When Faith and Science Clash

[IATIA]

Absofuckinglutely not. There are thousands of things that have and have not happened because of chance. The way life evolved is an example. Planets and meteor strikes also. If you roll a die, it's not going to roll 6 every time, will it?

I was talking about the constants of electrons, speed of light, speed of expansion....if all this arises from "nothing" or "infinite density"...then why would it differ universe to universe when they would have came about from the same thing?

What System of Solace says. Can you roll a '6' everytime?

It would be unlikely that what generated the big bang would be precisely the same everytime. Then again, maybe a Big Bang can only happen under 'precisely' the same circumstances everytime. This pretty much falls into the area of truly unknowable.

[Mystic]

So perhaps physical necessity is a solution to the teleological argument?

[genkaus]

[The Grand Nudger]

Well TBH, if this universe was the only universe to exist, I would say teleological argument is good evidence, although not conclusive evidence of a designer.

It isn't a good argument, and not because there are other universes (are there?), it's been a shitty argument for longer than any other universe has been proposed.

However, a designer is not the only explanation, multiple universes can be an explanation.

As can, "there is no fucking design"......

But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

You have questions about other universes but not the status of this one..that's just glossed over.....

Also, if we come across so many life in the future in the universe, sentient life forms, while we know it is very much against the odds....wouldn't it seem like a designer wanted there to be sentient life.

More glossing. The "designer" wants nothing, there is no design.

I am not making an argument either way. I'm just saying dismissing "evidence" of design simply because it can be chance doesn't seem logical to me.

You should, rather than blathering on about designs and designers before even attempting to do so.

I say evidence not in the sense it's conclusive, but that strongly favors the notion.

So no evidence you'd be willing to present, make an argument for..etc etc etc. Garbage Mystic, absolute garbage.

[Ryantology]

It seems to me that at the core of atheism is a deep "faith" in one's own cognitive abilities and their reliability in determining truth.

If atheism is true, then your cognitive abilities have evolved with the aim of survivability....not truth.

Not even. The very basis of classical computation, the process of information for a useful purpose, is a search for truth. Binary, which is about as simple as you can get in terms of elemental functions, is either a true or false state. When you get into thinking, which is computation in some of its more complex forms, you're still basically tossing about countless true-false problems and answering them with experience and observation.

Knowing the truth of a situation is essential to surviving it without having to rely on favorable chance. The more you know, the more favorable your odds. A search for greater truth is not some opposing behavior to a focus on survival. It is merely the mental luxury we animals enjoy thanks to our relatively robust brains and (for many of us, at least) a lack of existential threats to people. It is beyond considerations of immediate survival.

[Jackalope]

So perhaps physical necessity is a solution to the teleological argument?

You say that as if the teleological argument hadn't been refuted thoroughly nearly three centuries ago.

[genkaus]

Well TBH, if this universe was the only universe to exist, I would say teleological argument is good evidence, although not conclusive evidence of a designer.

However, a designer is not the only explanation, multiple universes can be an explanation.

But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

Also, if we come across so many life in the future in the universe, sentient life forms, while we know it is very much against the odds....wouldn't it seem like a designer wanted there to be sentient life.

I am not making an argument either way. I'm just saying dismissing "evidence" of design simply because it can be chance doesn't seem logical to me.

I say evidence not in the sense it's conclusive, but that strongly favors the notion.

Even if this were the only universe, no one said that the values came about by chance. You are assuming that those constants could have had any value all of which would've been equiprobable. But physics doesn't work like that. When you toss a coin in the air, mathematics might say that the chance of getting heads is 50-50, but in physics, we can actually determined at the throw that the chance of heads is 100% and of tails is 0 or vice-versa.

[Simon Moon]

[Mystic]

Well TBH, if this universe was the only universe to exist, I would say teleological argument is good evidence, although not conclusive evidence of a designer.

However, a designer is not the only explanation, multiple universes can be an explanation.

But then I have questions....like why would it vary from universe to universe?

Also, if we come across so many life in the future in the universe, sentient life forms, while we know it is very much against the odds....wouldn't it seem like a designer wanted there to be sentient life.

I am not making an argument either way. I'm just saying dismissing "evidence" of design simply because it can be chance doesn't seem logical to me.

I say evidence not in the sense it's conclusive, but that strongly favors the notion.

Even if this were the only universe, no one said that the values came about by chance. You are assuming that those constants could have had any value all of which would've been equiprobable. But physics doesn't work like that. When you toss a coin in the air, mathematics might say that the chance of getting heads is 50-50, but in physics, we can actually determined at the throw that the chance of heads is 100% and of tails is 0 or vice-versa.

So it's by physical necessity?

[genkaus]

So it's by physical necessity?

It may very well be. We don't know for certain, but we don't have a reason to expect otherwise and we do have reasons (constants with root cause known) to expect it.