RE: Why we believe
January 13, 2015 at 3:21 am
(This post was last modified: January 13, 2015 at 3:23 am by Alex K.)
@Grasshopper,
Let me guess, they voted for #1 in order to defend against the fine tuning argument? Yet I think there might be a misunderstanding: there's a huge difference between arguing that the laws if physics in the broadest sense have to be the way they are now, and the whole subsequent evolution (cosmically as well as biologically) having to be the same. I've seen atheists argue for the former, as I said mostly in the context of fine tuning, but hardly anyone seriously argues for the latter interpretation. Just for completeness, I personally tend to think there is fine tuning, but that's not strictly a scientific statement.
Let me guess, they voted for #1 in order to defend against the fine tuning argument? Yet I think there might be a misunderstanding: there's a huge difference between arguing that the laws if physics in the broadest sense have to be the way they are now, and the whole subsequent evolution (cosmically as well as biologically) having to be the same. I've seen atheists argue for the former, as I said mostly in the context of fine tuning, but hardly anyone seriously argues for the latter interpretation. Just for completeness, I personally tend to think there is fine tuning, but that's not strictly a scientific statement.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
