Atheism destroyed with a question

[Rampant.A.I.]

Leaving aside the bare assertion that is your second sentence, there, the only way you could claim that the laws of physics were finely tuned is if you could demonstrate that the universe as it is now was the way the universe was meant to be, and not just the way it shook out to be due to factors in its formation.

We can leave science to demonstrate the complexity and sheer perfect order and magnificence of a purposefully created universe. More than enough of a demonstration for anyone even former atheists.

Can you provide evidence of such intent, or is this another argument from ignorance/incredulity that you're positing?

Yes but you would reject it as evidence and put it down to coincidence or "just the way the universe happened to be" by chance.

I don't believe you can provide evidence of such intent, or you would have done it to bolster your Irreducible Complexity argument.

[Whateverist]

You can go into thew mathematical structures and patterns of the universe, natural forces, living forms and the various mathematical ratios and aspects of the human body and DNA, the Golden Section and all the rest of it.

---

---

But it helps if you accept the universe is the purpose made creation of the almighty God before you get into those details.

What does it help? It helps you maintain your maintain belief in your God I suppose. Anything else?

[Rampant.A.I.]

You can go into thew mathematical structures and patterns of the universe, natural forces, living forms and the various mathematical ratios and aspects of the human body and DNA, the Golden Section and all the rest of it.

---

---

But it helps if you accept the universe is the purpose made creation of the almighty God before you get into those details.

What does it help? It helps you maintain your maintain belief in your God I suppose. Anything else?

Golden Ratio mythology is still being thrown around, instead of being recognized as an artificial approximation?

"It's not hard to select examples that seem to support the notion that nature's patterns are built on f. But if that doesn't work for a particular case, some of these folk start using the ratios of sizes of the first few values of the Fibonacci series, before the ratios begin to clearly converge to f. If we also include ratios of these ratios we can play with 1/3, 3/8, 8/21, 5/13, 5/21. These ratios are 1, 0.5, 0.6, 0.618, 0.75 with reciprocals 1, 2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.618. In fractional form we have approximately 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, 4/3, 1, 3/2, 5/3 and 2 to make mischief with. We can even throw in the approximate value 1.62 = 34/13 and its reciprocal 13/34 for good measure. And if none of these suit our purpose, we can always try one of the Lucas sequences."

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

[Esquilax]

Assertions of facts science can support with evidence. Assertions that Atheists don't believe in God, last time I checked that was the idea of it. If anything I said is wrong feel free to point out what and why.

You have not presented any evidence.

So if you had never seen a fighter plane before and you saw one flying overhead you wouldn't see it as being something purposefully designed and crafted by an intelligence for a purpose? As long as we're clear on your way of thinking. It's not a usual way of thinking though most people would recognize the plane as a work of an intelligence. Now take the universe as a whole and the exact same applies. You don't need to prove it was you just ought to know via common sense. You can't prove it anyway seeing as science can study God directly only what he created.

Unsurprisingly, you have critically failed to understand my argument. I'd recognize the fighter plane as designed by having the natural world as a point of contrast, plus my prior experience seeing fighter planes being designed. I did mention this in the original argument; we don't see design merely because of complexity, so repeating your initial assertion, as you have here, is rather pointless as it doesn't address my argument at all.

The natural is the design, the universe is the creation. Not a bare assertion that's whole entire the idea and central crux of argument.

No, that is a bare assertion, but it's also the conclusion of your argument, not its crux. Now that we've established you don't understand argumentation as a concept, I'll remind you that my position is that the method you have proposed for how we would conclude that the natural is designed is flawed, something you haven't bothered to address.

But that's the whole point...

Except that we don't recognize design through complexity.

Exactly, therefore the universe has a purposeful intelligent creator. We're getting somewhere now.

Did you seriously not understand what I wrote there? Are you making fun of me?

In the same way as you would recognize a plane as having a designer even if you didn't know what it was. That's not beginning the question it's just what is obvious and you can see and understand.

As I've said multiple times now, you're wrong there. Or at least, you're drastically oversimplifying the process, because you haven't mentioned how I would recognize the fighter plane as designed without knowing what it was: I'd notice that the glass of the cockpit, for example, does not occur in nature... do you see where I'm going with this?

Everything that occurs naturally is part of the design, God created it. I'm pointing out the idea concept you're not understanding not making an assertion btw. You are saying the same thing as "cars don't need makers".

No, what I'm saying is "we can see that cars have makers through contrast with things that don't have makers." Whereas your position is "we can see that cars have makers," without bothering to explore the method we would use for establishing that.

That's the idea yes, all the laws of physics and natural processes of the universe and everything.

So what's your point of contrast?

There isn't one you just have to use your common sense and rational mind. It takes a rational mind to know of the mind a rational creator, we're in his image after all.

So lead me through the thought processes your rational mind would go through to determine that a car or a fighter plane is designed.

You can see how the whole entirety of the universe ties together based upon the overall framework which was set in place from the moment of creation. But if you're in this "cars don't need makers" mindset you won't really appreciate or see it for what it is.

Continuing to strawman my argument isn't a good look, Sword.

That's all you're doing, I'm supplying the reason and evidence and you're ignoring it. That's all atheism is.

Where is this evidence of yours?

A valid and factual observation isn't an assertion.

Maybe you should start making some, then.

I think I already covered the reasoning behind the teleological argument which is one the main arguments that fully refutes atheist metaphysical position. There are other very good rational arguments against atheism of course.

Awesome! Why not set up a debate question with me and present these arguments in full for the entire forum to see, then?

[The Valkyrie]

Leaving aside the bare assertion that is your second sentence, there, the only way you could claim that the laws of physics were finely tuned is if you could demonstrate that the universe as it is now was the way the universe was meant to be, and not just the way it shook out to be due to factors in its formation.

We can leave science to demonstrate the complexity and sheer perfect order and magnificence of a purposefully created universe. More than enough of a demonstration for anyone even former atheists.

Can you provide evidence of such intent, or is this another argument from ignorance/incredulity that you're positing?

Yes but you would reject it as evidence and put it down to coincidence or "just the way the universe happened to be" by chance.

So one atheist who converted is evidence.

What about all the former Christians - many on this site, for instance - who are now atheists? They must be proof that there's no god, right.

Oh wait, we weren't really Christians, right . . .?



And, finally: "The world's most notorious atheist"? In that case why the fuck haven't I heard of him?

[Cyberman]

Can you provide evidence of such intent, or is this another argument from ignorance/incredulity that you're positing?

Yes but you would reject it as evidence and put it down to coincidence or "just the way the universe happened to be" by chance.

As I've said time and time again, that is not your call to make. Present what you consider evidence and let it withstand examination and criticism on its own merits. If you don't think it can do even that basic thing, if you consider your evidence something your opponent will reject as unable to support your fiat assertions, maybe you need better evidence.

[zzz_pt]

For someone to claim the Universe is fine tunned he/she has to prove first that every other possiblities of universes would be caotic and lifeless. It's a bit like the intelligent design claim IMO (you have one "sample" and you claim that it's "perfect"...).

[Mr. Moncrieff]

The multiverse theory, intrinsically linked with string theory broadly explained why our universe is so extremely finely tuned. Because in a multiverse of infinite possibilities, this universe didn't fuck it up.

[Alex K]

For someone to claim the Universe is fine tunned he/she has to prove first that every other possiblities of universes would be caotic and lifeless. It's a bit like the intelligent design claim IMO (you have one "sample" and you claim that it's "perfect"...).

I think a rather common attitude also among physicists is to take the free parameters in the Standard Model seriously, i.e. to assume that different numerical choices of the 23 or so parameters are actually possible alternative universes which "could have been". It then follows rather rigorously that for not too different choices of these parameters, there would e.g. be no stars, or no chemistry. This is a fact, so you would have to reject the premise to deny fine tuning, something I find hard to grok.

[Bad Writer]

The universe is fine-tuned for life? You'd have better luck trying to convince people that a small percentage of surface area on the earth is somewhat tuned to allow for life. Even that is a stretch as mortal danger lies in wait around every corner in many walks of life.