The existence of God

[The Architect Of Fate]

Keep asserting that if it makes you feel better.

I have feelings on the matter period. It's not an assertion it's a fact ....

I showed you picture evidence of the Sun making factory and you didn't believe it ? why should I believe your video evidence ?

You showed me a CGI picture of an empty corridor without a sun even present. I showed you the laptop literally being assembled by human hands from scratch. You would have to be lying or dense to deny it. Now, where are those videoes of suns being assembled by magic?

I know you're just bullshitting here because it's all you've got. But you could be better at it

[R00tKiT]

 I showed you the laptop literally being assembled by human hands from scratch.

I already answered you : the found an assembled laptop in nature, disassembled it, then reassembled it in front of a camera. This directly means that your videos aren't evidence of anything.
And, parody aside, that's simply wrong. Almost very piece of the laptop is a highly sophisticated circuit board, assembling these pieces isn't assembling from scratch.

You showed me a CGI picture of an empty corridor without a sun even present. 

That's because they were still assembling the Sun. 

I know you're just bullshitting here because it's all you've got. But you could be better at it 

Parody arguments are routinely used in philosophy, it's not meant to mock anybody.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I already answered you : the found an assembled laptop in nature, disassembled it, then reassembled it in front of a camera. This directly means that your videos aren't evidence of anything.

Lol no they didn't and the video is all the evidence I need. But nice try 

And, parody aside, that's simply wrong. Almost very piece of the laptop is a highly sophisticated circuit board, assembly these pieces isn't assembling from scratch.

But is an assembly from parts nonetheless by human hands so that is rather a minor nitpick. The video shows what it needs to show period ....

That's because they were still assembling the Sun.  

Oh great so you have an actual picture of that then .....One that's not clearly CGI ....

Parody arguments are routinely used in philosophy, it's not meant to mock anybody.

Where did I say you were mocking anyone? I said you were bullshitting and doing it badly that's very different.


So are you bored of this stupid little game yet?

[Jehanne]

I used to work on factory floors making  pcbs and later in full board and component soldering?

That's your personal, religious experience of interacting with magical plants producing circuit boards. Not a valid argument. 

I get it, when people spend a long time hallucinating about factory floors, they start to think they're real. It's all made up, unfortunately, all of it.

Why not embrace Last Thurdayism (at least until tomorrow night) and be done with it:

Wikipedia -- Omphalos Hypothesis

[The Architect Of Fate]

That's your personal, religious experience of interacting with magical plants producing circuit boards. Not a valid argument. 

I get it, when people spend a long time hallucinating about factory floors, they start to think they're real. It's all made up, unfortunately, all of it.

Why not embrace Last Thurdayism (at least until tomorrow night) and be done with it:

Wikipedia -- Omphalos Hypothesis

Because he is not serious about any of this. Nor should we take him seriously 

[polymath257]

There's a natural bias in the illusion of fine-tuning - only in a universe where the physical constants are within certain parameters, in a region of the universe where conditions are stable enough to permit evolution to the level of sentience, will such an observation occur.

Even if the universe was created by a god, though, it's a long, long slog to try to connect the dots to the god of Christianity.  Its behaviours in the Old Testament don't engender much confidence as to its competence to fine-tune anything, and its temperament doesn't suggest enough emotional stability to stick with it over the long haul.  Sorry.

Thanks for your reply. Fair enough that it doesn't connect to the Christian God. I just wanted to establish that fine tuning points to a designer of some sort. Your argument is that fine tuning is an illusion? There is a real case to be made that there is fine tuning though. If the physical parameters were different we may not even have atoms, let alone life. Why is the universe like that?

And so if the constants were different, we would not have life and nobody would be around to observe that case.

There are lots of alternative possibilities. Here are a few.

1.There is a multiverse with a lot of universes, each of which has its own set of constants and where every possible combination of constants appears in some universe.

In this case, a very small proportion of the universes will have life, but ALL observations by living things will comes from such universes.

2. The constants change from place to place in *our* universe with all the possible combinations happening somewhere. Once again, the part of our universe with constants allowing for life would be very small, but all observations would come from such locations within our universe.

3. The constants vary and their values are pushed by natural laws in a direction promoting complexity. if this happens, the complexity associated with the production of the elements necessary for life and then of life itself would be automatic.

Notice that none of these relies on 'chance' for life to arise somewhere. We just happen to be in one of the locations in which that is possible.

Next, even defining 'fine tuning' is tricky. Yes, the conditions for life might well be very restricted (we do now know this, by the way). But that does not mean that life is the goal when it appears. In fact, the vast majority of this universe is very inhospitable for life. So to think the universe was designed to produce life would suggest a very poor designer.

Another aspect is that it is possible other values for the constants can produce life, but just not life 'as we know it'. For example, maybe fusion happens so rapidly that carbon is rare, but some other element has the correct properties for life to develop. Or perhaps life on the surface of a neutron star is the norm, not life on planets.

To say that the universe was designed for us seems to be more than a little bit of hubris. It is like a puddle claiming the hole in the road was perfectly designed to fit the puddle. Much more likely, as complexity rises, life develops to fit whatever constants show up.

[Jehanne]

Much more likely, as complexity rises, life develops to fit whatever constants show up.

Often referred to as "evolution".

[R00tKiT]

And so if the constants were different, we would not have life and nobody would be around to observe that case.

There are lots of alternative possibilities. Here are a few.

1.There is a multiverse with a lot of universes, each of which has its own set of constants and where every possible combination of constants appears in some universe.

In this case, a very small proportion of the universes will have life, but ALL observations by living things will comes from such universes.

2. The constants change from place to place in *our* universe with all the possible combinations happening somewhere. Once again, the part of our universe with constants allowing for life would be very small, but all observations would come from such locations within our universe.

3. The constants vary and their values are pushed by natural laws in a direction promoting complexity. if this happens, the complexity associated with the production of the elements necessary for life and then of life itself would be automatic.

This sounds like making up any conceivable ad hoc scenario to avoid acknowledging the universe is designed.

1. The multiverse hypothesis is almost unfalsifiable, and there is zero empirical evidence to back it up.

2. This can be said whether the universe is designed or not. Some designed artifact like robots can "say" the same thing about humans, all their observations only come from locations where they exist and where humans designed them.

3. Again, irrelevant. A theist can happily argue with you that God made the universe in such a way that complexity increases with time and life eventually arises.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Poly -gives a sane rational response 

ROOT-Responses with loopy gibberish

[Jehanne]

And so if the constants were different, we would not have life and nobody would be around to observe that case.

There are lots of alternative possibilities. Here are a few.

1.There is a multiverse with a lot of universes, each of which has its own set of constants and where every possible combination of constants appears in some universe.

In this case, a very small proportion of the universes will have life, but ALL observations by living things will comes from such universes.

2. The constants change from place to place in *our* universe with all the possible combinations happening somewhere. Once again, the part of our universe with constants allowing for life would be very small, but all observations would come from such locations within our universe.

3. The constants vary and their values are pushed by natural laws in a direction promoting complexity. if this happens, the complexity associated with the production of the elements necessary for life and then of life itself would be automatic.

This sounds like making up any conceivable ad hoc scenario to avoid acknowledging the universe is designed.

1. The multiverse hypothesis is almost unfalsifiable, and there is zero empirical evidence to back it up.

2. This can be said whether the universe is designed or not. Some designed artifact like robots can "say" the same thing about humans, all their observations only come from locations where they exist and where humans designed them.

3. Again, irrelevant. A theist can happily argue with you that God made the universe in such a way that complexity increases with time and life eventually arises.

A multiverse is a naturalistic explanation. As far as falsifiability, yes, at present, it is, and may forever be so, unfalsifiable. On the other hand, maybe some clever researcher will propose an experiment and/or observation to test it.

As for theism, you can start with any conclusion that you want and argue backwards to God as being the ultimate cause.