(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.





Boru

Debunked simply means people (atheists) disagreed with what he said. Furthermore in his time it wasn't known to the degree that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Quote: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.

Do you know of some force inside spacetime that caused spacetime to exist? We have mountains of evidence that natural forces came into existence. That tells us nothing about what caused them to exist or why the myriad of exacting properties and characteristics for life obtained.

You don't have a decent counter explanation and that's why few people claim to be atheists.

(April 10, 2025 at 11:55 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(April 10, 2025 at 11:43 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: I did answer it only apparently to someone else.

Quote:Was it in this thread, or another?

I'm not sure but I also fouled up the name of the person I responded too...I have 26 responses I try to get to them.

Quote: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.

Exactly. So whether other universes are the same or different is a moot point.

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

Quote: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.

They would still be in just as narrow a range as ever only now you're saying for some reason, they had to be in that narrow range. I believe it was designed to be in that narrow range and if other universes are the same that just more evidence it was intentionally caused. I'm pointing out this is a bad argument.

So I guess Drew's current broken-record reactionary tactic will be 'so few are atheists' because all his other arguments have failed.

How sad. May FSM unharden your heart Drew

Quote:Sheldon: 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. 

Quote:Drew: Are you claiming its impossible for the universe to have been caused intentionally?

So you completely ignore my 3 questions, then expect me to answer a question that I have a) answered several times already, and b) is a clear attempt to straw man me. Fuck me, I even emboldened that fact in the post you quoted man!? WTF?

Quote:Drew: 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,

Ah, so you're not going to explain what "more magical" means? Just rhetoric then, thought so. Natural phenomena are the antithesis of magic, we already know they can be explained, we have done so time and again. Supernatural on the other hand, is actually in the the definition of magic. Look the definition up, and for once have the integrity to admit this at least. 

Quote:Drew: We don't dispute that the universe exists. We don't dispute life exists. 

I never said you did, not once? 

Quote:Drew: What we dispute is how those things came into existence. I claim it was intentionally caused you claim it wasn't.

I have never made any such claim. 

Quote:Drew: So a laptop isn't the result of mindless natural forces causing it to come into existence through happenstance, 

Whoever claimed it was? 

Quote:Drew: such as what you believe was the cause of the universe, correct?

Nope, how many times do you need this explained? Disbelieving a claim, is not the same as making a contrary claim. 

Quote:Drew: 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. 

Another straw man, I know it is designed, and manmade, and I already explained this, so please, ease up on the bullshit lies there's a good chap. I duly note yet again, you have failed to address your false equivalence fallacy, laptops do not involve the supernatural, nor do they occur randomly in nature, they are manmade and designed. So you're plagiarising of Paley's watchmaker fallacy is fallacious, and for the same reason his argument was. And stop telling me what I think, there's a good chap. 

Quote:Drew: I infer the universe was intentionally caused and designed.

You can infer it was made by mischievous leprechauns for all I care, you have no objective evidence any deity exists or is possible, or anything supernatural. 

Quote:Sheldon: 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. 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. 

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

Straight to handwaving and irrational whataboutism, you're consistent fair play. You failed to address one single word, try again. Do you need bigger letters? 

Quote:Drew: This is the problem with atheism. It doesn't offer a plausible explanation

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy yet again, lets try big letters again then:
Atheism is not a claim, nor does it make any claims, it no more has to explain anything, than not believing in fucking mermaids does. You are making a claim, you have to support it, and you cannot. No one has to offer an alternative. 

(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.

You miss the point. A laptop (or a pocket watch) is a demonstrably manufactured thing you can quite literally watch them being made. No one has ever seen a universe being made. This is, and always has been a false analogy.

Again, I suggest you read Hume’s A Treatise On Human Understanding. It’s a bit heavy going, but very valuable in pointing out the flaws in your argument.

Boru

Tell you what. I'll do a 180 on my stance if Order comes back and posts his "proof' in the thread

@Drew_2013

Quote:Furthermore in his time it wasn't known to the degree that the universe is fine-tuned for life. 

It still isn’t. 

Boru

(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.

So most people believe in deities, because they are accepting irrational arguments, using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies? I am glad it was you that said that.

What a spectacular own goal.

(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?

No. very very wrong, you may be happy to reach conclusions and base beliefs on not knowing something, but you're wrong to project that idiocy onto others. If I didn't know what a laptop was, then I wouldn't know what a fucking laptop was, this is not a basis for drawing conclusions and forming beliefs, why is this sound epistemological fact beyond theists to fathom?

I base belief on sufficient knowledge, not on no fucking knowledge, that's absurdly stupid.

This is like reading through trying to explain things to a petulant child.

It's almost painful.