Quote:Let me answer it by arguing against the fine tuned universe argument. The argument states that the fact that the universe is finely tuned for life proves the existence of a creator. The flaw in that argument is that the universe is not, in fact, finely tuned for life. In fact, the vast bulk of the universe is completely hostile to all forms of life.

The argument doesn't state the universe need be jam packed with life. And it's not really an argument, it is a fact that certain conditions in characteristics of the universe must be true for life as we know it to exist. Secondly no one knows just how much other life there is. We do know there are other planets circling around stars.

Quote:Not exactly. The notion that there are "mindless forces that didn't intend us or the universe to exist" is an erroneous assumption since it assumes that there was some other intent, some other morality to nature other than what science perceives through emperic reasoning and observation.

Huh?

Quote:First of all, there is no such thing as an atheist worldview. For example, I may happen to believe that some time in future, scientists would invent a time machine and figure out which points in the past they need to send it to in order to have the universe and humanity exist in its current state. With this belief, I'd still be an atheist while believing that the existence of humanity and the universe was very much intentional.

If that were so, theism would be closer to the truth than atheism because we'd owe our existence to intelligent causes.

Quote:That being said, I believe that our current state is the result of mechanistic forces. I don't use the words "mindless" and "without intent" because I don't start with the presumption of consciousness. Therefore, "mindful and intentional" would be the non-default position for me that would require explicit explanation.

Mechanistic: Of or relating to theories that explain phenomena in purely physical or deterministic terms.
Determined by physical processes alone.

You may not use the word mindless forces without intent but that is what mechanistic means.

Quote:So, what is this "significant philosophical impact" that you are talking about?

There is a huge philosophical difference between believing the universe was created and designed for human inhabitance and believing that humans are the unintended consequences of mechanistic forces that didn't care whether we existed or not. In the former case humans are elevated to a special status, in the latter case humans are no more significant than anything else that was unintentionally created. We have seen this difference in the human rights of countries that hold to some form of theism and ones that don't.

(February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

Quote:So, what is this "significant philosophical impact" that you are talking about?

There is a huge philosophical difference between believing the universe was created and designed for human inhabitance and believing that humans are the unintended consequences of mechanistic forces that didn't care whether we existed or not. In the former case humans are elevated to a special status, in the latter case humans are no more significant than anything else that was unintentionally created. We have seen this difference in the human rights of countries that hold to some form of theism and ones that don't.

This is simply false. First, there is nothing about atheism which dictates that one view human existence in any specific light. Moreover, the theist by claiming the existence of a god who is above mankind seems to automatically imply that we are second class citizens and that our needs and wants can never be elevated above those of your god. Moreover, many common brands of theism suggest that our life and existence in this world is of no consequence relative to what is to come afterward. So you've got it precisely backward. It is the theist who devalues human life and meaning, not the atheist. Moreover, no specific worldview or philosophy flows from atheism. Prior to embracing my Hindu traditions, I was a Taoist, an atheistic philosophy which considers life and human existence ultimately good, and is thoroughly concerned with the welfare of people. (The three jewels of Taoism are compassion, humility, and moderation. Mahayana Buddhism is also essentially atheistic and emphasizes compassion for the suffering of others. Jainism is practically fanatical in its concern for the well being of others.)

So, no, you are wrong. If anything, theism is the worldview which treats the worth and value of human life as non-existent.

(February 17, 2013 at 4:22 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: There is a huge philosophical difference between believing the universe was created and designed for human inhabitance and believing that humans are the unintended consequences of mechanistic forces that didn't care whether we existed or not. In the former case humans are elevated to a special status, in the latter case humans are no more significant than anything else that was unintentionally created. We have seen this difference in the human rights of countries that hold to some form of theism and ones that don't.

This is simply false. First, there is nothing about atheism which dictates that one view human existence in any specific light. Moreover, the theist by claiming the existence of a god who is above mankind seems to automatically imply that we are second class citizens and that our needs and wants can never be elevated above those of your god. Moreover, many common brands of theism suggest that our life and existence in this world is of no consequence relative to what is to come afterward. So you've got it precisely backward. It is the theist who devalues human life and meaning, not the atheist. Moreover, no specific worldview or philosophy flows from atheism. Prior to embracing my Hindu traditions, I was a Taoist, an atheistic philosophy which considers life and human existence ultimately good, and is thoroughly concerned with the welfare of people. (The three jewels of Taoism are compassion, humility, and moderation. Mahayana Buddhism is also essentially atheistic and emphasizes compassion for the suffering of others. Jainism is practically fanatical in its concern for the well being of others.)

So, no, you are wrong. If anything, theism is the worldview which treats the worth and value of human life as non-existent.

I agree atheism doesn't mandate atheists subscribe to any particular belief or philosophy. Nevertheless, if true human beings are nothing more than the unintended consequences of the laws of physics and from that point of view there is nothing special about humans, they have no special rights, they're not endowed with unalienable rights. You can't infer from that perspective that humans have a right to live. What right does something that was never intended to exist in the first place have to live? On the other hand if the universe was created for the purpose of hosting human beings then we do have a philosophical basis to infer that humans are special, should have special sanctions such as the right to life and equality. Doesn't mean we do those things perfectly, but we do have a basis for it.

(February 8, 2013 at 8:53 am)FKHansen Wrote: Here's a fun one…
Let's say that science proves the existence of God - A perfect logical proof (with evidence) that clearly states that the universe was created by a creator. Nothing more, nothing less...

What will happen to the people on earth?
What religion would they cling to?
Would there be world peace?

We'd spend the next 2000 years argueing and killing each other about who this 'creator' that created the universe was and who were his favourites.

There would be long debates about exactly when this proof was written down and by whom and if this person really existed. Then we'd find a cave in Oxford where a scholar had hidden his hand written notes from the lectures in plastic sandwich boxes.

About 350 years ofter the theory there would be a council to decide if the scientist who published the paper was in fact the son of the creator or not and much later someone would write a 'fictional' book about his life where he gets maried and his wife will be burried in an art gallery in Paris.

Then they will elect a Pop (named after the Big Bang), after a few hundred years a schism will arise over what colour hat they should be wearing and there will (for a brief period) be 2 Pops.

Eventually a group of people will distance themselves from the idea of a Big Bang creator and call themselves acreaists and one of them will be super clever and set up a forum called acreaistsforums where one day someone will post an idea that what it if was all really real and...

On second thoughts let's not go down that road.


MM

(February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: The argument doesn't state the universe need be jam packed with life. And it's not really an argument, it is a fact that certain conditions in characteristics of the universe must be true for life as we know it to exist. Secondly no one knows just how much other life there is. We do know there are other planets circling around stars.

In fact, it is not true that certain conditions must be true for life as we know it (or any other possible life, for that matter) to exist. You cannot extrapolate onto the entire universe, a data point of one. In fact, we know next to nothing about what conditions exist elsewhere that could lead to life, or for that matter, in some other universe. What we are certain of is that there is nothing special in this universe that requires, or even guarantees life to exist. It could just as easily not have come about. The bulk of the universe consists of hard radiation and hard vaccuum that is utterly hostile to life. Perhaps you should watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mij4DYYnkF8

Quote:Huh?

I'm not surprise that went right over your head. Get back to me when you figure it out.

(February 17, 2013 at 6:09 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I agree atheism doesn't mandate atheists subscribe to any particular belief or philosophy. Nevertheless, if true human beings are nothing more than the unintended consequences of the laws of physics and from that point of view there is nothing special about humans, they have no special rights, they're not endowed with unalienable rights. You can't infer from that perspective that humans have a right to live. What right does something that was never intended to exist in the first place have to live? On the other hand if the universe was created for the purpose of hosting human beings then we do have a philosophical basis to infer that humans are special, should have special sanctions such as the right to life and equality. Doesn't mean we do those things perfectly, but we do have a basis for it.

Wow, um, seriously? You gonna put that strawman out in a field to scare some crows, or just keep it to yourself?

As a human, I have this thing called empathy, which allows me to interface with the experiences of my fellow human beings. In having this ability- and since we're herd creatures evolution no doubt sharpened this sense in most of us- I am willing to allow other humans certain rights that I would like to have myself. These rights come from social agreement; to imply that they come from god or some inalienable extra specialness we all have is patently ridiculous because those rights haven't been a stable thing throughout all of human history. If they were external they'd be stable, but they aren't; plenty of societies throughout history have had differing versions of those rights, or no rights at all, or differing rights that we don't have now. Autocracies still exist, after all, where the rights of the people are predicated on the whims of the ruling class.

Besides, we don't need a philosophical reason to have these rights; practicality will do just fine, for the survival of our species. That's what empathy is for, really: it's a mental response to effects that may be harmful to us.

And hey, that's even ignoring the fact that the bible sets out clear rules for slavery, if you want to talk about inalienable religious rights...

(February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: The argument doesn't state the universe need be jam packed with life. And it's not really an argument, it is a fact that certain conditions in characteristics of the universe must be true for life as we know it to exist. Secondly no one knows just how much other life there is. We do know there are other planets circling around stars.

Do you really not see the absurdity of your situation? You don't know how much of other life is out there. You don't know what other life is possible. And yet you insist that its occurrence on a tiny part of a miniscule portion of universe had to be intentional. Its like finding a speck of dust in the corner of your room and yelling "Who put it there?".

(February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: If that were so, theism would be closer to the truth than atheism because we'd owe our existence to intelligent causes.

You better educate yourself on the distinction between theism and atheism. If a position posits existence of supernatural entities then it is theistic - otherwise atheistic. Believing advanced aliens are responsible for seeding life on earth or for building pyramids or for resurrecting a man called Jesus makes me an atheist. Believing god did it makes me a theist.

(February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Mechanistic: Of or relating to theories that explain phenomena in purely physical or deterministic terms.
Determined by physical processes alone.

You may not use the word mindless forces without intent but that is what mechanistic means.

Except, since even the definition does not mention the word "mindless", it means that it is your assumption of mind and intent that is anomalous.

(February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: There is a huge philosophical difference between believing the universe was created and designed for human inhabitance and believing that humans are the unintended consequences of mechanistic forces that didn't care whether we existed or not. In the former case humans are elevated to a special status, in the latter case humans are no more significant than anything else that was unintentionally created. We have seen this difference in the human rights of countries that hold to some form of theism and ones that don't.

Yes, indeed, we have. And not just in countries based on theism but on societies in general. If it stands to reason that humans have a special status because the world around them favors their existence, then it also stands to reason that some humans whose status in the society is more favorable are more special than others and therefore deserving of greater rights and privileges. This is seen in the special privileges afforded to emperors, kings, feudal lords, priests, brahmins etc. throughout the history. Theistic underpinnings to human rights lead to segregated class and status based societies.

On the other hand, the only thing that particular form of atheism tells you (you know, the one where we are not the product of intention or purpose - one that is held simply by some atheists and not all), is that you are not special because of what you were born into. This is of little philosophical significance - thus proving my point that atheism is not a worldview but merely an aspect of one.

Any conclusion regarding humans and their special status would come from the rest of the person's worldview, i.e. one held apart from his atheism. For example, I believe that the humans capacity to reason and to reflect and act upon their choices is what makes them unique and special and that server as the foundation for human rights.

If it were shown that there was some form of deity that created the universe, then I would believe it existed. From there I would inquire into its nature, into its intentions, into its methods, and into its expectations of us, if any.

(February 17, 2013 at 6:09 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I agree atheism doesn't mandate atheists subscribe to any particular belief or philosophy. Nevertheless, if true human beings are nothing more than the unintended consequences of the laws of physics and from that point of view there is nothing special about humans, they have no special rights, they're not endowed with unalienable rights. You can't infer from that perspective that humans have a right to live. What right does something that was never intended to exist in the first place have to live? On the other hand if the universe was created for the purpose of hosting human beings then we do have a philosophical basis to infer that humans are special, should have special sanctions such as the right to life and equality. Doesn't mean we do those things perfectly, but we do have a basis for it.

Let me see if you are capable of understanding the depth of your logical failure.

First of all, here you employ a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent. Consider this:

A: If it is raining, the roads are wet.
B: It is not raining.
C: Therefore, the roads are not wet.

Do you see why the conclusion is wrong? The roads could be wet from a variety of reasons, like it rained last night or the water main broke, causing flooding, or because of the morning dew.

You employ this fallacy with regards to your misrepresentation of atheistic position in the following way:

A: If humans are intentional and purposeful creations, then they have inalienable human rights.
B: Humans are not intentional and purposeful creations (being the result of mechanistic processes).
C: Therefore, they do not have inalienable human rights.

Do you see now the error of your position?

Furthermore, you assume that if someone was intended to live then he/she has the right to live. Where is the justification for that? How does the fact that something out there intended for me to live give me with the "right to life"? And how does that make me equal everything else that it might also have intended to live, thus giving me right to equality? And clearly, these rights are in no way inalienable. After all, since they are based upon the entity's intentions, then as soon as it no longer intends for me to live, I no longer have the right to live.

No matter. We'll overlook this lack of rationale for now and assume that if the creator of a living entity intends for it to live then it has the right to live. As it happens, the people most directly responsible for my creation are my parents. They most certainly do intend for me to live. Why isn't that sufficient to grant me the right to life and all the other rights my special status in their eyes would ensue? You might argue that if we go back far enough in the past, we won't find any intention or purpose behind human existence - but if it is intention and purpose you are looking for, then we don't need to back far in the past - it is present here and now.

But you might say that the only intention that matters is god's. Ofcourse, this is a special pleading fallacy, but let's put that aside for the moment. According to your logic, this creator would not only be responsible for intentional and purposeful creation of human beings but that of all living creature. Which means, he intended for all of them to live. Why, then are humans any more special than the rest of them? Wouldn't all of them have the same rights to life and equality that you have?

Finally, lets get to the fallacy of equivocation. You start off by insisting that life is special because certain conditions on this tiny speck of floating dust support it (anthropic fallacy - addressed elsewhere). And then somewhere along the line you go from life to human life. Somewhere along the line you go from insisting that the universe was created for the purpose of hosting life to arguing that it was created to host human life and hope that no one notices the switch. That much is patently false even on earth. Most of the areas of this world that do support life would not support human life. Almost everywhere that humans live, they've had to modify their surrounding to suit their needs precisely because the natural surroundings would not adequately support them. If anything, that would make humans less special than a myriad of other species eminently more suitable. If you are looking for a living entity for whom this universe could arguably have been made, look no further than the beetles. There are about 400,000 different species of them and they make up for about 30% of all animals, thereby proving that if the biosphere was made to support any kind of life, it was theirs. Remember that the next time you are walking down the street and be careful not to step on any creepy-crawlies - they are way more special than you and have the philosophical basis for much greater rights of life and equality.

A philosophical question for the christians.

What if science did prove the existence of god and it turned out to be Allah?