The fine tuning argument

[theVOID]

A naturalistic explanation would ultimately lead to something which doesn't require anymore explanation because that is the source of explanation for everything else.

I guess ultimately it would have to, though what that explanation could be I don't have a fucking clue.

That's why God doesn't have to be so complex.

The way God is defined makes him complex. Anything with a mind, a personality, morals and the ability to conceive of a design and then design it is an extremely complex entity.

If you wanted you could define God as being something simple, but we both know that's not the type of God you believe in - That god is one that represents the epitome of complexity.

God's omniscience alone requires his mind represent all knowledge, and a representation is at least as complex as the thing that it represents.

He could be so simple that it's beyond our grasp to understand His true nature.

Sure, but not the God you believe in. In fact, such a simple thing really couldn't be called "God" at all, not without redefining the word to mean something entirely different from what it means now, he couldn't be a personality, or a mind, or be omniscient, for example.

All of the aforementioned are things that are far more complex than an algorithm and a feedback loop, which is what nature essentially is.

The simplest thing could also be the greatest and the most mysterious thing you can ever imagine (or can't imagine).

The simplest thing would, by definition, be the thing with the least number of attributes. The more attributes you assign to this being the less simple it becomes.

This simple entity, should he exist at all, is clearly not the being described in your theology.

We can't understand the mind of God. Maybe it can exist all by itself without needing a brain like we do.

Firstly, this an appeal to mystery.

Secondly, Even if it didn't require constituents it doesn't make the contents of the mind any less complicated.

It's a combination of faith + reason + intuition - the evidence only.

Faith = bullshit
Intuition = inconclusive and unreliabke
Evidence = non existent.

If you think you have "evidence" that indicates the existence of a god I would love to see it. Unfortunately that's not what i'm going to get... All the 'evidence' you have presented so far has been 'look, here's a gap, i'm going to claim god did it'.

This sort of shit doesn't fly here.

Not just a mind, but God is a law itself for the entire universe, a law for all the other laws of nature.

And you just shot yourself in the foot.

According to you God is natural law and a mind. This makes him more complex than natural law alone by definition alone.

I don't know the answer to that, but it's possible that He gave the universe some kind of a self-organizational intelligence to ultimately sort out everything by itself to finally bring out the result which He had planned for. Yet again, maybe He could've done it the first time if He wanted to.

So in order to do this 99.999% of all galaxies are useless, the one galaxy that was useful contains 400,000,000,000 stars, all but one contain the planet he wanted, upon which 99.9% of all life forms had become extinct before his goal was met....

No, I believe in a perfectly efficient God.

That is in stark contradiction to the God who created hundreds of billions of times more things than was necessary to achieve his goal...

It's only that the universe if innefficient in certain ways.

Hang on... If I build a car, and my car is inefficient in many ways, I therefore am an inefficient designer, am I not?

An efficient designer would be one who takes an efficient amount of time and resources to make an efficient product.

I don't know why He made it like that. However, God reveals His perfection in the universe by bringing order out of chaos.

*sigh* Now you're just preaching.

Order from chaos is a pretty mundane phenomenon, patterns arise in nature all of the time via mechanism that are very well understood, none of which require a God to happen.

You'll notice that fine tuning has happened through different levels: First, the laws of physics were fine tuned, then the the laws of chemistry were fine tuned, and then the laws of biology were fine tuned to create life.

Actually, it would only have needed to be fine-tuned at one stage, considering all of the other phenomenon follow on from the first.

For example, Life is contingent upon biology, which is contingent upon chemistry, which is contingent upon physics. Therefore only physics needs to be fine-tuned.

That means in order to explain fine-tuning we need only to explain the reasons why the laws of physics are as they are.

Maybe the laws of physics were the most costly to fine-tune since there's a greater number of possible parameters to choose from than the laws of biology and chemistry.

Only for this particular biology and chemistry. A law with different physics would give rise to different biology and chemistry, if not some other completely different hierachy of complexity altogether. It seems reasonable to think that any system subject to entropy would create more variables from the initial system, which in turn leads to opportunities of complexity.

It would only have to be the most fundamental constituents of the universe, energy and a variation of natural law (however slight) that would lead to any possible system.

So the question is still "why this natural law" rather than "why this natural law for physics, and this one for chemistry etc"

Everything has a cause, we can try and say it doesnt but untill we have something which doesnt need a cause (other than God) Everything does have a cause, its not a theory, its a fact.

Why "other than god"?

Until you explain that this is both special pleading and a bare assertion.