If all science was wrong there still would not be a reason to believe in a god.

There were atheists before there were scientists.

There seems to be a tendency for theists to link atheism to this or that tenet of science then attack it. This tack makes no sense to me because I am not an atheist because of science but because hypothosis of the christian god is silly.

genkaus Wrote:I think you are confusing cognitive facilities with something else. "Experiencing the divine" sounds like an emotional state - not a cognitive one.

True, it could be an emotional state, but no, I was referring to being able to perceive personal experiences as valid or not. For example, a poster came by here once claiming that he had become unsure of god's existence and was having doubts about his faith, however, he still went to church. One day he was surrounded by church members who started praying for him, and he felt an overwhelming warm presence that he concluded must be god. I believe he even said he was knocked to his feet by it. Any attempt to explain to him that his brain was a highly flawed organ and it was most likely a flawed experience was dismissed.

Nearly every theist eventually will stop arguing their religion from a point of logic and claim that god is present in their lives, and that his how he/she knows god exists. It is they that rely too highly on their cognitive faculties.

(September 20, 2012 at 10:54 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: The fine tuning of the initial conditions of our universe to support life is simply incredible.

First, it is highly unlikely that our big bang is, was or will ever be the only possible universe.

That said, of all the past, present and future universes, this just happens to be the one we are in and the only one of which we can be aware. We cannot be in one that does not support life.

There may have been a 'gazillion' universes before one had the right conditions for us to come into existence. Regardless of the infinitesimally small chance, we are here by chance. No magic, no sky daddy.

And yes, it is incredible, but it is not due to "fine tuning".

(September 20, 2012 at 10:54 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Why? I can (when I get home) provide information that seems pretty clear to indicate intelligent design on the part of our universe.

The following is copied from Reasonable Faith's website:

Let me give some examples of fine tuning because physics abounds with examples of fine tuning. But before I do so, let me give you some numbers to give you a feel for the delicacy of the fine tuning because otherwise the numbers are so large they become meaningless to us. The number of seconds in the history of the universe, from the very beginning of the universe, is about 10^17. That is a 1 followed by 17 zeroes. Just an incomprehensible number – but that is the number of seconds in the universe. The number of subatomic particles in the entire known universe is around 10^80.

With those numbers in mind, consider the following. The atomic weak force which operates within the nucleus of the atom is so finely tuned that an alteration of even one part out of 10^100 would have rendered the universe life-prohibiting. In order to permit life, the weak force has to be fine tuned to one part out of 10^100. Similarly, the so called cosmological constant, which drives the acceleration of the universe, has to be fine tuned to within one part out of 10^120 in order for the universe to be life- permitting. Here is a real corker: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has estimated that the initial entropy condition – the entropy level of the early universe – has to be fine tuned to one part out of 10^10^(123) – a number which is so incomprehensible that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement.

It is not just one of these numbers that must be fine tuned but all of them. So you multiply these probabilities together until our minds are just reeling in incomprehensible numbers. Having an accuracy of even one part out of 10^60 would be like having a range the size of the entire visible universe – 20 billion light years across – and in order for life to exist, a randomly thrown dart would have to land in an area one inch square. And that is just one part in 10^60! We are talking about numbers that are just unimaginably greater than that.

These are just some of the examples of fine tuning. The examples of fine tuning are so many and so various that they are unlikely to disappear with the further advance of science. Like it or not, the fine tuning of the universe for life is just a scientific fact which is well-established.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders...z272yV1YIK

~~~~~~~


These number/conditions are incredible!

This would be like if you were put before a firing squad of a few hundred trained marksmen and you hear them say, "Ready, Aim, Fire!"

You open your eyes and you see that all of the bullets have somehow missed you.

Would you conclude that they all missed by chance and be satisfied to leave it at that or would you conclude that they missed on purpose?

I would conclude that they missed on purpose.

(September 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm)genkaus Wrote: The comparison to rocks is a strawman.

Tobie Disagrees

(September 20, 2012 at 12:25 pm)Tobie Wrote: The strawman is you saying that atheism is, at it's core, "a deep faith in one's own cognitive abilities and their ability in determining truth." Atheism is no such thing. It's simply not having faith in the ages-long build-up of various extraordinary claims that is modern religion.

And........seriously, and? I thought you were going to be providing some sort of case for ID, not a listing of the requirements of -insert anything here-, which - had they not been met- you would not be standing here blathering on about them.

Seriously disappointing Jeff, you claimed you had something that you did not.

"This is incredible, ergo god". Sigh.

(September 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: These number/conditions are incredible!

Indeed, they are. But just because something is against the odds, it doesn't mean that it can't happen. We are pretty good proof of that, no divinity required.

So you're suggesting that instead of going with what evidence tells us is correct, we should throw all that out the window because what actually happened is so damn unlikely that it just had to be magic? And here was me being all optimistic, you calling yourself reasonable and all. Maybe you were modelling yourself after the ironically named Democratic Republic of the Congo? Who knows, I'm just rambling know anyway. Back to the point, you actually think we're going to take you seriously if you advocate throwing your lot in with a completely unsupported hypothesis?

Win the lottery once...that's fine chance. Win it again, and again, and again....I think that points to a pattern....

(September 20, 2012 at 5:46 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Win the lottery once...that's fine chance. Win it again, and again, and again....I think that points to a pattern....

Probabilities a bitch.

You must get this probability nonsense out of your head . Out of the immeasurable amount of current realitys that could of come to pass ....... all are stupendously unlikely in equal . No reality couldn't come from stupendous odds. And ours is no different.