(October 29, 2014 at 9:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: The only credible ways to explain the apparent fine tunning of the Universe are:

1)either God dunnit.
2)A multiverse exists where the natural laws differ between daughter universes.

Fine tuned for black holes. So there must be a god of black holes. Now that's cool!

But as far as I can tell, the fine tuning argument argues for a god that is not omnipotent. If the god was omnipotent, he would not have to fine tune the universe for life, he would have been able to create life within a universe that shouldn't be able to support life.

If he could only create life in this universe, then he is limited to creating life in only a universe with these attributes.

(October 29, 2014 at 9:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:the apparent fine tunning

Earth has been hammered, too

Earth is the drunken asshole of the planets, waking up all his neighbors at three AM in the morning because he's climbed onto their rooftops and is doing his best imitation of a howler monkey.

What's this about fine tuning? Rename it the howler monkey argument. Scream and whoop and create enough noise until the opposition decides to pay attention to you.

Fine tuning doesn't exist, it's entirely dependent upon the observer to interpret such a condition. It has no independent basis in reality unless you can provide evidence of some ultimate goal. To what perfected standard is the universe's design striving for?

Also, here's a howler monkey for your viewing pleasure.

Probability is justification. Wishing it were so is not.

(October 29, 2014 at 9:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The fine tuning? (One "n" in tuning, btw). For what?

Emergent Complexity

Meh...this thread feels rather derailed...not fine tuned :/

Hopefully some try to address the OP

(October 29, 2014 at 11:47 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(October 29, 2014 at 9:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The fine tuning? (One "n" in tuning, btw). For what?

Emergent Complexity

How do you know emergent complexity wouldn't be if some of these "fine-tuned" variables were different?

---

(October 29, 2014 at 8:28 pm)Dolorian Wrote: I came across some argument recently. The general gist of it is that some beliefs cannot be demonstrated. Reason does not inclines us to believe or not those things. But we must necessarily make a decision because it is not possible to remain neutral on the issue. It being the case that reason is unable to settle things when it comes to the existence of God, can we then rely on hope and happiness to decide on the matter?

What this line of reasoning is implying is that given the nature of the question, atheism, while it may not be false, is not rationally justified; because reason is inadequate to decide on the matter.

The argument which is being pushed under this premise, as a follow up of sorts, is that compared to atheism, Christianity offers a superior view of life because it provides a better context for our hope and happiness (the criterion we must turn to in order to decide on the question of the existence of God).

...

The objection to this line of reasoning that first sprang to mind was with regards to turning to hope and happiness and what exactly determines this inadequacy of reason. I mean, we make certain assumptions when doing science, for example, that cannot be demonstrated but when deciding to uphold them we do not need to turn to hope and happiness, do we? Unless one would deem as "hope" the idea that nature will remain uniform.

Hope and happiness have no bearing on what is true. Their argument is reduced to "this gives me hope and happiness; therefore, it is true."

Yes, science and christianity both make assumptions. However, the assumptions that science makes are far less than what christianity makes. Also, science produces verifiable results. Just because science makes assumptions does not mean it is on equal footing to christianity.

(October 29, 2014 at 11:47 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(October 29, 2014 at 9:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The fine tuning? (One "n" in tuning, btw). For what?

Emergent Complexity

More philosophical drivel.

(October 30, 2014 at 12:40 am)Surgenator Wrote: Hope and happiness have no bearing on what is true. Their argument is reduced to "this gives me hope and happiness; therefore, it is true."

Yes, that's exactly what it boils down to. Also, I don't see why one should agree with the whole "reason is inadequate" to decide on the question to begin with. Seems quite arbitrary when applied to God. If you can't appeal to evidential or philosophical arguments for the existence of God to demonstrate things, then why should it be considered to begin with?

Quote:Yes, science and christianity both make assumptions. However, the assumptions that science makes are far less than what christianity makes. Also, science produces verifiable results. Just because science makes assumptions does not mean it is on equal footing to christianity.

Of course, they are by no means on the same footing; even tho Christians would love them to be.

(October 30, 2014 at 1:08 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(October 29, 2014 at 11:47 pm)Heywood Wrote: Emergent Complexity

More philosophical drivel.

I'll defend the position, just for the heck of it. It's not entirely drivel: if some of the quark masses were a bit higher, no stable atoms would form and everything would be a kind of uniform radiation bath with hydrogen or neutrons in it, and nothing beyond that. It would not be a universe with enough structure for a mind to emerge, or Darwinian evolution to take place.

(October 29, 2014 at 8:28 pm)Dolorian Wrote: ...reason is unable to settle things when it comes to the existence of God, can we then rely on hope and happiness to decide on the matter?

Then you followed incorrect reasoning. The existence of a Supreme Being has already been adequately demonstrated, first by Aritotle then by Aquinas, modern hubris not withstanding.