Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

Between the two of us, you're the one that has proposed, directly or indirectly, the following things:1) That F/A-18's popping out of volcanoes is proof of God;
2) That, through mystical mathematics, you can make observations of alternate universes;
3) That when stuffy academics assert things, we should accept them without question - unless they're the other guy's academicsAnd you think my arguments are ridiculous? Hint - belittling your opponent from a position so radically opposed to logic and sense doesn't make you look all that professional.

A f-18 formed by geology would appear to be a miracle. However, we don't find anything like that. We find biological organisms of greater complexity than a f-18 formed by the process of natural selection and mutation - and there is no miracle in that. The organisms produced by evolution scream it from their every feature from the structure of their smallest cells to the nature of their behaviour.I find your analogy stupid because it compares completely different things.

JasonChin This statement of crashfrog relates to intelligent beings arguing about the likelihood of our universe in which free quarks do not exist and gravity is extremely weak.You state that it is not.Let us see how weak it is.It takes a body the size of planet Earth to produce a sufficient gravitational acceleration to break the electromagentic bond holding the apple's stem to a branch. Now ask yourself how hard it is for you to accomplish the same task and then tell us again that gravity is not weak.This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-12-2004 07:34 AM

I agree that life on Earth appears to be a miracle, regardless of it's origin, i.e. as a natural property of matter, or designed by God. The chance of the earth producing an F18, is as likely as the earth growing a human from a seed - very improbably.

Maybe your parents didn't have this little talk with you, but humans don't grow from seeds.

Strawman.

The crux of this entire argument seems to me to be entirely flawed. The idea is that the series of events needed to have occurred for human life to have developed is highly unlikely, thus an intervening agent or creator is needed. This argument is the same one used over and over by creationists. It is merely being applied to a cosmological scale here. The idea is flawed in that it assumes that human life is somehow a desired outcome instead of a random one.To explain, consider rolling a 10 sided dice (makes the math easier). You decide to do so ten times. You get the series 1,8,2,7,6,10,1,5,3,4. That is an entirely normal outcome of the random process. To look at this result and be stunned by the simply calculated fact that there is only a 1 in 10,000,000,000 chance of that exact result is completely facile.Using the dice, some number had to come up. No one result is any more remarkable then any other, yet each is very unlikely. The same holds for the universe. Given that the universe (or by extension any preconditions needed for the existence of the universe) exists, it is utterly unremarkable that it ended up producing human life. That's just what happened.

quote:

---

By saying "that's just the way nature is", that's EXACTLY what you're doing.

---

Since I never claimed that either, your above text is pointless. Regardless, to be equivalent of your claims one would need to state nature is without need of an explanation due to some ascribed magic or supernatural properties. I don't believe anyone on these forums has made such an inane statement.

quote:

---

Ok, it's called "the Big Bang". You might've heard of it.

---

And?

quote:

---

Conversly, if you find an uncaused God unbelievable, see if you can actually demonstrate it is impossible.

---

Since I haven't argued against the deity in question, it is not my responsibility to show how the concept is impossible. I have merely questioned that rather thoughtless and intellectually dishonest remark you posted. Please follow.This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-12-2004 12:38 PM

If you can answer these two questions: Why does the universe exist? Why do the universe's natural laws exist?These questions stand regardless of any multiple universe theories, regardless of geologic f-18s, and regardless of any meaningless post hoc attempt at figuring the probabilities. I have yet to see an athiest or agnostic answer them.I have heard many say that it is futile to answer the question of "why?" with belief in God, because this is fruitless for our understanding of the universe. They would rather insist that, were it physically possible, humans could find a "natural" cause for the universe. But all that is "natural" is contained within and governed by the natural laws of the universe, therefore it is impossible to find a natural cause for nature. I see no way to explain the existence of "natural" phenomena of the universe without believing in a supernatural cause: God.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 10-12-2004 03:10 PM

Hi Hangdawg,
1. Why does the Universe exist? why not?
2. Why does the Universe's natural laws exist? Because it can be no other way. If it were then that would be what we would observe. And many see no reason to insert a supernatural cause onto something that exist in regardless of humanity being here or not.
We matter only because WE say we matter. Nature cares not if bacteria inhabit the universe or man.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Thanks for your reply. Translation:
Why does the universe exist? I don't know.
Why do the universe's natural laws exist? Just cuz.sorry... no cookie for you. I did not even insert man, or bacteria, or f-18s into the questions. The questions deal solely with the existence of the universe and its laws.

DARN!!
1. why does the unverse exist? God did it.
2. why does the natural laws of the unverse exist? God did it.can I have muh cookie now????

Your argument from personal incredulity, Hangdawg13, is clearly irrelevant. That you see a deity as the only explanation for the existence of the universe is no evidence for the existence of a deity.However, you pose two questions I will address. "Why does the universe exist?" and "Why do the universes natural laws exist?"The underlying assumption that it appears must be made to even ask your two questions is that the existence of the universe and the ways in which it works somehow require a purpose. If one does not assume that some metaphysical purpose is needed, then the answer to both questions is "For no reason or purpose, they merely are."Since you do pose the two questions, it appears you do hold the assumption I stated above. If I am wrong, please let me know. That being the case, I would be forced to question your assumption. What reason can you give for accepting the premise as given that the universe requires a "purpose".A definition of purpose in this context would also be welcome.

Awww... sorry man, I got hungry... Just ate the last one.

Thank you for your reply. I didn't say my argument was evidence. I have accepted the fact that it is impossible to scientifically prove God. I think I understand what you are saying. The meaning of the word "purpose" implies that a conscious being desired it. So if there is a purpose for the universe, then it follows there must be a conscious being that desires it. Since a purpose is inherent in the answer to the question of "why?", it is impossible to answer the questions of "why?" without believing in God. This is why I believe in God.You said that if one does not assume that some metaphysical purpose is needed, then the answer to both questions is "For no reason or purpose, they merely are."So your answer to this question is also: "just cuz", and you are content to ignore those two questions. Of course I realize as I just stated above that you cannot answer the two questions unless you believe in God.If you'll allow me to equivocate here... You could also tie the less loaded question of "how?" into it, because I think they become one in the same when trying to understand why/how there is something rather than nothing, and why/how the laws of the universe exist. Why implies a purpose, but how deals only with the mechanics. Let me replace the "why" with "how" in the two questions. I still hold that it is impossible to answer these questions with a "natural" answer. Suppose a million years from now scientists discover the theory of everything. This theory would find the ultimate natural law that describes the universe. Could this theory also explain its own existence? It cannot.