Atheism destroyed with a question

[Mister Agenda]

[quote='Mister Agenda' pid='601225' dateline='1392054612']

The 'math' used to determine this is based on nothing but assumptions.

The assumption/suggestion basically is that the universe was purposefully made for life, and by extension humanity\beings like humans from the beginning.

Not even keeping up appearances of being scientific anymore, eh? If that's the assumption, it's not even an argument, just a declaration.

But for the math, the assumption is that the universal constants aren't actually contant and could have had other values if they were determined randomly when the universe formed. The only thing the math lacks is evidence that the constants are variable or determined randomly.

Hence the quite extreme and alarming levels of fine tuning and all the complex processes of development that we can actually observe.

That is an extreme and alarmingly odd thing to say. What's extreme and alarming about it?

This also ties in with the more traditional philosophical arguments of design, first cause, the unmoved mover and so on.

The fact that we're in a universe that doesn't require supernatural intervention to explain our existence isn't evidence that supernatural intervention is required to explain its existence. Quite the opposite, if our existence required supernatural explanation, it would make the probability for a supernatural explanation for the universe more likely, as the existence of valid supernatural explanations would be established. If follows that our existence not requiring supernatural explanation doesn't add to the probability of the universe requiring one.

You don't necessarily have to tie it in with the Bible it will work with the Quran or any other claimed revelation but what matters is that is compatible. Not only compatible but would actually hint towards this basis of reality. I know this isn't not currently popular in scientific circles but the fine tuning argument is one of the strong points against atheism. I think there are stronger points but this is quite good. And of course it's fully compatible with evolution which is important. All these Young Earthers and whatever really ought to see this argument as it should address their concerns.

If this is what theists consider a strong point for the existence of God, they apparently are quite aware of the thinness of the ice of their reasoning. Fine tuning is a terribly flawed argument...but I do think that it currently is your most convincing one, in the sense that it's convincing if you don't think about it too much.

Though I give you props for not being a creationist, at least you're not denying the nose on your face.

You will just have to go on what you see and what you think it would likely imply, the obvious implication is that you're looking at something that was made by some kind of conscious intelligence such as our own albeit on a far greater level/scale.

You're mixing your presumptions with your observations and conclusions.

So the facts will fit the faith without any real conflict. They don't prove the faith but it's not bad, the argument worked a thousand years ago and it still works in light of what we now know.

Yes, constantly adjusting 'the revealed truth' to fit the actual facts is a smart meme survival strategy. The more a religion does this, the less harm it causes, IMHO.

God didn't use energy to create the universe that was all created with the universe which was brought into existence along with time itself. So I think this is what you would expect.

What I expect is that after the fact, various theists will adjust their beliefs and proclaim the findings of science were what they expected all along. They just never come out and say so in advance of the science. And it simply doesn't follow from anything that an omnipotent creator has to make a universe where the energy adds up to zero. This is the fundamental problem with the fine-tuning argument: fine-tuning is superfluous to omnipotence.

You can see the complexity and fine tuning of the universe required for the formation of life, and the overall structural formation over time as an elaborate process. The process goes from chaotic simplicity to well complex form and order. So we don't have an example of a universe God didn't create to compare it to but the scientific facts are interesting enough as they are. Certainly to engineer something on this scale you would need an immense amount of fine tuning, there is no margin for error or flexibility involved in any of the parameters.

Keep repeating how self-evident it is that you're right. It's a great argument.

The universe could have been any kind of chaotic bollocks at all if it wasn't deliberate just a monkeys on typewriters kind of thing.

That's the claim of the strong fine-tuning argument. There's absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

Yes so some planets are suitable for life and some aren't it wasn't micromanaged to that extent, as long as even a small percentage of planets can do their job then the process will follow through to fruition and ultimately here we are.

The only thing we disagree on here is that any 'micromanaging' was required at all.