Let's say that science proves that God exists

[genkaus]

Okay I am reading it once again (I believe this is the article you referred to)

The Anthropic Fallacy written in 2009

Are you being serious right now? Are you so hopelessly incompetent that you can't even follow a simple discussion where each of my argument is given directly below the point it addresses so that all of the lines of debate remain separate and there should not be any confusion as to what is a response to what? Or is this just an extremely ill thought-out attempt at creating a strawman? Do you really think that just because you choose to act as if my arguments don't exist that I would've forgotten the ones I actually made? Or is it that you make so many errors and fallacies that you lose track of which of them you are being nailed on?

I have not referred to any article in this thread. Whatever article you are cherry-picking these paragraphs from, this would be my first time seeing them. The fallacy I was referring to in this line of argument was your blatant use of "denying the antecedent" explained both with use of example and application. I have no idea whose argument you are replying to here nor any idea what the article actually says - since I don't think you have actually addressed the whole article here.

Since you are guilty of anthropic fallacy, I will address your arguments. I won't justify all the arguments provided here because these weren't my arguments to begin with and I am not aware of their full content. So I'll leave that to the person who originally presented them.

1. All the life on this planet is related – you only have to glance at the molecular evidence in the form of DNA. It’s all from the same stock, and is supported by the element carbon. We know of no other form of life, although some have suggested that silicon could possibly form the kind of complex, long-chain molecules that life needs, as carbon does. This tends to give us what is known as ‘carbon chauvinism’, in that there could be plenty of other intelligent beings that aren’t like us, and don’t require the kind of physical or chemical set-up we have here. Just because we don’t know about them doesn’t mean that they couldn’t exist.

Is this serious? Again I was told when I first posted on this discussion board atheists only consider facts. How is it you require theists to cite facts as evidence in favor of their belief but atheists can cite mere possibilities and act as if they carry the same weight. If something isn't a well established fact, it doesn't exist. I have to assume this is his best argument against the anthropic principal because he cites it first, yet his objection is based on fantasy.

No, its not.

First of all, notice that the author has gone to great lengths to separate facts from hypotheses. Further, the hypotheses themselves are likely given as a response to specific arguments. If I had to guess, this is given as a response to your argument that life would require water/right distance from sun/magnetic field etc. What you are implying by that statement is that no other life than what we know of is possible.

That is your hypotheses. There is no evidence for that and as such providing a counter-hypothesis as to how such a life might be possible is sufficient. Its not an argument completely based on fantasy, since we know for a fact that biogenic silica is used by some life-forms on earth for skeletal structure and there is a theory (meaning it has some facts to support it) about the idea that the first living organisms were silicon based. But even if it was fantasy, it is still only in response to your fantasy that life isn't possible outside the narrow environmental parameters existing upon this Earth.

Personally, I don't think he needed to break out the hypotheticals to counter the argument of specific environmental conditions. As it happens we know for a fact that life is possible outside the so called narrow weather range. We know of organisms that can survive in extreme volcanic heat, in extreme colds and even in vacuum. Your premise is that the environmental conditions of earth are suitable for life, but this clearly shows that life tends to adapt to the conditions it finds itself in.

Hindsight gives a very illusory idea of cause and effect. Imagine you’ve hit a golf ball 300 yards and it comes to rest with a specific and unique alignment with the blades of grass it finally comes into contact with, as it inevitably must. The chances of exactly that configuration occurring is zero, considering the infinite number of alternative positions that the ball could have occupied. That doesn’t mean that it can’t have happened, though, or that it was somehow ‘planned’ because the ball has to end up somewhere, doesn’t it. It’s next to impossible to win the lottery, but someone does, and the fact that you couldn’t have predicted the winner beforehand (unfortunately) is just as much as a giveaway as the fact that you couldn’t have predicted the arrangement of grass blades on your golf ball after the drive.

This is why I wanted you to tell me which one of these arguments or points really mean something to you so I'm not guessing which ones you think are really relevant or applicable to our discussion. The analogy of hitting a golf ball and it landing in specific blades of grass is in his estimation next to zero. The landing of the ball in a particular patch of grass doesn't produce a specific result. The result we're discussing are the combination of events and conditions necessary for life to be possible in the universe. What does a ball landing somewhere in grass accomplish?

Actually, it does produce a specific result. The alignment and configuration of grass due to the ball falling on it may be as unique and specific as the conditions necessary for known form of life. But since that configuration is of no personal significance to you, you have no problem simply accepting mechanistic forces as the cause of that configuration. However, since the conditions for life are of personal significance, you look for something more or other that that. A more simplistic analogy is that when someone else wins the lottery, you have no problem accepting dumb luck as explanation, while if you win it, some higher power must have intervened to make it so.

A variation on this argument is the notion we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in a universe that allows us to exist because if it didn't we wouldn't be here to observe it. That's trivially true. What does surprise us is the astonishingly narrow set of parameters and conditions necessary for life to obtain if created by forces that didn't care and didn't plan or engineer our existence.

Its not surprising or astonishing at all. In fact, it should be expected because if it weren't so, we wouldn't be here.

The fact is, this universe is extremely vast with an enormous range of conditions occurring through it. Given all sorts of possible combinations of environmental factors, its not only unsurprising that one of them would match the criteria to adequately support our kind of life, it is to be expected.

[Drew_2013]

Just for clarification: Earth is most likely not the only world in the Solar System we know of that satisfies the conditions for liquid water. As far as can be determined, Jupiter's moon Europa has a liquid ocean beneath its icy crust, which has nothing to do with being "just the right distance from the Sun" but is the result of tidal interaction with Jupiter itself (the same tidal forces that make Io the most volcanically active body in the Solar Syatem). Not to mention that Mars is now known to have had liquid water flowing on its surface within at least the last few years.

If we do indeed find life there it will be a feather in your cap...

Finally, we may not - yet - have found evidence for life having adapted to conditions on Mars or the Moon, but we do know that life can exist, even thrive, far outside the narrow range of conditions suitable for human life. Organisms have been found on and around oceanic thermal vents, for example, as well as in the most arid of Arctic environments, the cores of nuclear reactors etc. Based on such a proliferation of life adapted to extreme conditions, the odds of finding examples of life in far less hostile environments (such as the Europa ocean) would seem much more likely than there being none to find.

Could be. Will have to see if it pans out.

[Cyberman]

Why in my cap? I'm not involved in any of this research, nor am I postulating that there actually is life to be found under those conditions; only that life is known to flourish under extremes of conditions many of which ought to be even more inimical to life than relatively complaisant environments such as Europa. Should life indeed be found in these places, it will undoubtedly be the single most world-altering scientific discovery of all time.

[Drew_2013]

Do you deny that several constants lie within an extremely narrow range that would allow life as we know it to exist?

Yes. There is no evidence of any such range.

I think what we are arguing here is semantics. When I say they lie within a certain narrow range that is life permitting you deny there is any such range based on the possibility they had to be as they are. I reject that argument on the grounds it isn't a fact they had to be (for some unknown mysterious reason) as they are. By the same token I reject the argument they could be different than what they are because that is not a fact either. Nonetheless it is a fact as Martin Rees points out in his book Just Six Numbers there are many characteristics of the universe necessary for planets, stars and galaxies to form without which our type of life would be extremely improbable (if not impossible). Its not an established fact those characteristics had to be as they are, nor can we say they can be different but we can say they have to be extremely close to the value they are just for planets and stars to form alone never mind life.

According to Martin Rees if the force of gravity was 10exp30 instead of 10exp36 it would have a significant impact on the formation of planets, stars and galaxies inspite of how narrow a difference those two figures are. Whether it could be different or couldn't be we don't know, regardless we do know the narrow value the force of gravity must lie within for planets and stars to form or at least to form in a configuration suitable for life to occur.

I know in response your going to deny this has any significance. I don't care if it has any significance to you or not, or whether you think it qualifies as evidence or whether you find it persuasive. The only people whose opinion matters are those undecided who might be listening because those are the only people who would be objective. If this were a formal debate, I'd lay out several more constants and how there exacting value allows life to exist.

To the best of my knowledge correct me it I am wrong the majority of scientists claim the universe (as it is now) came into existence about 13 and a half billion years ago.

You are wrong. All the scientists actually say is that the universe started expanding from a singularity 13.5 billion years ago. It has not stayed the same since then, therefore, it did not come into existence as it is now 13.5 billion years ago and there is no evidence to suggest that it did not exist at any point of time.

I think this would just be another boring semantical argument whether a singularity can be classified as the universe. None of the laws of physics we are familiar with pertain to it. It's not the same as steam turning into water. Secondly I don't think its an established fact the universe expanded from a singularity, it is a good theory with evidence behind it.

That's all the gibberish I have time to respond to at the moment.

[Cyberman]

Do you deny that several constants lie within an extremely narrow range that would allow life as we know it to exist?

Easy with the goalposts there, fella! Are we talking about life, or limiting our definition to life as we know it?

[Drew_2013]

Do you deny that several constants lie within an extremely narrow range that would allow life as we know it to exist?

Easy with the goalposts there, fella! Are we talking about life, or limiting our definition to life as we know it?

I am trying my best to limit the discussion to facts in evidence. Life as we know it is the only life in evidence.

[Cyberman]

In that case we have to include all the extremophiles in the category of "life as we know it". That would inevitably broaden your "extremely narrow range that would allow life as we know it to exist" somewhat, wouldn't it?

[fr0d0]

Let's say this thread is over. You know you want to.

[genkaus]

If we do indeed find life there it will be a feather in your cap...

Why would it be a feather in anyone's cap? You'd simply go on to say that life on another planet is further proof that the universe was made for it.

---

I think what we are arguing here is semantics.

Not semantics, facts.

When I say they lie within a certain narrow range that is life permitting you deny there is any such range based on the possibility they had to be as they are.

No, I deny it based on the fact that there is no evidence of them being anything other than what they are.

I reject that argument on the grounds it isn't a fact they had to be (for some unknown mysterious reason) as they are. By the same token I reject the argument they could be different than what they are because that is not a fact either.

So, you reject the notion that they are tunable and you reject the notion that they are not tunable and then you conclude that they are fine-tuned. Explain the convoluted logic behind that one.

Nonetheless it is a fact as Martin Rees points out in his book Just Six Numbers there are many characteristics of the universe necessary for planets, stars and galaxies to form without which our type of life would be extremely improbable (if not impossible).

Well, d'uh. That's like saying that if my parents hadn't met, I wouldn't have been born. That doesn't mean that my parents meeting was for the purpose of my birth.

Its not an established fact those characteristics had to be as they are, nor can we say they can be different but we can say they have to be extremely close to the value they are just for planets and stars to form alone never mind life.

Thus it is not an established fact that these were fine-tuned in any manner of speaking.

According to Martin Rees if the force of gravity was 10exp30 instead of 10exp36 it would have a significant impact on the formation of planets, stars and galaxies inspite of how narrow a difference those two figures are. Whether it could be different or couldn't be we don't know, regardless we do know the narrow value the force of gravity must lie within for planets and stars to form or at least to form in a configuration suitable for life to occur.

First of all, learn some science. And mathematics.

What you are saying here is that if force of gravity is one-millionth of what it is now, i.e. if it were changed to .0001% of its current value, then the formation of planetary bodies would be significantly impacted. No shit, Sherlock. You just changed it by 99.9999%. That is not a narrow range by any stretch of imagination.

Secondly,"force of gravity", really? You do realize that the force is not a constant and depends upon the mass of the object, right? There may be planetary bodies out there with the gravitational force in order of 10exp30 and others in order of 10exp36.

I know in response your going to deny this has any significance. I don't care if it has any significance to you or not, or whether you think it qualifies as evidence or whether you find it persuasive. The only people whose opinion matters are those undecided who might be listening because those are the only people who would be objective. If this were a formal debate, I'd lay out several more constants and how there exacting value allows life to exist.

Oh, I happen to think that it is extremely significant. What I don't think is that it reveals any sort of purpose or intent. The number, by itself, is evidence of nothing. But you are the one putting forward the hypothesis that it was intentionally chosen. For it to be chosen, there must be a set of other possibilities to choose from. Since you've rejected even that notion, not only have you failed to provide any evidence, but also undercut the premise of your argument. Putting forwards other constants would change little, because the same arguments would apply to that as well. If you care about the opinions of those reading your arguments, then you should make better ones - not ones that could be countered so easily.

I think this would just be another boring semantical argument whether a singularity can be classified as the universe. None of the laws of physics we are familiar with pertain to it. It's not the same as steam turning into water.

The universe is defined as "all that exists". If, at a given moment, the singularity is all that exists, then it is, by definition, the universe.

Secondly I don't think its an established fact the universe expanded from a singularity, it is a good theory with evidence behind it.

If we both agree with the statement, then there is no point in debating it. So, do we?

That's all the gibberish I have time to respond by at the moment.

Corrected that for you.

[Angrboda]

I couldn't help but notice that Drew claims that only people who aren't already committed to a position can be objective about the merit of his arguments. By that measure, apparently he is not objective in his assessment of these arguments, so why we should listen to them, or even someone objective listen to them? Perhaps Drew can reveal the not so objective reasons he believes these arguments. (And he repeatedly makes mention of being unable to persuade a dyed-in-the-wool atheist. I'm not an atheist, yet he fails to persuade me. I guess the only people capable of being objective by his criteria, are those willing to agree with him on the matter. Sounds like a back-handed ad hominem if you ask me, as well as an example of poisoning the well. It also sounds a lot like that hypothetical chess game with a pigeon.)

For what it's worth, Victor Stenger has run simulations in which the parameters of the universe varied by up to two orders of magnitude, and half of those universes yielded long period universes with heavy elements capable for the support of life as we know it. So you're wrong on the philosophical arguments, you're also wrong on the facts. This in addition to being unable to describe what a right is, and by what mechanism those rights are communicated from a creator to its creation (aside from citing a document that has no legal standing anywhere in the world). When asked what you mean by "higher" you reply that you mean "philosophically" higher, which means absolutely nothing; it seems as if you've just substituted one undefined term for another undefined term (and yet you complain about others' "semantic" arguments).

And furthermore, you continue to imply that atheism implies a belief in metaphysical naturalism (as well as implying that atheists are obsessed over evidence). These both are straw men of your own making. The only thing that atheism implies is no belief in a god. Period. Any other crap that you add onto that, such as metaphysical naturalism, is your own bullshit misunderstanding and has nothing to do with atheism. (In your first reply to me, you admitted as much, and then in the same breath stated that "if" one accepted a specific point of view [on naturalism] then no objective meaning or rights flowed from that position. Even if I agreed with your assessment, that still isn't atheism and so is irrelevant to whether of not atheists can or cannot find meaning/rights/purpose/whatever in their existence. As I tried to draw out with my previous questions about "What is a right?" which you basically did not answer, neither have you provided any substantial reason why we should think [your] theism provides these things either. [Because your god is 'philosophically' higher than we are? What the fuck does that even mean?])

Moreover, additional problems present themselves. The traditional god of the Abrahamanic faiths made humans knowing full well that they would suffer and die (which is by all accounts an unpleasant thing, for both the dying and those left behind). If one concludes that this universe was designed to allow the existence of finite life that would suffer and die, it seems reasonable to infer by the same logic that our purpose is to provide some vicarious amusement to this god by creating the conditions of suffering and death. If by "fine tuned" you mean the universe was fine tuned in order to create a crucible in which gratuitous and unnecessary suffering could occur, perhaps you are onto something. Sounds about right from what I read of traditional accounts of this god.