The fine tuning argument

[solja247]

Well first you have to prove design and you haven't. Then you need to show why it is mankind that is the object of the design and not black holes. What non theological evidence can you offer?

This universe is finely tuned for life, for stars, for black holes, for Hydrogen, for galaxies, for planets etc.

Second, scientists don't say that life or the universe arose by chance.

How did it arise? was it aliens?

---

Again, if there are multiple universes, each one with its own laws of physics, its a virtual certainty that this exact universe with these exact laws of physics occurred. The reason we are in this one, observing it, is because we couldn't exist in one of the universes which wasn't conducive to life. No need to invoke god.

You do actually.
What started the Multiverses to exist?

You can get rid of a Theistic God, but not a Deistic God...

---

No I don't believe you understand Dawkins point. In essence Occam's Razor states that the hypothesis with the fewest number of assumptions is usually superior, most other things being equal. What Dawkins was arguing was that given the enormous number of assumptions you have to make for the God hypothesis (That he exists in a realm without what we call existence, that the realm itself exists, that he is an intelligence, that there is a mechanism which drives that intelligence - some sort of divine brain - that he is omnipotent, that there is a mechanism which allows omnipotence, that he is omniscient, that there is a mechanism which allowed omniscience, that omniscience and omnipotence can exist together, that there are other unknown laws which govern this realm, even without getting to the assumptions you need to make for Yahweh and Jesus the list could be a page long)

I didnt get that from Dawkins, bit if he was trying to disprove the God hypothesis, by talking about a theistic God, it really begs the question, 'Should he be an atheist apologetist?' If he cant make the difference between a Deistic God and a Theistic God.

Compare the god hypothesis to one where the Big Bang was caused by quantum fluctuations within the singularity which was the foetal universe. Considering the big bang's trigger mechanism would be found in a well known physical theory, Quantum Mechanics, the number of assumptions you need are far fewer and thus the probability of this answer being correct increases compared to "god did it". Dawkins wasn't arguing that something which is more complex than the universe cannot exist, or rather something more complex than out current understanding of the universe cannot exist, but that given the unfathomable complexity of god he is far more unlikely than any of the "natural" explanations.

I keep on forgetting that we know so much about our universe. seriously we dont know anything about our universe! So why would we know what brought it into existence?