Let's say that science proves that God exists

[PyroManiac]

It would be impossible to prove, It's not like God is real, anyways.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know if it's already been said and I missed it - but if it were conclusive that there was a "god" but not who or what that god was - those that already insist that their god is "the god" would likely insist upon the same even more forcefully, bolstered by knowledge that they could only interpret as support of the belief that they already held (and of course ignoring that the existence of a god in no way validates or supports any existing religion). IOW, business as usual.

Wouldn't change much in my life. Wouldn't be an atheist anymore - the term will have lost reasonable meaning. Still wouldn't be an adherent or acolyte of any religion.

[Brian37]

I don't know if it's already been said and I missed it - but if it were conclusive that there was a "god" but not who or what that god was - those that already insist that their god is "the god" would likely insist upon the same even more forcefully, bolstered by knowledge that they could only interpret as support of the belief that they already held (and of course ignoring that the existence of a god in no way validates or supports any existing religion). IOW, business as usual.

Wouldn't change much in my life. Wouldn't be an atheist anymore - the term will have lost reasonable meaning. Still wouldn't be an adherent or acolyte of any religion.

It would change my life. Of course I would have to change my position, but what would really change is wanting to kick the deadbeat in the nuts even harder. But since you cant kick a god in the nuts anymore than you could kick Mickey Mouse in the nuts, this is nothing but mental masturbation.

[Drew_2013]

Why would it [discovery of life on another planet] 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.

It would still be a significant piece of evidence in favor or your narrative.

Not semantics, facts.

That's correct, I am arguing facts and you're arguing semantics.

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

Evidence are facts that comport with a belief. You believe the universe is the way it is minus any planning, engineering or design. I believe it was created for the purpose of human life. Without reference to whether they had to be as they are or whether they could be otherwise it is a fact they are with a mindboggling exactitude of what they need to be just for planets, stars and galaxies to exist. It's neither a fact they could be otherwise or they had to be as they are, it is a fact for us to exist they need to be nearly precisely what they are. You don't have to tell me that in your opinion, its meaningless, that's a given. I believe it would have significant evidentiary value to impartial people who are neither sold on theism or sold on atheism. You're rebuttal there is no evidence of them being anything other than what they are would be a pathetically weak before a group of impartial people especially as I went through each constant and provided facts of how razor thin with in a life permitting range each one is.

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.

I'll let the fact they fall within such a narrow range that would allow life to speak for itself without reference to whether they could be otherwise. I think your counter argument only persuades people who like yourself are totally convinced God doesn't exist.

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.

That's a bit too esoteric for me. I have no idea if only your parents met would you subsequently be born and only under that circumstance.

If something isn't designed, planned or engineered to be in a specific configuration yet such a specific configuration occurs we can either believe it was by the luckiest stroke of coincidence imaginable or it was in fact planned and designed. The debate about theism and atheism isn't a one way street as most atheists characterize it, that the so called burden of evidence rests with theists only. Atheists make a claim also, that the universe and our existence all occurred minus any plan or design. That the conditions that allowed our existence occurred was not by plan, but by fortuitous happenstance. Of course you'll object and say it wasn't by chance it was because the laws of physics produced the result we observe but according to atheists the laws of physics weren't engineered or designed to be as they are either.

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

Except for the unaccountable fact they happen to be within extremely fine tolerance for planets, stars and life to exist. People can weigh that fact for themselves and decide if that is evidence of design or whether they think your objections hold water.


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.

There is the force or gravity which is a varible depending on the amount of mass. There is also the constant of gravity.

The constant of proportionality, G, is the gravitational constant.

The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy.[3] In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:[4]

G = 6.67384(80) \times 10^{-11} \ \mbox{m}^3 \ \mbox{kg}^{-1} \ \mbox{s}^{-2} = 6.67384(80) \times 10^{-11} \ {\rm N}\, {\rm (m/kg)^2}

with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4.[4]

This is the value Martin Rees was referring to, not the relative strength of gravity depending on mass. What Ree's is pointing out is the exactitude the gravitational constant is in order for planets, stars and galaxies to form. By the way I used Ree's as a source because he is highly esteemed in scientific circles and he is also an atheist. The difference between 10exp30 to 10exp36 is nearly infintesmal yet the impact is huge.

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 am putting forth a fact (not theory not speculation) that the constant G (among several others) falls in an incredibly narrow range for life to exist or even for the stars and planets to exist. I haven't rejected the notion it could be other wise or accepted the notion it had to be as it is as neither of those possibilites are a fact. If the're not fact they don't exist. Your only counter is we don't know if they had to be as they are or whether there values came by happenstance. In other words your counter argument is a plea to ignorance. To me it makes no difference, if they had to be as they are, thats what we expect from something that was designed. Why does a printed circuit board fall in a extremely narrow range to perform a certain function...because it was designed or alternatively it occured by happenstance.

---

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.)

My arguments or opposing arguments. Of course I believe I am objective as undoubtedly most atheists think they are objective but do you think I should decide the merit of atheist arguments or they should decide the merit of mine? Don't you think the merits of our respective arguments are better decided by impartial folks who are uncommitted?

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.

Yes and he also manipulated other constants to counter balance the effect.

So you're wrong on the philosophical arguments, you're also wrong on the facts.

No you're wrong...completely. Happy?

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.

Thats your line of bullshit. If you don't believe the universe was designed and engineered then you believe it came about by happenstance. The crap atheism is just no belief in god is just a debating tactic.

"What is a right?" which you basically did not answer

No I answered you were just unsatisfied with the answer...so sue me.

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).

Sorry I am a theist not affilated with any church or organized religion so please take your whining elsewhere.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would change my life. Of course I would have to change my position, but what would really change is wanting to kick the deadbeat in the nuts even harder. But since you cant kick a god in the nuts anymore than you could kick Mickey Mouse in the nuts, this is nothing but mental masturbation.

Says who? Sounds like gods PR machine in motion - sounds like he doesnt like to get kicked in the nuts and found a way to prevent a large majority of said incidents. I don't see any reason why you couldn't kick a god in the balls.

[Angrboda]

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.

Yes and he also manipulated other constants to counter balance the effect.

Oh, so in other words you admit that this isn't the only set of constants which could produce the result. Your fine-tuning argument is getting better all the time.

So you're wrong on the philosophical arguments, you're also wrong on the facts.

No you're wrong...completely. Happy?

With you basically caving on your main point... not yet, but I'm getting there.

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.

Thats your line of bullshit. If you don't believe the universe was designed and engineered then you believe it came about by happenstance. The crap atheism is just no belief in god is just a debating tactic.

That is a strawman, as well as a misapplication of the law of the excluded middle (there are more than two options).

So, the uncommitted should decide whether you are right, but you get to decide the truth of what atheists believe. Hypocritical much. I think somebody needs a nap.

"What is a right?" which you basically did not answer

No I answered you were just unsatisfied with the answer...so sue me.

I was unsatisfied with your answer because.... *drumroll-please* it was unsatisfactory.

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).

Sorry I am a theist not affilated with any church or organized religion so please take your whining elsewhere.

Now I definitely think somebody needs a nap. You miss the overarching point in order to scurry under your typical "I'm not affiliated with any known church" debating tactic. For any set of conditions that exist in our universe, there are a million and one events that would likely not have occurred if things had been different. To pick any single one of them and say, ah ha, this is the reason for this unlikely scenario and ignore all the others is simply a non sequitur. There are multiple heavy elements that do not occur naturally and required human artifice to create. Who is to say that the creation of one of those elements wasn't the intention behind the creator's act, and humans were simply one path to that goal? I'm certain a god could think up a zillion and one ways towards any specific goal. That you think that you are that goal, and that he only had this one way, is rather underselling god. All the fine-tuning argument says is that if things had been different, then things would have been different. The existence of life in this particular universe is no more special than any equally improbable scenario in a universe where life did not occur. All you're showing by making a lot of noise about how improbable the existence of life is, is that you think you're special. You're not. At the end of the day, you're just a soup of chemicals, as unlikely as any of a billion other improbable things.


Oh, and for what it's worth, as a theist who isn't committed to any specific creation scenario, by your own criteria, I'm well placed to assess the merit of your arguments. I love it when a plan comes together!

[Angrboda]

Oh, and ETA:

Among other problems with the fine-tuning argument that are slowly unfurling before me, as noted, the choice of specific improbable event in the general fine-tuning argument, and in particular your version of it with its emphasis on life, yields another counter-example. Some time in the next century, some people are predicting that artificial intelligence may reach critical mass and begin an asymptotic climb in terms of intelligence. Given the run away nature of anthropogenic global warming, if the timing is right, the singularity could take off early enough to watch humanity and all animal life on the planet go extinct, and early enough for the machines to take over their own self renewal and maintenance. How do you know that god didn't design the universe for the machines, and life was just a convenient stepping stone?


(And more on the back side, it appears prima facie that the fine-tuning argument is at heart a reductio ad absurdum which turns on a) assuming naturalism, b) pick a naturally occurring event, c) show that the probability of that event occurring is too low for it to have occurred naturally. Unfortunately, I'm weak on both symbolic logic and reductio, so I'll leave that to someone else or another day. If true, the argument turns on demonstrating that event P was too improbable to have occurred naturally, which throws off all sorts of red flags.)

[Esquilax]

I'll let the fact they fall within such a narrow range that would allow life to speak for itself without reference to whether they could be otherwise. I think your counter argument only persuades people who like yourself are totally convinced God doesn't exist.

You keep talking about narrow ranges, but that's not exactly right, now is it? I mean, we're working on a pretty limited scale here, aren't we? All you can say with any degree of intellectually honesty is that things fall within a narrow range for life as we understand it. But that doesn't mean that, if the circumstances were different, that life couldn't have arisen in some other way that we simply- through mistake or lack of knowledge- couldn't have imagined.

The debate about theism and atheism isn't a one way street as most atheists characterize it, that the so called burden of evidence rests with theists only. Atheists make a claim also, that the universe and our existence all occurred minus any plan or design. That the conditions that allowed our existence occurred was not by plan, but by fortuitous happenstance.

Noooooooooo...

Seriously, stop telling us what we believe, it's obnoxious. Once again, for the sake of honesty, I can't speak for everyone else here, but my worldview doesn't preclude a god entirely, but it does demand that I not believe anything without evidence, and that you and yours haven't provided sufficient evidence for yours. Given this, I'm hardly making a claim, am I?

Besides, who's saying that a possible designer needs to be a god? Or that there needs to be a designer or randomness? You can't say with any more certainty than I can, and yet you're advocating a position, whereas I am not. Nor is any atheist really, beyond that you haven't been able to prove your designer at all.

So... you know, stop telling us what's in our heads, okay?

Of course you'll object and say it wasn't by chance it was because the laws of physics produced the result we observe but according to atheists the laws of physics weren't engineered or designed to be as they are either.

Actually, there's also this: so what if it was all by chance? And who cares how small you think the chances would be? The chances could be .01 percent with a thousand zeroes before it and there'd still be a chance it would happen, so long as it isn't an utter zero. To be very simple, it has happened, too; on a long enough timescale, everything does, if it has a chance of happening. And in our case, the thing in question only needs to happen once.

What does the slim chance of a thing prove, beyond that the chances of the thing happening are slim? How does this point toward your designer at all?

Except for the unaccountable fact they happen to be within extremely fine tolerance for planets, stars and life to exist. People can weigh that fact for themselves and decide if that is evidence of design or whether they think your objections hold water.

Except that small chances are not evidence of design at all. You're imposing some additional mystery onto the situation without any form of evidence, and that additional thing has no explanatory power of its own, it just raises further questions.

I am putting forth a fact (not theory not speculation) that the constant G (among several others) falls in an incredibly narrow range for life to exist or even for the stars and planets to exist. I haven't rejected the notion it could be other wise or accepted the notion it had to be as it is as neither of those possibilites are a fact. If the're not fact they don't exist. Your only counter is we don't know if they had to be as they are or whether there values came by happenstance. In other words your counter argument is a plea to ignorance.

Are you being serious? How is that a plea to ignorance? We genuinely don't know if these constants could be different. The only significant divergence between your viewpoint here and ours is that where we admit our ignorance and suggest that we continue research, you're simply assuming they could never change, and then making a number of other assumptions to reach your desired conclusion, regardless of the accuracy of any point of your argument.

Now, which of us is appealing to ignorance again?

Thats your line of bullshit. If you don't believe the universe was designed and engineered then you believe it came about by happenstance. The crap atheism is just no belief in god is just a debating tactic.

Wow, false dichotomy much?

[The Grand Nudger]

The "narrow range" isn't exactly all that narrow in any case. It sounds good though, and I suppose that might have something to do with why it's repeated by both sides so often.

Our habitable zone (and again only addressing -our kind- of life), for example, is between 0.725 to 3.0 au's. (an AU being equal to 149,597,870,700 meters or 92,955,807.273 miles) - and this is based on our sun (a rather pathetic little star), other HZ's may be larger or smaller. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to make that particular drive. Florida is narrow, the HZ is not.

If anyone has another favorite "narrow" this or that we can work out the effects of any change and see just how "narrow" the range is....

(for reference, approximately 11,739 earths could be laid side to side in a single au of our solar system's HZ...........)

All of this ignores strange little enclaves and abnormalities that exist beyond our HZ that are capable of producing effects very much like our HZ. At what point can we stop calling this one narrow?

[genkaus]

It would still be a significant piece of evidence in favor or your narrative.

So, you won't make the argument I just said you would?

That's correct, I am arguing facts and you're arguing semantics.

Prove it.

Evidence are facts that comport with a belief. You believe the universe is the way it is minus any planning, engineering or design. I believe it was created for the purpose of human life. Without reference to whether they had to be as they are or whether they could be otherwise it is a fact they are with a mindboggling exactitude of what they need to be just for planets, stars and galaxies to exist. It's neither a fact they could be otherwise or they had to be as they are, it is a fact for us to exist they need to be nearly precisely what they are.

On this point, you have been shown to be wrong - by Apo.

You don't have to tell me that in your opinion, its meaningless, that's a given. I believe it would have significant evidentiary value to impartial people who are neither sold on theism or sold on atheism. You're rebuttal there is no evidence of them being anything other than what they are would be a pathetically weak before a group of impartial people especially as I went through each constant and provided facts of how razor thin with in a life permitting range each one is.

Except, your argument failed on multiple levels. You did not provide any range, you equivocate between life and life as we know it and the variation you proposed was far from razor thin.

I'll let the fact they fall within such a narrow range that would allow life to speak for itself without reference to whether they could be otherwise. I think your counter argument only persuades people who like yourself are totally convinced God doesn't exist.

You keep talking about this "narrow range" - what narrow range? You are yet to produce evidence of any.

That's a bit too esoteric for me. I have no idea if only your parents met would you subsequently be born and only under that circumstance.

And the same way, you have no idea about life and therefore not qualified to draw conclusions of design.

If something isn't designed, planned or engineered to be in a specific configuration yet such a specific configuration occurs we can either believe it was by the luckiest stroke of coincidence imaginable or it was in fact planned and designed.

False dichotomy. The third and most likely option is that its the necessary consequence of the nature existence.

The debate about theism and atheism isn't a one way street as most atheists characterize it, that the so called burden of evidence rests with theists only. Atheists make a claim also, that the universe and our existence all occurred minus any plan or design. That the conditions that allowed our existence occurred was not by plan, but by fortuitous happenstance.

That is not the claim. Its surprising how you can remain so uneducated about atheism even after such a long debate.

Of course you'll object and say it wasn't by chance it was because the laws of physics produced the result we observe but according to atheists the laws of physics weren't engineered or designed to be as they are either.

So you do get it? Then where does all this ignorance come from?

For the record, the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. It is the presence of intelligence behind the laws of nature that would be the positive claim - not the absence of it. The premise that is agreed upon is that the universe works in a particular way - with regards to laws of physics or logic. You are the one adding something extra - an intelligence with an intention - thus the burden of proof lies upon you.

Except for the unaccountable fact they happen to be within extremely fine tolerance for planets, stars and life to exist.

Already accounted for by necessity.

People can weigh that fact for themselves and decide if that is evidence of design or whether they think your objections hold water.

People have weighed the facts - and concluded that there your arguments hold no water. That is why the anthropic principle is classified as a fallacy.

There is the force or gravity which is a varible depending on the amount of mass. There is also the constant of gravity.

The constant of proportionality, G, is the gravitational constant.

The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy.[3] In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:[4]

G = 6.67384(80) \times 10^{-11} \ \mbox{m}^3 \ \mbox{kg}^{-1} \ \mbox{s}^{-2} = 6.67384(80) \times 10^{-11} \ {\rm N}\, {\rm (m/kg)^2}

with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4.[4]

This is the value Martin Rees was referring to, not the relative strength of gravity depending on mass. What Ree's is pointing out is the exactitude the gravitational constant is in order for planets, stars and galaxies to form. By the way I used Ree's as a source because he is highly esteemed in scientific circles and he is also an atheist. The difference between 10exp30 to 10exp36 is nearly infintesmal yet the impact is huge.

No wonder you keep repeating the same old refuted arguments - you can't even remember the ones you made. And, apparently, lack the capacity to scroll up half an inch to read it again. And fail to read what you are obviously copying and pasting.

You did not talk about the gravitational constant, you talked about the force of gravity. Also, the figure of 10^36 is nowhere to be found in the data you pasted. And finally, the difference between 10^36 and 10^30 is infinitesimal? The variation of 99.9999% is insignificant? Pray tell, then, what percentage do you call significant?

I am putting forth a fact (not theory not speculation) that the constant G (among several others) falls in an incredibly narrow range for life to exist or even for the stars and planets to exist.

Then put forward the fact of what that narrow range happens to be. Only then will we judge if that is narrow or not. Otherwise, you are just speculating.

I haven't rejected the notion it could be other wise or accepted the notion it had to be as it is as neither of those possibilites are a fact.

One of them is a fact. The fact that you don't know it, doesn't change the fact.

If the're not fact they don't exist. Your only counter is we don't know if they had to be as they are or whether there values came by happenstance.

On the contrary, given that most of those constant are inherent to the universe, in all probability, they are what they had to be.

In other words your counter argument is a plea to ignorance. To me it makes no difference, if they had to be as they are, thats what we expect from something that was designed.

If they are what they had to be, then the concept of design is ridiculous.

Why does a printed circuit board fall in a extremely narrow range to perform a certain function...because it was designed or alternatively it occured by happenstance.

We do not live in a circuit board.