(May 16, 2017 at 12:04 pm)SteveII Wrote: [quote pid='1553007' dateline='1494862141']

More bullshit answers to a simple question.  Substitute any deity and it makes as much sense.  You said in an earlier post how it bothers you when definitions are twisted to suit.  But you use the term "best" as if there is an accepted definition that fits your context.  There is no evidence of fine tuning or objective moral values, so there is no need for an "explanation" of them. [3]

1. You are just proving my point.

Riight...

2. More definitions for you...

a·pol·o·get·ics
noun
from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense"
reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.
example: "free market apologetics"

Why are you giving me definitions?  Did I use the word wrong?

However, it would make sense why your posts are so simplistic--your intention is not to defend your view of the world. 

I have nothing to defend.  My core argument IS simple - prove your beliefs.

3. No, you cannot substitute any deity into my list. 

Mohammad is not compelling. 
No other religions has ANYWHERE near the equivalent of the NT. 
Haven't heard many followers of Zeus claiming changed lives lately
And the five natural theology arguments could apply to any monotheistic God--oh wait, don't they all believe its the same God? Kind of lets all the air out of your point. 

Mohammed was a PROPHET.  And it's not really important what you've heard of happening.  There is the same amount of evidence for each.

Fine tuning is a fact not in dispute (if you think so, you do not understand the issue at all). The argument is whether chance can account for it. 
It certainly seems like there are objective moral values. The only reason to say there is not is because of a presupposition of naturalism--which is question begging.

You're right, it's not in dispute.  As evidence for your god, it's laughable.  There "seem" to objective moral values? My reason for saying there aren't any is there aren't any, unless they are defined as so vague to be meaningless.
[/quote]

(May 16, 2017 at 12:13 pm)Cyberman Wrote: What is the explanation of "God"?

Necessity.

You need "God"? Or your arguments do?

(May 16, 2017 at 1:04 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 16, 2017 at 12:13 pm)Cyberman Wrote: What is the explanation of "God"?

Necessity.

Just because you need him, don't mean he exists.

(May 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm)Cyberman Wrote: You need "God"? Or your arguments do?

To be more clear. The reason God exists, i.e. the 'explanation', is that in order for any conditioned thing to exist, there must necessarily be at least one unconditioned reality.

And even if that were true, that it's 'God' doesn't follow.

---

SteveII Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Why WOULDN'T there be something instead of nothing? [1]

No one knows for sure how the universe came into being, and it's profoundly stupid or mendacious to think that anyone could give any other answer honestly. [2]

That the universe is fine-tuned to support human life is a claim based on a thought experiment. You don't know the probabilities and neither does anyone else. No one knows if the universal constants could have been any value at all, a narrowly prescribed range of values, or have to be the way they are by necessity. We don't know if this is the only universe or one out of trillions. [3]

It's the nature of actual evidence that it stands up to scrutiny and leads to a particular conclusion. If the same evidence 'supports' mutually exclusive conclusions, it's not really evidence. [4]

1. Because everything that exists has a explanation of it's existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or an external cause). So, what is the explanation that there is anything at all? 

That there is an explanation in no way entitles us to know what it is, though we seem to suffer more from a surfeit of possible natural explanations rather than a lack of them. If you claim that my acknowledging the simple fact that the explanation for the universe is unknown in any way supports your contention that the explanation is God, that is a classic argument from ignorance.

SteveII Wrote:2. I did not ask how the universe (or multiverse) came into being. I asked how it came into being out of 'nothing'. Two very different questions. The first being filled with technical explanations and the second simply asking for the metaphysical explanation how nothing produced an eventual universe.

There's no reason to suppose that the universe came from literal philosophical nothingness, but if it did, pray tell what property does philosophical nothingness possess that prevents a universe from coming from it?

SteveII Wrote:3.  No, the universe is finely tuned to support life (a fact not in question). I have never seen anywhere a serious scientist say that it is the way it is by necessity (correct me if I am wrong) so the only available naturalistic explanation is to appeal to chance--with or without a multiverse. Because the probability is so low, most appeal to a multiverse. Ironically however, the multiverse itself must be finetuned (I posted this a while back)

The universe is so hostile to life that out of the other side of their mouths, apologists claim it's a miracle that it exists on earth. You could equally argue that God designed the universe to be hostile to life because 99.99 (many more nines)% of its volume would kill most life as we know it in under five minutes. The anthropic principle is a fact: if the universe didn't allow for our existence, we wouldn't be here (except in a universe with an actual God who wanted us here, since it would have no requirement that the universe permit our existence to establish us) to wonder about it. Fine-tuning is an argument that the universe allowing us (or another form of life) to exist anywhere at all is so unlikely that it shouldn't exist at all. And as I said, it's based on a thought experiment. We don't know if the universal constants could have been different. We don't know how much they could have been different by if they could have been different. We don't know if they have relationships that relate their values such that if one has one value, another must have a specific related value. Our sample size is one. The thought experiment is based on a series of ifs and we can't conclude that we know what the odds of our universe holding life are, based on it.

We live in a universe that allows us to live, the only kind of universe that doesn't require a super-powerful being to explain our being able to live in it. Coincidence?

[quote pid='1553939' dateline='1495036457']

SteveII Wrote:3.  No, the universe is finely tuned to support life (a fact not in question). I have never seen anywhere a serious scientist say that it is the way it is by necessity (correct me if I am wrong) so the only available naturalistic explanation is to appeal to chance--with or without a multiverse. Because the probability is so low, most appeal to a multiverse. Ironically however, the multiverse itself must be finetuned (I posted this a while back)

[/quote]

Please explain how you calculated this low probability.

(May 16, 2017 at 4:20 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm)Cyberman Wrote: You need "God"? Or your arguments do?

To be more clear. The reason God exists, i.e. the 'explanation', is that in order for any conditioned thing to exist, there must necessarily be at least one unconditioned reality.

Your arguments, then.

That is the argument. The alternative is absurd. If all of reality is conditioned then nothing could exist.

(May 18, 2017 at 9:56 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That is the argument. The alternative is absurd. If all of reality is conditioned then nothing could exist.

More like an assertion to me.