Let's say that science proves that God exists

[Drew_2013]

Why would it [discovery of life on another planet] be a feather in anyone's cap? You'd simply go on to say that life on another planet is further proof that the universe was made for it.

It would still be a significant piece of evidence in favor or your narrative.

Not semantics, facts.

That's correct, I am arguing facts and you're arguing semantics.

No, I deny it based on the fact that there is no evidence of them being anything other than what they are.

Evidence are facts that comport with a belief. You believe the universe is the way it is minus any planning, engineering or design. I believe it was created for the purpose of human life. Without reference to whether they had to be as they are or whether they could be otherwise it is a fact they are with a mindboggling exactitude of what they need to be just for planets, stars and galaxies to exist. It's neither a fact they could be otherwise or they had to be as they are, it is a fact for us to exist they need to be nearly precisely what they are. You don't have to tell me that in your opinion, its meaningless, that's a given. I believe it would have significant evidentiary value to impartial people who are neither sold on theism or sold on atheism. You're rebuttal there is no evidence of them being anything other than what they are would be a pathetically weak before a group of impartial people especially as I went through each constant and provided facts of how razor thin with in a life permitting range each one is.

So, you reject the notion that they are tunable and you reject the notion that they are not tunable and then you conclude that they are fine-tuned. Explain the convoluted logic behind that one.

I'll let the fact they fall within such a narrow range that would allow life to speak for itself without reference to whether they could be otherwise. I think your counter argument only persuades people who like yourself are totally convinced God doesn't exist.

Nonetheless it is a fact as Martin Rees points out in his book Just Six Numbers there are many characteristics of the universe necessary for planets, stars and galaxies to form without which our type of life would be extremely improbable (if not impossible).

Well, d'uh. That's like saying that if my parents hadn't met, I wouldn't have been born. That doesn't mean that my parents meeting was for the purpose of my birth.

That's a bit too esoteric for me. I have no idea if only your parents met would you subsequently be born and only under that circumstance.

If something isn't designed, planned or engineered to be in a specific configuration yet such a specific configuration occurs we can either believe it was by the luckiest stroke of coincidence imaginable or it was in fact planned and designed. The debate about theism and atheism isn't a one way street as most atheists characterize it, that the so called burden of evidence rests with theists only. Atheists make a claim also, that the universe and our existence all occurred minus any plan or design. That the conditions that allowed our existence occurred was not by plan, but by fortuitous happenstance. Of course you'll object and say it wasn't by chance it was because the laws of physics produced the result we observe but according to atheists the laws of physics weren't engineered or designed to be as they are either.

Thus it is not an established fact that these were fine-tuned in any manner of speaking.

Except for the unaccountable fact they happen to be within extremely fine tolerance for planets, stars and life to exist. People can weigh that fact for themselves and decide if that is evidence of design or whether they think your objections hold water.


First of all, learn some science. And mathematics.

What you are saying here is that if force of gravity is one-millionth of what it is now, i.e. if it were changed to .0001% of its current value, then the formation of planetary bodies would be significantly impacted. No shit, Sherlock. You just changed it by 99.9999%. That is not a narrow range by any stretch of imagination.

Secondly,"force of gravity", really? You do realize that the force is not a constant and depends upon the mass of the object, right? There may be planetary bodies out there with the gravitational force in order of 10exp30 and others in order of 10exp36.

There is the force or gravity which is a varible depending on the amount of mass. There is also the constant of gravity.

The constant of proportionality, G, is the gravitational constant.

The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy.[3] In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:[4]

G = 6.67384(80) \times 10^{-11} \ \mbox{m}^3 \ \mbox{kg}^{-1} \ \mbox{s}^{-2} = 6.67384(80) \times 10^{-11} \ {\rm N}\, {\rm (m/kg)^2}

with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4.[4]

This is the value Martin Rees was referring to, not the relative strength of gravity depending on mass. What Ree's is pointing out is the exactitude the gravitational constant is in order for planets, stars and galaxies to form. By the way I used Ree's as a source because he is highly esteemed in scientific circles and he is also an atheist. The difference between 10exp30 to 10exp36 is nearly infintesmal yet the impact is huge.

Oh, I happen to think that it is extremely significant. What I don't think is that it reveals any sort of purpose or intent. The number, by itself, is evidence of nothing. But you are the one putting forward the hypothesis that it was intentionally chosen. For it to be chosen, there must be a set of other possibilities to choose from. Since you've rejected even that notion, not only have you failed to provide any evidence, but also undercut the premise of your argument. Putting forwards other constants would change little, because the same arguments would apply to that as well. If you care about the opinions of those reading your arguments, then you should make better ones - not ones that could be countered so easily.

I am putting forth a fact (not theory not speculation) that the constant G (among several others) falls in an incredibly narrow range for life to exist or even for the stars and planets to exist. I haven't rejected the notion it could be other wise or accepted the notion it had to be as it is as neither of those possibilites are a fact. If the're not fact they don't exist. Your only counter is we don't know if they had to be as they are or whether there values came by happenstance. In other words your counter argument is a plea to ignorance. To me it makes no difference, if they had to be as they are, thats what we expect from something that was designed. Why does a printed circuit board fall in a extremely narrow range to perform a certain function...because it was designed or alternatively it occured by happenstance.

---

I couldn't help but notice that Drew claims that only people who aren't already committed to a position can be objective about the merit of his arguments. By that measure, apparently he is not objective in his assessment of these arguments, so why we should listen to them, or even someone objective listen to them? Perhaps Drew can reveal the not so objective reasons he believes these arguments. (And he repeatedly makes mention of being unable to persuade a dyed-in-the-wool atheist. I'm not an atheist, yet he fails to persuade me. I guess the only people capable of being objective by his criteria, are those willing to agree with him on the matter. Sounds like a back-handed ad hominem if you ask me, as well as an example of poisoning the well. It also sounds a lot like that hypothetical chess game with a pigeon.)

My arguments or opposing arguments. Of course I believe I am objective as undoubtedly most atheists think they are objective but do you think I should decide the merit of atheist arguments or they should decide the merit of mine? Don't you think the merits of our respective arguments are better decided by impartial folks who are uncommitted?

For what it's worth, Victor Stenger has run simulations in which the parameters of the universe varied by up to two orders of magnitude, and half of those universes yielded long period universes with heavy elements capable for the support of life as we know it.

Yes and he also manipulated other constants to counter balance the effect.

So you're wrong on the philosophical arguments, you're also wrong on the facts.

No you're wrong...completely. Happy?

The only thing that atheism implies is no belief in a god. Period. Any other crap that you add onto that, such as metaphysical naturalism, is your own bullshit misunderstanding and has nothing to do with atheism.

Thats your line of bullshit. If you don't believe the universe was designed and engineered then you believe it came about by happenstance. The crap atheism is just no belief in god is just a debating tactic.

"What is a right?" which you basically did not answer

No I answered you were just unsatisfied with the answer...so sue me.

Moreover, additional problems present themselves. The traditional god of the Abrahamanic faiths made humans knowing full well that they would suffer and die (which is by all accounts an unpleasant thing, for both the dying and those left behind).

Sorry I am a theist not affilated with any church or organized religion so please take your whining elsewhere.