Let's say that science proves that God exists

[orogenicman]

For your position to hold any water you have to prove two things:
1. Those constants could've been something other that what they are, i.e. they are tunable.
2. Any other type of life-form cannot possibly exist if those conditions are not met.

No, it doesn't make any difference whether there tunable or not. Even if for some unknown reason they had to be as they are its still just as astonishing that if a universe comes into existence it has to be in the narrow range to support life. I'm only concerned about the life forms we do know of not fantasy ones.

The fact that life as we know it seems to have limits outside of which it cannot live is not evidence of a universe finely tuned for life. It IS evidence of evolution, that life itself is tunable, not the other way around.

Secondly It doesn't matter to me whether you think the arguments I make hold water. I assume none of them will.

Erm, if you assume that your arguments will not hold water, why bother?

[Drew_2013]

On this point we'll have to agree to disagree. If human existence is the result of a transcendent Creator who designed the universe for the purpose of humans existing, then we have an external reason beyond our own opinion from a higher source as a reason to believe we have certain inalienable rights. I know you're going to respond with your reasons for disagreeing but I doubt we will cover any new ground.

Higher in what sense? In what way are God's judgements or intentions or whatever more important than mine, or in any way binding on me or anyone else?

Only in a philosophical sense. If the universe was intentionally created for our existence then we are more important than the rest of the universe that was created for our existence. If on the other hand we are the accidental unintended by product of mindless forces we can hardly say we have any rights on that basis. It's not binding on anyone anymore than the notion we should treat others as we would be treated is binding in any sense. The USA for example is a secular government tied to a theistic philosophy as noted in this phrase from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The reason its important in this instance is because these basic rights are not granted by the government or the state, we are endowed with these rights by the Creator. The role of governments is to secure those rights. If the rights were granted by the government then they could be taken away by the government.

What does it mean for a right to be inalienable?

In the text its actually called unalienable. Again what it means in this context is the rights are one's we are endowed with at birth by the Creator. Even if you don't believe there was a creator its still an important belief.

[genkaus]

No, it doesn't make any difference whether there tunable or not. Even if for some unknown reason they had to be as they are its still just as astonishing that if a universe comes into existence it has to be in the narrow range to support life. I'm only concerned about the life forms we do know of not fantasy ones.

You are contradicting yourself. You say that it is astonishing that the conditions of the universe are in a narrow range - which implies that there is in fact a range they could lie in or out of, thus making them tunable. Whether of not they are tunable, thus becomes important to the very premise of your argument. Secondly, if those constants had to be what they are due to their very nature, then that goes against your assumption of intelligence behind them. And thirdly, you haven't established yet that the universe came into existence at any point.

Secondly It doesn't matter to me whether you think the arguments I make hold water. I assume none of them will.

If you assume that none of your arguments hold water then you should realize that your position is untenable and abandon it. Repeating arguments that you know to be incorrect is intellectually dishonest.

We don't have to consider knowledge we don't have. At this point we know of life on earth alone and for the only life we know of to exist the universe has to fallen in an incredibly narrow range of characteristics. We don't have to consider facts not in evidence.

Then consider only facts and don't speak of nonsense like "an incredibly narrow range" since we don't know of any such range.

So if life was teeming everywhere you'd say it must be by design?

No, I'd say that it makes the idea that the purpose of universe was to support life a more credible. But it isn't so.

The only burden on me is to make a reasonable case for what I believe. Its not my burden to pretend I can persuade a dyed in the wool atheist.

And since you have completely failed to make even a single argument that stands to scrutiny, I'd say you're falling miserably short.

But you don't believe those laws of nature were by design correct? There was according to atheists no engineer who designed the laws of physics to produce a specific result, true? You don't believe the universe was intentionally engineered to support galaxies, stars or planets do you? You don't think the universe or mechanistic processses cared whether humans existed right? All the conditions and characteristics necessary for humans to exist didn't according to atheists come about by plan.

Yes.

If a extremely specific result occurs minus any design or planning then the end result is by happenstance.

No. Not if it is the necessary result of the causal chain.

Even if you counter propose just as a hypothetical that for some reason if a universe exists it has to take on the characteristics that support life as we know it how it is any less bizarre it has to take on characteristics in a mindboggling narrow range of parameters that support life when supposedly the mindless forces that caused the universe never intended human life and don't care if human life results?

Because, as indicated earlier, we don't know of any such range.

No I just had no comment about it.

So we can conclude that theistic societies are worse off than secular ones.

I'd like to hear in your own words how you describe it and think it applies to our discussion.

I have described, in my own words, your use of logical fallacy and its application to our discussion. Go read it once more.

An existence according to atheists that was never intended to occur. Again the point which you conceded is that we can't infer any rights from the basis of naturalism.

I've never said that naturalism was the basis of human rights. Neither is the mythical "intention".

Btw what makes you think at some point humans aren't doomed to perish either individually or collectively at some point?

Because we are very good at figuring out a way to survive.

On this point we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yeah, I don't do that.

If human existence is the result of a transcendent Creator who designed the universe for the purpose of humans existing,

That's a big if, and as has been consistently shown in this argument, not the case.

then we have an external reason beyond our own opinion from a higher source as a reason to believe we have certain inalienable rights.

The supposedly "higher" source being god's opinion. As shown before, if that opinion were sufficient to grant rights, then your parents' or the government's or society's opinion would've been sufficient to grant even greater rights - which is not the case. Further, as also shown earlier, these rights would be anything but inalienable, being dependent upon some entity's opinion and therefore subject to change with them. And finally, as also proven earlier, you don't accept the logical consequences of your own premises by not guaranteeing the same "inalienable" rights to animals.

The only evidence you can be referring is life on earth a planet with a myriad of conditions that allow life in the first place. From the small sample of planets around us with no life it would appear life can only occur under certain circumstances.

And if the universe were finely tuned for life, that would not be the case.

---

Only in a philosophical sense. If the universe was intentionally created for our existence then we are more important than the rest of the universe that was created for our existence.

Only in the opinion of your god - which would be irrelevant to us.

If on the other hand we are the accidental unintended by product of mindless forces we can hardly say we have any rights on that basis.

Not on that basis - yes.

It's not binding on anyone anymore than the notion we should treat others as we would be treated is binding in any sense.

No, its simply the rational choice.

The USA for example is a secular government tied to a theistic philosophy as noted in this phrase from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Except, your government doesn't really follow these principles, since it has no problem jailing or handing out death penalties. That means the rights are anything but inalienable.

The reason its important in this instance is because these basic rights are not granted by the government or the state, we are endowed with these rights by the Creator. The role of governments is to secure those rights. If the rights were granted by the government then they could be taken away by the government.

Well, what do you know? Your rights can be taken away by the government. Then, by your own reasoning, that is enough to prove that they were granted by the government.

[Drew_2013]

No, it doesn't make any difference whether there tunable or not. Even if for some unknown reason they had to be as they are its still just as astonishing that if a universe comes into existence it has to be in the narrow range to support life. I'm only concerned about the life forms we do know of not fantasy ones.

The fact that life as we know it seems to have limits outside of which it cannot live is not evidence of a universe finely tuned for life. It IS evidence of evolution, that life itself is tunable, not the other way around.

Secondly It doesn't matter to me whether you think the arguments I make hold water. I assume none of them will.

The only place we know where evolution took place (assuming it works as its supposed to) is on planet earth, with abundant water, stable seasons and just the right distance from the sun. Not to mention a core that gives off a magnetic field that shields us from the harmful effects of the sun. From what can be ascertained, not only do very specific planetary conditions need to be satisfied but also universal conditions such as the right strength of gravity to form planets, form stars, galaxies and so forth. If life were tunable to the conditions as you suggest, we should see life that adapted to conditions on the moon or mars but so far no evidence of that.

Erm, if you assume that your arguments will not hold water, why bother?

I assume they don't hold water with folks who are arguing in favor of atheism and are advocates of atheism, they do hold water with me.

[Cyberman]

The only place we know where evolution took place (assuming it works as its supposed to) is on planet earth, with abundant water, stable seasons and just the right distance from the sun. Not to mention a core that gives off a magnetic field that shields us from the harmful effects of the sun. From what can be ascertained, not only do very specific planetary conditions need to be satisfied but also universal conditions such as the right strength of gravity to form planets, form stars, galaxies and so forth. If life were tunable to the conditions as you suggest, we should see life that adapted to conditions on the moon or mars but so far no evidence of that.

Just for clarification: Earth is most likely not the only world in the Solar System we know of that satisfies the conditions for liquid water. As far as can be determined, Jupiter's moon Europa has a liquid ocean beneath its icy crust, which has nothing to do with being "just the right distance from the Sun" but is the result of tidal interaction with Jupiter itself (the same tidal forces that make Io the most volcanically active body in the Solar Syatem). Not to mention that Mars is now known to have had liquid water flowing on its surface within at least the last few years.

As for "the right strength of gravity to form planets" etc: are you aware that gravity is a function of the mass of an object, meaning that there is no such thing as a single "right" strength?

Finally, we may not - yet - have found evidence for life having adapted to conditions on Mars or the Moon, but we do know that life can exist, even thrive, far outside the narrow range of conditions suitable for human life. Organisms have been found on and around oceanic thermal vents, for example, as well as in the most arid of Arctic environments, the cores of nuclear reactors etc. Based on such a proliferation of life adapted to extreme conditions, the odds of finding examples of life in far less hostile environments (such as the Europa ocean) would seem much more likely than there being none to find.

[Drew_2013]

You are contradicting yourself. You say that it is astonishing that the conditions of the universe are in a narrow range - which implies that there is in fact a range they could lie in or out of, thus making them tunable. Whether of not they are tunable, thus becomes important to the very premise of your argument. Secondly, if those constants had to be what they are due to their very nature, then that goes against your assumption of intelligence behind them. And thirdly, you haven't established yet that the universe came into existence at any point.

Do you deny that several constants lie within an extremely narrow range that would allow life as we know it to exist?

To the best of my knowledge correct me it I am wrong the majority of scientists claim the universe (as it is now) came into existence about 13 and a half billion years ago.

If you assume that none of your arguments hold water then you should realize that your position is untenable and abandon it. Repeating arguments that you know to be incorrect is intellectually dishonest.

I assume none of my arguments will hold water with you, they do hold water with me and may hold water with uncommitted lurkers in this discussion board. It may come as a shock but thus far in my opinion none of your counter arguments hold water.

Then consider only facts and don't speak of nonsense like "an incredibly narrow range" since we don't know of any such range.

I will continue to say it as it remains true. Hypothetical objections don't negate the fact that several constants fall in an extremely narrow range to allow life. Deal with it.

And since you have completely failed to make even a single argument that stands to scrutiny, I'd say you're falling miserably short.

The merit of my arguments can be judged by those who don't have a dog in this hunt, I don't give a rats ass what my opponent thinks. I'm not asking for your approval or consent.

So we can conclude that theistic societies are worse off than secular ones.

Some religious societies are clearly worse off than secular ones. The USA is a secular government with a theistic philosophy.

That's a big if, and as has been consistently shown in this argument, not the case.

Its the only if, its the basis of the discussion at hand. You can't debate a topic and also be the judge of who is making a case or not.

Except, your government doesn't really follow these principles, since it has no problem jailing or handing out death penalties. That means the rights are anything but inalienable.

They give the accused due process and protect the unalienable rights of the abused by imprisoning those who infringe them. Of course its not a perfect system.

Well, what do you know? Your rights can be taken away by the government. Then, by your own reasoning, that is enough to prove that they were granted by the government.

They can be taken away by due process. They are upheld by the government and even the most heineous offenders get their day in court.

[genkaus]

Do you deny that several constants lie within an extremely narrow range that would allow life as we know it to exist?

Yes. There is no evidence of any such range.

To the best of my knowledge correct me it I am wrong the majority of scientists claim the universe (as it is now) came into existence about 13 and a half billion years ago.

You are wrong. All the scientists actually say is that the universe started expanding from a singularity 13.5 billion years ago. It has not stayed the same since then, therefore, it did not come into existence as it is now 13.5 billion years ago and there is no evidence to suggest that it did not exist at any point of time.

I assume none of my arguments will hold water with you, they do hold water with me and may hold water with uncommitted lurkers in this discussion board. It may come as a shock but thus far in my opinion none of your counter arguments hold water.

What shocks me is your ignorance of how a rational debate works. Your opinion is meaningless, as are mine. If your arguments stand up to logical scrutiny, then they hold water and yours don't as evidenced by repeated use of logical fallacies and invalid conclusions.

I will continue to say it as it remains true.

If it were true then you'd be able to provide evidence for it.

Hypothetical objections don't negate the fact that several constants fall in an extremely narrow range to allow life. Deal with it.

Since your "extremely narrow range" itself is hypothetical and has no evidence to support it, any and all hypothetical objections are sufficient to refute it. Deal with it.

The merit of my arguments can be judged by those who don't have a dog in this hunt, I don't give a rats ass what my opponent thinks. I'm not asking for your approval or consent.

It has been judged to be without merit. Over and over again. And yet you keep repeating it. Surely, you must be looking for someones consent or approval.

Some religious societies are clearly worse off than secular ones. The USA is a secular government with a theistic philosophy.

And fortunately, it often ignores that theistic philosophy in favor of rational philosophy. Which is why it works.

Its the only if, its the basis of the discussion at hand.

No, its not. The discussion is taking place at both fronts - and as it happens, you are wrong on both.

You can't debate a topic and also be the judge of who is making a case or not.

Sure I can. If I can prove my case.

They give the accused due process and protect the unalienable rights of the abused by imprisoning those who infringe them. Of course its not a perfect system.

And in doing so, infringe upon the inalienable rights of the accused - thereby making those rights alienable.

They can be taken away by due process. They are upheld by the government and even the most heineous offenders get their day in court.

It doesn't matter how or why they are taken away. Your argument was that since they were endowed by the "creator" and not the government, they cannot be taken away by the government. But since they can be taken away by the government, by your logic, that means they must have been given by it in the first place. That the government chooses to have a procedure in place to keep checks upon itself is besides the point.

[orogenicman]

The only place we know where evolution took place (assuming it works as its supposed to) is on planet earth, with abundant water, stable seasons and just the right distance from the sun. Not to mention a core that gives off a magnetic field that shields us from the harmful effects of the sun. From what can be ascertained, not only do very specific planetary conditions need to be satisfied but also universal conditions such as the right strength of gravity to form planets, form stars, galaxies and so forth. If life were tunable to the conditions as you suggest, we should see life that adapted to conditions on the moon or mars but so far no evidence of that.

Yes, the only place we know so far where evolution has taken place is on Earth. But the conditions in which life occurs are far more varied than we previously assumed. We have found organisms thriving in geothermal springs that would scald most life. We have found organisms that can survive being nearly completely dessicated for long periods of time. We have even found organisms that can survive for a time in hard radiation and the vacuum of space. Even so, the vast bulk of life on Earth does live within a narrow range of parameters. And they do because they have evolved to survive in those parameters. So yes, life has evolved, has been tuned via natural selection to survive based on a range of conditions, as far as we know (and we do know quite a lot about this). But life on this planet didn't start out livng within the parameters that most life on the planet today thrives. The earliest days of the Earth when life first evolved was completely different from what it is today. And like organisms do today, ancient organisms interacted with their environments in ways that substantially altered those environments gradually over long periods of time. And evolved as those environments changed. We change our environment to suit our needs. Other organisms do the same.

But the vast bulk of the universe does not contain the requisite conditions for life as we know it (i.e., the conditions that exist here on Earth) to become established, to evolve, and to thrive. In fact, and this really is the inescapable part that appears to elude you, the bulk of the universe is utterly and irrefutably unlivable. Another point to consider is that the universe may be inherently unstable (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21499765#). So the anthropomorphic notion that the universe is finely tuned for life is simply mistaken.

I assume they don't hold water with folks who are arguing in favor of atheism and are advocates of atheism, they do hold water with me.

I'm happy for you. But if you are trying to post a winable argument on an atheist forum, I am afraid you are going to have to convince more people than just yourself.

[Esquilax]

Only in a philosophical sense. If the universe was intentionally created for our existence then we are more important than the rest of the universe that was created for our existence. If on the other hand we are the accidental unintended by product of mindless forces we can hardly say we have any rights on that basis. It's not binding on anyone anymore than the notion we should treat others as we would be treated is binding in any sense. The USA for example is a secular government tied to a theistic philosophy as noted in this phrase from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The reason its important in this instance is because these basic rights are not granted by the government or the state, we are endowed with these rights by the Creator. The role of governments is to secure those rights. If the rights were granted by the government then they could be taken away by the government.

Is that seriously the extent of your argument here? Please tell me you have more and I've just missed it.

Because leaving aside the fact that just because the words show up in the constitution doesn't mean there's actually a creator for rights to come from, just that the language was formulated to pander to a mostly theistic society, there are more countries than America. And they all have doctrines that aren't the Constitution. Some of them even contain language that doesn't mention god or any creator. Are we to then conclude that those rights are given by the government, but they're given by a creator in any society that mentions a god in its founding document?

You're arguing that rights are some objective thing, but when you provide proof you fall back on an inherently subjective measure. It's a little shaky.

[Drew_2013]

I have described, in my own words, your use of logical fallacy and its application to our discussion. Go read it once more.

Okay I am reading it once again (I believe this is the article you referred to)

The Anthropic Fallacy written in 2009

1. All the life on this planet is related – you only have to glance at the molecular evidence in the form of DNA. It’s all from the same stock, and is supported by the element carbon. We know of no other form of life, although some have suggested that silicon could possibly form the kind of complex, long-chain molecules that life needs, as carbon does. This tends to give us what is known as ‘carbon chauvinism’, in that there could be plenty of other intelligent beings that aren’t like us, and don’t require the kind of physical or chemical set-up we have here. Just because we don’t know about them doesn’t mean that they couldn’t exist.

Is this serious? Again I was told when I first posted on this discussion board atheists only consider facts. How is it you require theists to cite facts as evidence in favor of their belief but atheists can cite mere possibilities and act as if they carry the same weight. If something isn't a well established fact, it doesn't exist. I have to assume this is his best argument against the anthropic principal because he cites it first, yet his objection is based on fantasy.

Hindsight gives a very illusory idea of cause and effect. Imagine you’ve hit a golf ball 300 yards and it comes to rest with a specific and unique alignment with the blades of grass it finally comes into contact with, as it inevitably must. The chances of exactly that configuration occurring is zero, considering the infinite number of alternative positions that the ball could have occupied. That doesn’t mean that it can’t have happened, though, or that it was somehow ‘planned’ because the ball has to end up somewhere, doesn’t it. It’s next to impossible to win the lottery, but someone does, and the fact that you couldn’t have predicted the winner beforehand (unfortunately) is just as much as a giveaway as the fact that you couldn’t have predicted the arrangement of grass blades on your golf ball after the drive.

This is why I wanted you to tell me which one of these arguments or points really mean something to you so I'm not guessing which ones you think are really relevant or applicable to our discussion. The analogy of hitting a golf ball and it landing in specific blades of grass is in his estimation next to zero. The landing of the ball in a particular patch of grass doesn't produce a specific result. The result we're discussing are the combination of events and conditions necessary for life to be possible in the universe. What does a ball landing somewhere in grass accomplish?

A variation on this argument is the notion we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in a universe that allows us to exist because if it didn't we wouldn't be here to observe it. That's trivially true. What does surprise us is the astonishingly narrow set of parameters and conditions necessary for life to obtain if created by forces that didn't care and didn't plan or engineer our existence.