|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3855 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can science say anything about a Creator God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
I can see that Fine Tuning seems to require an explanation, but it doesn't require that we have to have a good explanation right now, and I agree with Rees and others in thinking that the multiverse is presently the best explanation we have.
If your argument goes anywhere beyond that you'll have to present it because the evidence that you've mentioned so far won't get you there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: That would specifically be for life as we see it on Earth, not the more general concept of life. So I think that you already have a big problem there. Not to mention the fact that the oxygen content of Earth's atmosphere is more a consequence of life than a requirement for it. (And as a side note, doesn't Ross argue for at least some of THOSE conditions as an example of "fine tuning" too ? If our universe needs divine assistance to produce suitable conditions for life then it isn't as finely tuned as you'd like to say). Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: You're missing both more exotic possibilities - and not considering that changing constants could enable different forms of life.
quote: Hugh Ross seems to argue that the Earth is unique in the universe. And my logic is fine. If the universe isn't capable of producing something then it obviously isn't fine-tuned to produce that thing. At least not successfully.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: How? That seems to be absurd. I'm not talking about a simple change in chemistry but something radically different.
quote: I guess that I should be flattered that you confuse me with Hugh Ross, but I'm not. I'm simply arguing that successful fine tuning to produce a particular outcome should actually produce that outcome. No sane person should disagree with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Why should I read a paper about the possibility of silicon-based life when I'm not talking about silicon-based life?
quote: How does that show that what I actually said was wrong? I didn't even say anything about religious people in general.
quote: That is certainly not MY assumption. I guess you're thinking of the idea that the "fine-tuned" constants apply to all of our universe. But I don't see why you'd want to disagree with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think you have the question wrong.
The question is, is it more plausible that the most basic part of reality is simple or a massively complex ordered entity ? I'll go with simple, because assuming unexplained complexity and order is just asking to be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Not really.
quote: So this intelligent first cause is composed of these particles and is more likely to come together by "chance" than a hydrogen atom. I somehow think that this view requires even more faith.
quote: If you call all alternatives to an intelligent cause is "blind chance" then it is obviously more plausible that the complexity we see developed slowly through the mechanisms that we have at least some knowledge and understanding of than that a greater complexity just popped into existence through "blind chance" and then directed all the rest. Really you can't argue that atoms are too complex to form without an intelligent cause and then argue that an intelligent being - more complex than a human being - could just pop into existence. It's completely absurd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Of course it is not "linear" thinking yep that you object to- it is thinking about the question of how a God could exist at all that you are desperately trying to avoid. Indeed your "explanation" explains nothing - it is a transparent excuse for avoiding the issue. Which I suppose is better than the self-contradiction of your earlier argument. Indeed I think we should put you forward as good evidence for atheism. The mere fact that you are reduced to the desparate clutching at straws we see here demonstrates the irrationality of theistic belief in a way that would be hard to do by intellectual argument. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
What you're missing is that you aren't offering ANY explanation of how this incredibly complex entity could exist. All you're doing is hand waving.
It's pretty clear that you know that your position is rationally indefensible, that's why you don't even attempt to really address the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: An intellectually honest person would at least admit that they had no answer and accept that it had a serious impact in the plausibility of their view.
quote: Even if that is true it isn't relevant it's more an argument against the idea that our universe requires a cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Personally I'd say that you were trying to CREATE a gap to fill. Your whole argument assumes that existing explanations - even for the existence of atoms!!! - are so inadequate that simply assuming this entity is MORE plausible.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That may be what you wanted to say, but you said a whole lot of things that are very different. Certainly you argued that it is implausible that atoms could form without intelligent direction. Quite frankly it is hard to avoid the conclusion that your idea of plausibility has a lot more to do with attempting to justify your beliefs than any considered analysis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
In other words you hold that "blind chance" is much more likely to arrange the basic particles into a highly ordered intelligence capable of shaping our universe than it is to produce something as relatively simple as a hydrogen atom.
I don't really think that many people would share this view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
But your plausibility assertion is based on the very claim that you now say that you don't agree with. And the post you referred back to said nothing about first causes at all. So it seems that you don't even understand your own posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Ah, the usual gambit of pushing the question back until we run out of answers so you can wheel out the conclusion you want to reach. That's not rational thought, that's just the rationalisation of dodgy apologetics. Because if we found any answer other than God you'd just ask why THAT exists. Your arguing strategy is designed to end up with that one answer - and then arbitrarily stop. It's really quite transparent.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024