(Patterns)........and Mystic?

Just more of the same, are we attempting to establish that patterns exist, are we attempting to establish that the requirements of life have been met? I don't understand.

(September 20, 2012 at 7:01 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: If atheism is true

Any hope of this being a logical post stopped right here.

@MysticKnight

How you analyse a thing can sometimes make it seem impossibly complex,
where there are only a few simple rules at play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsZKPnvlx...ure=fvwrel
Think about mapping these movements mathematically.

(September 20, 2012 at 6:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: (Patterns)........and Mystic?

Just more of the same, are we attempting to establish that patterns exist, are we attempting to establish that the requirements of life have been met? I don't understand.

Well TBH, if this universe was the only universe to exist, I would say teleological argument is good evidence, although not conclusive evidence of a designer.

However, a designer is not the only explanation, multiple universes can be an explanation.

But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

Also, if we come across so many life in the future in the universe, sentient life forms, while we know it is very much against the odds....wouldn't it seem like a designer wanted there to be sentient life.

I am not making an argument either way. I'm just saying dismissing "evidence" of design simply because it can be chance doesn't seem logical to me.

I say evidence not in the sense it's conclusive, but that strongly favors the notion.

(September 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

Are you implying that every universe would be a carbon copy of another?

(September 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: The following is copied from Reasonable Faith's website

That was your first mistake.

Quote: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!

"It appears that there is a set of fundamental physical constants that are such that had they been very slightly different, the universe would have been void of intelligent life. It's as if we're balancing on a knife’s edge. Some philosophers and physicists take the 'fine-tuning' of these constants to be an explanandum that cries out for an explanans, but is this the right way to think?

The data we collect about the Universe is filtered not only by our instruments' limitations, but also by the precondition that somebody be there to “have” the data yielded by the instruments (and to build the instruments in the first place). This precondition causes observation selection effects - biases in our data that may call into question how interpret evidence that the Universe is fine-tuned at all." Professor Bostrom

Bottom line, the universe was not designed with us in mind. We are here because the universe is such that the laws allowed the ability for life to exist. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here discussing this. There would be a universe with different attributes instead.

You've got your presuppositional cart before the horse.

(September 20, 2012 at 6:49 pm)System of Solace Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

Are you implying that every universe would be a carbon copy of another?

It seems if there was no designer creating the universes, that they would be like that. It would seem that whatever conditions arise from "nothingness" or "infinite density" leads to conditions for life. But it's so fine tuned...and yes we would never have known if we weren't here.

(September 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 6:49 pm)System of Solace Wrote: Are you implying that every universe would be a carbon copy of another?

It seems if there was no designer creating the universes, that they would be like that.

Absofuckinglutely not. There are thousands of things that have and have not happened because of chance. The way life evolved is an example. Planets and meteor strikes also. If you roll a die, it's not going to roll 6 every time, will it?

(September 20, 2012 at 6:56 pm)System of Solace Wrote:

(September 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It seems if there was no designer creating the universes, that they would be like that.

Absofuckinglutely not. There are thousands of things that have and have not happened because of chance. The way life evolved is an example. Planets and meteor strikes also. If you roll a die, it's not going to roll 6 every time, will it?

I was talking about the constants of electrons, speed of light, speed of expansion....if all this arises from "nothing" or "infinite density"...then why would it differ universe to universe when they would have came about from the same thing?

(September 20, 2012 at 2:57 pm)Faith No More Wrote: 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.

That's my point. Is that "personal experience" a part of the cognitive faculties? Or is it the point where you analyze the experience that cognition comes in.

cog·ni·tion
Noun:
The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

Experience - pure experience - is not prima facie knowledge unless it has been processed and analyzed by our mind. The personal experience your theist felt was the result a complicated social situation and represented just a warm feeling and a presence. Using his cognitive faculties would have required him to analyze that experience. But he skipped that part and took it as the prima facie evidence of god.

I'm saying that when theists say that they feel the presence of god, they are not using their cognitive abilities. The feeling itself may very well be a result of their cognitive abilities - such as the subconscious processing the information - but since they didn't use their cognitive faculties and jumped straight to the conclusion, that is not where the fault lies.