The existence of God

[Jehanne]

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?

One of the basic facts about constants is that they are, well, constant.  So they're not amenable to tuning.

This is somewhat a debatable point. For instance, is dark energy a constant? If not, the Universe may be cyclic.

[Objectivist]

I'm a Christian looking to have a friendly conversation about the existence of God. I'd like to start with one of the Teleology arguments—that God exists based on how fine-tuned the universe is for life. For instance, physical constants, like the gravitational constant and constants of the strong nuclear force, must be within a narrow range to allow for things like atom formation, hydrogen bonding, galaxy formation, etc. This looks like design. The alternative is chance, which doesn't seem adequate. In other words, naturalism cannot account for the fine-tuning of the universe, while design can easily account for it. This is not a trivial problem, or one that can be ridiculed away, since many respected scientists have pointed out how remarkably (and inexplicably) fine-tuned the universe appears. Thanks for your polite responses.

I'm replying to this post, not having read the majority of the responses so I might repeat what others have said.  As Brian pointed out, this argument assumes in its premise the very thing that the argument seeks to establish.  

The argument also assumes that the universe could be different.  I don't think it could be and I don't know how one could go about demonstrating even the possibility of it being different.  I think the universe is eternal and therefore uncaused.  So there is no opportunity for it to be tuned or designed.  

Also, there's just no actual evidence that the universe was created.  And let's be honest, the kind of creation we're talking about here is not the kind of creation that happens when someone builds or makes something new from existing material.  No, we're talking about the universe being brought into existence from nothing pre-existing and essentially by wishing it into existence.  Since this argument is seeking to prove the existence of a god that created everything by essentially wishing it, I think at a bare minimum, evidence would have to be provided that anything has ever been brought into existence by an act of will alone.  If I pick up a rock in my yard, what evidence is there that it was created by conscious will?

[Ranjr]

If this world is the result of some sick bastard's wishes, I'm definitely his kid.

[snowtracks]

They believe unconsciousness first then consciousness next, and brain organ before mind in clear violation of the principle of causality* and abductive reasoning (Inference to the best explanation).
-----------------------
* Cause proceeds effect, and the cause is always (yes always) greater than the effect.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Minds being the emergent property of a biological process does not violate causality.......

[Peebothuhlu]

They believe unconsciousness first then consciousness next, and brain organ before mind in clear violation of the principle of causality* and abductive reasoning (Inference to the best explanation).
-----------------------
* Cause proceeds effect, and the cause is always (yes always) greater than the effect.

Hello.

So, you're aware of the biology side of things about brain and neurons and such?

Things like... you have to have neurons before you can have 'Clusters' of neurons?

That some organisms which are quite motile quite happily get along with out even having large collections of neurons? (Or even seeming any neurons at all?)

In fact, it's often interesting to see just what organisms can get up to with the baest of neural clumps.

As for 'Cause' preceeding effect. It's well known within quantum stuff that "Sheet just happens" Uranium 'Just' falls apart into Thorium, Radon etc?

So... perhaps your reasoning doesn't quite seem to match reality. 'Logical' or other wise.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

God exists in precisely the same sense as a topless Lupita Nyong’o cooking me pancakes in my kitchen exists: comforting to muse about, but not worth wasting a lot of brain power on.

Boru

[polymath257]

They believe unconsciousness first then consciousness next, and brain organ before mind in clear violation of the principle of causality* and abductive reasoning (Inference to the best explanation).
-----------------------
* Cause proceeds effect, and the cause is always (yes always) greater than the effect.

Yes, causes proceed effects. But they do NOT have to be greater than them. Also, there are events that are un-caused.

There are many situations in nature where exponential growth means that small causes produce very large effects.

For example, a small spark can serve to detonate a large explosion. A conventional explosion can trigger a nuclear one. A single pregnant rabbit can lead to over population in a few decades. A single rock falling can cause an avalanche.

Yes, *according to the data*, consciousness is associated with brains and brains didn't exist until well over half the current age of the universe. So, by reasoning from the best explanation, we do get that consciousness came after non-conscious things and minds came after brains.

[Mister Agenda]

They believe unconsciousness first then consciousness next, and brain organ before mind in clear violation of the principle of causality* and abductive reasoning (Inference to the best explanation).
-----------------------
* Cause proceeds effect, and the cause is always (yes always) greater than the effect.

Like when you need a bigger explosion to trigger a nuclear explosion...oh wait, you use a smaller explosion to trigger the really big explosion. There's a pretty long list of small causes that have much greater effects. Catalysts come to mind. So does a thought that leads to a plan that leads to construction of a building.

Edit: Ninja'd by Polymath, sorry.

[Deesse23]

For example, a small spark can serve to detonate a large explosion.

I suspect this guy does not believe in exothermic reactions in general.