(April 10, 2025 at 9:51 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 10, 2025 at 5:31 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Universes are not laptops. Read your Hume, he debunked this nonsense almost 300 years ago.


And I WILL answer your question: It would be far more magical if an all-powerful Being, operating outside the constraints of time and space, created intelligence in a slipshod fashion than if natural processes did the same thing. We have mountains of evidence for the former, none for the latter.


Boru

How did the forces that caused the universe to expand operate? Were those 'natural' forces inside spacetime that hadn't come into existence yet? A laptop isn't the universe its a far less complex contrivance. If mindless natural forces can cause the universe a laptop is child's play.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Your fantasy sky daddy doesn't become compelling because you're prepared to ignore logic, and the answer "I don't know". We note you ignored your false equivalence fallacy, and this exact same arguments was already rinsed and that fallacy explained. This is coming very close to trolling now.

(April 10, 2025 at 3:00 am)Sheldon Wrote:

Quote:No it really isn't, you have claimed a deity created the universe, can you offer any explanation or objective evidence as to how:

1. That deity exists is possible?
2. Possesses the supernatural powers required? 
3. Those powers work, and are used? 

If you can't you are demonstrably appealing to magic. This is your cue to use yet another straw man, to insist I evidence how the universe came to exist from only natural phenomena, despite me explaining each and every time, that I have made no such claim. 

Are you claiming its impossible for the universe to have been caused intentionally? I ask again, what would be more magical an intelligent being operating outside of the universe to intentionally causing the universe or mindless unknown natural forces, operating outside of the universe unwittingly causing the universe and life to exist?

We don't dispute that the universe exists. We don't dispute life exists. What we dispute is how those things came into existence. I claim it was intentionally caused you claim it wasn't.

Quote:No idea what "far more magical" means, but this is yet another straw man fallacy, as no here has remotely claimed or implied this, laptops are not natural, they don't appear randomly in nature, it is an objective fact they are manmade and designed.

So a laptop isn't the result of mindless natural forces causing it to come into existence through happenstance, such as what you believe was the cause of the universe, correct? You identify a laptop as being an intentionally made contrivance. Even if you didn't know it was intentionally caused and only had the laptop to make such a determination you still wouldn't think it was the result of time and happenstance. Why? I suggest its because a laptop is extremely fine-tuned to perform computing. There are far too many components working in unison to perform a specific result. You would infer the laptop was the result of intent and planning. Likewise I infer the universe was intentionally caused and designed. Many scientists infer we live in a multiverse.

Quote: Also, it is an objective fact that natural phenomena exist, are causal, and possible, even if we don't understand what they might be, or how they worked in a particular instance.

We both agree a natural universe came into existence about 13.8 billion years ago and ultimately caused intelligent life to exist.

Quote:So whilst I can't claim the universe came about naturally, I can say they're more plausible than your claim for a creator deity using supernatural powers, as you're clearly violating Occam's razor by adding an deity, using inexplicable supernatural powers, neither of which you can demonstrate exist, or are even possible. Oh and you certainly have ignored that fact at every turn, so stop lying and projecting your dishonesty where it does not belong.

If you want to pull over Occam violators and issue a citation look no further than scientists claiming we live in a multiverse.

Occam's razor states between two competing explanations the one that invokes the fewest entities (less complex) is the preferred explanation. The caveat is that either explanation has to have explanatory power. The 'explanation' that the universe unintentionally came into existence by unknown forces that also came into existence unintentionally offers no explanation at all. Moreover it offers no explanation as to why such forces would also cause a universe in a specific configuration that allows life to exist. We also know somethings require a more complex explanation than natural forces and happenstance...such as the previously discussed laptop.

This is the problem with atheism. It doesn't offer a plausible explanation except multiverse which invokes entities to infinity any beyond!

(April 10, 2025 at 5:31 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 9, 2025 at 9:21 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Its questionable who is invoking magic. Would it be more magical for a laptop to come together and assemble itself minus any plan or intent to do so? Or is it less magical if the laptop was created by intelligent autonomous beings on purpose? You won't answer the question but its obvious. It would be far more magical and unexpected if a laptop was caused by some unheard of natural process. Nothing would be more magical than if mindless natural forces that didn't intend themselves to exist, caused a universe with all the conditions to cause life to exist, caused the laws of physics we are utterly dependent on.

The reason atheists are such a minority is because you sell a fish story few believe.

Universes are not laptops. Read your Hume, he debunked this nonsense almost 300 years ago.


And I WILL answer your question: It would be far more magical if an all-powerful Being, operating outside the constraints of time and space, created intelligence in a slipshod fashion than if natural processes did the same thing. We have mountains of evidence for the former, none for the latter.


Boru

Did you get "former" and "latter" mixed up here?

(April 10, 2025 at 11:25 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: This is the problem with atheism. It doesn't offer a plausible explanation except multiverse which invokes entities to infinity any beyond!

Atheism isn't an explanation for the origin of the universe. It is mute on that subject. It neither endorses nor rejects the multiverse hypothesis.

(April 10, 2025 at 10:41 am)Angrboda Wrote: @Drew_2013

I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence that the constants and characteristics could have been different than what they are.  Do you have any?

I did answer it only apparently to someone else.

Its funny you ask me about this because its multiverse scientists who insist the characteristics and properties of other universes are totally different than our universe. After all universes aren't intentionally designed to cause intelligent life to exist right? 

Quote:If you can't support the key premise that they could be different, then your argument for fine-tuning fails, and the conclusion that your belief that God created the universe is irrational seems warranted.

Its as warranted as ever especially if other universes (assuming others exist) are in the same exceedingly narrow configuration that causes life to exist. Cookie cutter universes look more intentionally designed to cause life than just one universe that stumbled upon the configuration.

(April 10, 2025 at 11:41 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(April 10, 2025 at 11:25 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: This is the problem with atheism. It doesn't offer a plausible explanation except multiverse which invokes entities to infinity any beyond!

Atheism isn't an explanation for the origin of the universe.   It is mute on that subject.   It neither endorses nor rejects the multiverse hypothesis.

Exactly why so few people are atheists. Then it shouldn't reject theism either.

(April 10, 2025 at 11:45 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 10, 2025 at 11:41 am)Angrboda Wrote: Atheism isn't an explanation for the origin of the universe.   It is mute on that subject.   It neither endorses nor rejects the multiverse hypothesis.

Exactly why so few people are atheists. Then it shouldn't reject theism either.

It seems like you have a personal issue with atheists because you keep circling back to them.  Your stance is entirely based on 'trust me bro'.

(April 10, 2025 at 9:59 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(April 10, 2025 at 9:51 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: How did the forces that caused the universe to expand operate? Were those 'natural' forces inside spacetime that hadn't come into existence yet? A laptop isn't the universe its a far less complex contrivance. If mindless natural forces can cause the universe a laptop is child's play.

Drew,  people have seen laptops being made.  If you happen to have the Universe making channel on your cable provider, do share. FSM Weaps.

You don't need to see one being made to reason it was intentionally caused to exist...right?

(April 10, 2025 at 11:50 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 10, 2025 at 9:59 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Drew,  people have seen laptops being made.  If you happen to have the Universe making channel on your cable provider, do share. FSM Weaps.

You don't need to see one being made to reason it was intentionally caused to exist...right?

You dropped your watch again.

(April 10, 2025 at 11:43 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 10, 2025 at 10:41 am)Angrboda Wrote: @Drew_2013

I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence that the constants and characteristics could have been different than what they are.  Do you have any?

I did answer it only apparently to someone else.

Was it in this thread, or another?

(April 10, 2025 at 11:43 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Its funny you ask me about this because its multiverse scientists who insist the characteristics and properties of other universes are totally different than our universe. After all universes aren't intentionally designed to cause intelligent life to exist right? 

From what I've seen, they suggest that it might be a possibility. However, since we have no observations of these other universes if they exist, we have no evidence one way or the other.

(April 10, 2025 at 11:43 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

Quote:If you can't support the key premise that they could be different, then your argument for fine-tuning fails, and the conclusion that your belief that God created the universe is irrational seems warranted.

Its as warranted as ever especially if other universes (assuming others exist) are in the same exceedingly narrow configuration that causes life to exist. Cookie cutter universes look more intentionally designed to cause life than just one universe that stumbled upon the configuration.

Well that's the purpose of the question, to determine whether we can meaningfully say that the value exists within a narrow range of values in which such a universe could exist. If the characteristics cannot be other than what they are, then there is no "range" in which they can very, and thus it is not meaningful to describe that as narrow or wide. This is the key mistake that people who argue fine-tuning make -- implying that the values exist within a range through which they can vary. If they cannot vary, there is no range, and thus no tuning at all, neither fine nor coarse.