

[JustWondering]

So you did not like what the actual science was, so you left science all together to swim in the deep end of the metaphysical speculation pool. You find any evidence of more than our own universe existing, then get back to me.

I'm not a physicist but it seems the debate about whether a multiverse exists or not is ongoing. I don't know if one exists or not. You on the other hand seem to have a strong belief that only one universe can exist. What evidence is this belief based on exactly?

Sorry, 'Flash' Fans - There's No Evidence For A Multiverse Yet

Do you know that the philosophers who examined the teleological argument predicted that anyone who is so desperate to escape the conclusions of the science we actually have to do anything would appeal to multiple universes or mistakenly say that my argument has anything to do with carbon based life forms.

You went on a rant earlier that scientists are not allowed to offer philosophy, yet you're ok with philosophers offering arguments concerning science. Your line of reasoning seems kind of hypocritical to me.

I dealt with multiple universes so now I will address other life forms. My argument did not have anything to do with any specific life form, my arguments among other things have to do with a universe having any structures at all for life forms to live on. You tell me how life could exist in a universe without material entities in it and only then will I discuss it further. You are really desperate aren't you?

Your imagination must be staggeringly limited. Since we don't fully understand how life came about in this universe there is hardly any way to understand what life would possibly even be like in a universe with alien physics.

 

[JustWondering]

Of course, but if it was it could not have supported any kind of life. You can not have any life of any kind in a universe which expanded so fast that it never formed material bodies in it, or that expended so slowly that it collapsed long before anything could even begin to evolve. Do you have any idea what the stages of a life permitting universe must be? Everything from cosmological, chemical, to biological events that require an unimaginably improbable series of events balanced on a razors edge which must all occur at exactly the right time in exactly the right way.

So how could it have been different? What is the evidence that the expansion rate could have been anything other than what it is?

 

[JustWondering]

You previously asked the same thing. I can invent a theory that we all live in the eyeball of a giant. It does not matter if theories exist. It matters what the justification is for a theory. Theories about other universes are simply preferences who's only merit is that no one can prove it is impossible, but then again you can not disprove the theory I made up, yet no one believes it. Why the double standards? They are strong indicators of a failed argument.

From your posts so far you are purposely avoiding or do not even grasp my argument.

 

[JustWondering]

I said that after I recalled you recent debating history concerning me. Your the one who's original post to me stated that I quit debates after you proved things. That is a lie, so you began by being uncivil but I was just curious to see if you could actually do what you said you had done so I debated you anyway. I found the exact opposite of what you claimed you could do was actually the case. So despite your lying about me and then hypocritically doing exactly what you wrongly accused me of doing, I still debated you. So whatever lack of civility you think I have exhibited (surprise surprise) you started it and lacked even more. So I decided to debate you in the same manner you have been doing with me until I grow bored. I will be just about as civil as you are with me.

I can't remember the thread we debated in before, it was years ago. However, when the argument didn't go your way you began to posture and insult instead of posting things relevant to the debate. What I find amusing is that you, the Christian, should be turning the other cheek if someone isn't being nice anyway. I don't really expect self described Christians to actually follow Jesus's teachings, most of them don't.

 

[SkepticX]

Perhaps a nice pink bow will help you to feel better.

My bad ... shouldn't have been so frank.

I keep forgetting that younger types can get on these forums just like anyone else--got to remember to modify my expectations of others' behavior based upon a different set of cues regarding their age since the normal live and in person cues aren't there.

 

[1robin]

I'm not a physicist but it seems the debate about whether a multiverse exists or not is ongoing. I don't know if one exists or not. You on the other hand seem to have a strong belief that only one universe can exist. What evidence is this belief based on exactly?

That is like saying the debate about whether we all live in a giants eye ball is still on going. There does not exist a single piece of evidence that suggests more than one universe exist but all the evidence we do have does suggest that our universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago. If you want that evidence and the arguments that go along with it then look up the most accepted cosmological model of the universe which was created by all non-theistic scientists. It is called the borde guth vilenkin theorem and is the most accepted model since the BBT. If you read this link you will find out what it is, what it is based upon, and also see a very well credentialed philosopher explain its ramification.

However a few points.

1. The only merit the idea of multiverses has is that no one can prove they are impossible, which is the same as Bigfoot, unicorns, fairies, the Greek humors, and the giant's eye theories.
2. Even if another universe exists you nor anyone else will ever know it.
3. Even if they exist and even if we could ever know it. It changes nothing, you still have the same situation. Multi universes simply kick the can down the road a bit further and leave you in need of an explanation for them as well.

Sorry, 'Flash' Fans - There's No Evidence For A Multiverse Yet

Since the title of this link suggests it leads to an argument which proves what I claimed I do not understand why you supplied it.

You went on a rant earlier that scientists are not allowed to offer philosophy, yet you're ok with philosophers offering arguments concerning science. Your line of reasoning seems kind of hypocritical to me.

That is not what I said or did. I mentioned that philosophers simply take the arguments from science and then extrapolate philosophical arguments from them. For example professor Craig among others took the scientific data that secular scientists said exist and must be exactly so and then examined whether physical necessity explains them, or whether the principles of cause and effect, and sufficient causation can be invoked when contemplating the explanation. I in fact used 5 well respected secular scientists to make the scientific case and I used well established secular philosophic principles to evaluate the scientific data. Or concerning the cosmological argument I ignore the fine tuning and instead use secular scientific data as it applies to the universe beginning to exist a finite time ago, then I shift to philosophic arguments concerning the scientific data to extrapolate further. So I am using the exact type of scholar that should be used for the argument or data I post.

Your imagination must be staggeringly limited. Since we don't fully understand how life came about in this universe there is hardly any way to understand what life would possibly even be like in a universe with alien physics.

My mind is perfectly adequate for the issues under discussion but unless I was mentally challenged my level of intelligence is irrelevant. The reason why I know about everything involved with these arguments and I keep having to explain elementary things to you just to get you to the point where you can hope to make a challenging counter argument. That is the specific reason I thought I ended our discussion several weeks ago. I can not keep going back to kindergarten and bringing you up to speed so that you can effective discuss these issues. The following is just one example of my having to try and get you caught up to merely a freshman level. BTW I also have 2 degrees in mathematics and am a senior in secondary mathematics education from the same university Von Braun worked from and which pioneered the Apollo rockets. However the qualification that is the most relevant and which you lack, is my having spent decades almost obsessed with watching professors develop these arguments and debate each other. I used to spend at least 20 hours a weak watching debates or reading transcripts and books about these issues.

Anyway,

1. As far as multiple universes go. Which by the way is always the last shriek a die hard non-theist makes when he cannot respond to the evidence we actually have. I have even predicted that arguments were going to wind up with that absurd conclusion before I even began.
2. There is no reason what so ever for anyone to think more than one universe exists, and worse, there never will be even if they do in fact exist.
3. The only merit the idea that multiple universes exist is that no one can prove they are impossible. In academics you cannot even put forth a theory unless the theory is falsifiable. multiple universe are even worse, they cannot be confirmed or proven false and they never can be. I predict that you have no idea why this is but I can only bring you up to speed a little at a time.
4. Even if the other universes no one has any reason to believe they exist and no evidence for them exist, actually exist it makes no actual difference to my argument.
5. Also multiple universe are not a scientific issue since no one has or ever will be able to detect them even if they exist. They are a philosophic and / or a metaphysical issue.
6. So I start of with the scientific data that secular scientists have collected and then I use the philosophic conclusions of professional philosophers. You cannot counter anything I said with science or philosophy and so you must retreat completely out of the actual universe, actual science, or evidence, and into speculative metaphysical fantasies which is even more absurd than appealing to Big foot or fairies.
7. Lastly, physics is thought to be and almost certainly is based upon objective, universal, and transcendent facts which exist necessarily in all possible worlds. "Necessary" here referring to modal logic. Another subject you do not seem to even be aware of. They are also properly basic in the philosophical sense of the terms, another subject you constantly require me to familiarize you with.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I could not recall whether I had ended our debate or not. However I am going to start the same process again and if you can't pick up your game and stop requiring me to teach you enough to even debate these issues soon, I will end our discussion with certainty this time.

 

[1robin]

So how could it have been different? What is the evidence that the expansion rate could have been anything other than what it is?

How many times do I have to say that no one has ever been able to point to any physical necessity for the values I posted? There does not even seem to be the potential of ever finding one because a universe popping into existence has no prior physical states. I can't keep going back to the basics in the hope you eventually will get it. So please look up the philosophical issue referred to as creation ex nihilo. Yes that argument goes back to the days Latin was the dominant language, and even back earlier to the Greeks. I expect you to at least be familiar with basic arguments made over 3000 years ago.

 

[1robin]

From your posts so far you are purposely avoiding or do not even grasp my argument.

Have you ever noticed that it is primarily racists who complain of racism, thieves who worry about theft, liars who think others are lying, and that the most arrogant are those with the least reason to be, etc......? In your case you opened up with your initial post accusing me of getting out of debates with you when I could not counter your logical arguments, yet your the one who is actually doing it. I was pretty sure that was going to be the case and so my only interest in debating you was to see if your were being hypocritical. I have more than confirmed this many times over.

1. I spend most of my time either trying to explain the simplest of principles which are the mere foundations for the age old arguments I have posted or I have had to straighten out your misunderstandings over and over.
Exactly how long am I supposed to try and bring up to speed on the basics of arguments that have stood the test of time for centuries?
2. I have been researching even the best counter arguments to my own, but your arguments are not even on the map.
3. Until I either I decide I have had enough of trying to get you to at least understand what the age old arguments are or you finally manage to make a post that causes me to think I am going to stop posting the details of arguments and instead simply tell you which ones you need to investigate for your self.
4. In this case look up Paley's natural theology (the watch makers argument).
5. Your claims of my either not getting your arguments or being overwhelmed by them is pathetic. If I do not get your arguments it is because they make no sense, they make elementary mistakes which ruin them, or they are too silly to even respond to.
6. Stop falsely accusing me of having done exactly what you in fact are doing over and over.
7. I do not care about your accusations, your hypocrisy, nor do I want you to agree with me. I am here to be challenged by effective argumentation or at least to have a discussion by a minimally educated poster that is familiar with simplistic and well known arguments. I can put up with a lot if I get either of those, but I will not put up with too much for too long if you cannot do either.

You are on borrowed time, pick it up or I will terminate our discussion.

 

[1robin]

I can't remember the thread we debated in before, it was years ago. However, when the argument didn't go your way you began to posture and insult instead of posting things relevant to the debate. What I find amusing is that you, the Christian, should be turning the other cheek if someone isn't being nice anyway. I don't really expect self described Christians to actually follow Jesus's teachings, most of them don't.

I will not entertain your hypocritical accusations unless you post the evidence for them. In fact at this point I will no longer even respond to your hypocrisy concerning some former debate, since I have satisfied myself your accusation could not have possibly ever been true. I seldom see a poster as unqualified to debate what they attempted to as you have in this thread.

As far as your using scriptures out of a book you have probably never read, you (par for the course) are way out of your depth.

1. Christ told his own priests they were a brood of vipers and could not hope to escape Hell.
2. He also said that Christians are not to cast pearls before swine.
3. I am firmly on solid biblical foundations for growing tired of an inept and hypocritical poster, and ending a discussion after giving you every benefit of the doubt.
4. However even if I wasn't being obedient to Christ, since Christians are the only group of believer who began their faith upon the admission of our having failed to meet God's standard. None of us are perfectly obedient but Christians more than any similar group actually admit it.

Your doing bad enough in the fields of science and philosophy, don't make it any worse but trying to quote what you are apparently unqualified to understand and apply properly. Why dig even more graves for yourself?

The time has been reached where you get one more round to show you are even familiar with the arguments you are ineffectually denying. Last chance, good luck and Merry Christmas.

 

[ArtieE]

1. The only merit the idea of multiverses has is that no one can prove they are impossible, which is the same as Bigfoot, unicorns, fairies, the Greek humors, and the giant's eye theories.

Or god theories.

2. Even if another universe exists you nor anyone else will ever know it.
3. Even if they exist and even if we could ever know it. It changes nothing, you still have the same situation. Multi universes simply kick the can down the road a bit further and leave you in need of an explanation for them as well.

Like god theories. Still waiting for an explanation why gods would exist in the first place.

6. So I start of with the scientific data that secular scientists have collected and then I use the philosophic conclusions of professional philosophers. You cannot counter anything I said with science or philosophy and so you must retreat completely out of the actual universe, actual science, or evidence, and into speculative metaphysical fantasies which is even more absurd than appealing to Big foot or fairies.

You mean Big foot or fairies or gods?

 

[JustWondering]

How many times do I have to say that no one has ever been able to point to any physical necessity for the values I posted? There does not even seem to be the potential of ever finding one because a universe popping into existence has no prior physical states. I can't keep going back to the basics in the hope you eventually will get it. So please look up the philosophical issue referred to as creation ex nihilo. Yes that argument goes back to the days Latin was the dominant language, and even back earlier to the Greeks. I expect you to at least be familiar with basic arguments made over 3000 years ago.

We keep getting sidetracked. So I will ignore the ex nihilo tangent and stay focused this time.

Your fine tuning argument began with the claim that there are 10^500 different variables that need to be what they are for our universe to be as it is. Your argument insists that the universe must be fine tuned for this reason. My problems with this boil down to:

1. You have not provided anything to make me believe that these variables could be anything but what they are. If unknown natural laws resulted in the universe turning out the way it did than obviously there was no fine tuning.

2. Assuming that any of these variables could have been different in someway doesn't really prove the universe is fine tuned. All that would mean is that out of all the equally possible ways the universe could exist it exists in this form, that's it.

Unless you can provide something to reasonably counter one or both of the above points I'm not sold on your fine tuning argument.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I don't see any difference between saying that the universe would have to be fine tuned for life to exist and saying the universe would have to be fine tuned for you to exist. Can you calculate the probability of a universe with exactly you in it existing by chance?

I am sorry, but isn't the probability of a universe with exactly you existing in it by chance, be 100%, since such a universe already exist.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Of course, but if it was it could not have supported any kind of life. You can not have any life of any kind in a universe which expanded so fast that it never formed material bodies in it, or that expended so slowly that it collapsed long before anything could even begin to evolve. Do you have any idea what the stages of a life permitting universe must be? Everything from cosmological, chemical, to biological events that require an unimaginably improbable series of events balanced on a razors edge which must all occur at exactly the right time in exactly the right way.

If I throw 1000 quarters into the air, there are 499500 different combinations of heads or tails in which they can land. Any one of the combinations are a rare event given the number of different combinations, but the quarters have to land in one of them.