The Case for Theism

[Cyberman]

That is correct, a 'fine-tuned' universe is the only kind of universe in which a supernatural explanation is NOT required to explain our existence.

According to atheists there isn't any phenonmena or event that requires a Creator.

Not quite - "according to atheists" there isn't any phenomena or event that requires an invisible, magic creator which can only be defined as a "god". Or more accurately, the creator that is usually proposed has still, after all these centuries, to be even demonstrated as something that exists in reality.

[Drew_2013]

Thus far I have submitted 4 lines of evidence in favor of theism along with argumentation why those facts support theistic belief as opposed to the non-theistic model.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact sentient life exists.
4. That the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.

In his book 'Just Six Numbers' the deep forces that shape the universe, highly respected astrophysicist (and atheist) Martin Rees explains each constant in depth and the consequences if any of these constants were slightly different. So mind numblingly narrow is the degree of precision needed that as a result he concludes this is one of an infinitude of universes all with different characteristics and as a result we live in the universe with the right 'numbers'. A simpler explanation that doesn't needlessly multiply entities (to infinity in this case) is that the constants were intentionally designed to fall within a range that allows planets, stars and galaxies to exist.

If atheists were actually looking for evidence that supports the belief that a personal agent caused and designed the universe to support life this would be such evidence. It is an earmark of design when personal agents such as humans create contrivances such as a computer or a car or a nuclear plant, that in order for the contrivance to work properly, it must fall in a narrow range of characteristics for the contrivance to work as designed.

The primary objection raised to this line of evidence is the possibility that in order for a universe to exist in the first place it must fall within the narrow range we observe and therefore they claim there is no narrow range unless we know a range is possible.

I'll point out first that this objection is pure speculation, there is no evidence that if a universe exists, it has to be like this universe. That would be akin to saying if there are other solar systems its possible they have to be like the one we observe. We know this isn't true, other solar systems are much different from our own. I could point out that even though atheists raise this point as an objection, it doesn't mean they actually think such is the case. Atheists reserve the right to raise objections they don't actually subscribe to. I say the objection is meaningless, even if the universe had to be as it is it leaves the question why would it have to be in the narrow range that supports planets, stars, solar systems and ultimately life? If as most atheists claim that mindless forces that caused the universe didn't care or plan for planets, stars or life why would it turn out that in order for a universe to come into existence it must have the characteristics that allow planets stars and life? Since they don't actually believe this objection to be the case, the question doesn't matter.

Martin Rees's Six Numbers

Martin Rees, in his book Just Six Numbers, mulls over the following six dimensionless constants, whose values he deems fundamental to present-day physical theory and the known structure of the universe:

N≈1036: the ratio of the fine structure constant (the dimensionless coupling constant for electromagnetism) to the gravitational coupling constant, the latter defined using two protons. In Barrow and Tipler (1986) and elsewhere in Wikipedia, this ratio is denoted α/αG. N governs the relative importance of gravity and electrostatic attraction/repulsion in explaining the properties of baryonic matter;[3]
ε≈0.007: The fraction of the mass of four protons that is released as energy when fused into a helium nucleus. ε governs the energy output of stars, and is determined by the coupling constant for the strong force;[4]
Ω ≈ 0.3: the ratio of the actual density of the universe to the critical (minimum) density required for the universe to eventually collapse under its gravity. Ω determines the ultimate fate of the universe. If Ω>1, the universe will experience a Big Crunch. If Ω<1, the universe will expand forever;[3]
λ ≈ 0.7: The ratio of the energy density of the universe, due to the cosmological constant, to the critical density of the universe. Others denote this ratio by \Omega_{\Lambda};[5]
Q ≈ 10– 5: The energy required to break up and disperse an instance of the largest known structures in the universe, namely a galactic cluster or supercluster, expressed as a fraction of the energy equivalent to the rest mass m of that structure, namely mc2;[6]
D = 3: the number of macroscopic spatial dimensions.

N and ε govern the fundamental interactions of physics. The other constants (D excepted) govern the size, age, and expansion of the universe. These five constants must be estimated empirically. D, on the other hand, is necessarily a nonzero natural number and cannot be measured. Hence most physicists would not deem it a dimensionless physical constant of the sort discussed in this entry. There are also compelling physical and mathematical reasons why D = 3.

Any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent with these six constants, and must either derive their values from the mathematics of the theory, or accept their values as empirical.

[Rumi]

Hi, guys :

Please do take a look at the following concerning the real origin of the scientific method , that would blow your minds away :

<snip!>

In other words : the islamic origin of the scientific method.

Even evolution was discovered by muslims more than 7 centuries before Darwin was even born .

Do the math then.

See also this great book on the matter :

<snip!>

[Drew_2013]

Not quite - "according to atheists" there isn't any phenomena or event that requires an invisible, magic creator which can only be defined as a "god".

And this is because they have naturalistic explanations and models that account for the existence of the universe and life? Please put this debate to bed once and for all and tell me about these verified theories.

Or more accurately, the creator that is usually proposed has still, after all these centuries, to be even demonstrated as something that exists in reality.

I agree, the existence of a Creator is an opinion. I am making a cogent case from facts that support that belief.

[Cato]

Drew,
Seriously? The fine tuning argument? Fuck me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mij4DYYnkF8

[Baalzebutt]

Thus far I have submitted 4 lines of evidence in favor of theism along with argumentation why those facts support theistic belief as opposed to the non-theistic model.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact sentient life exists.
4. That the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.

This has been a bit of a long thread and the "proofs" you have supplied so far are not convincing. Why is it, do you suppose, that you should have to go to such great lengths to prove your god exists? If he is as powerful and omnipresent as you believe, shouldn't proving him be a really simple task?

As for the narrow tolerances of the universe we find ourselves in, it is not surprising at all (and in fact it is REQUIRED) that our universe is exactly as it is. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't exist to find ourselves here. Simply saying that the conditions of our universe are too specific to be here by pure chance is like saying that the chances of a particular raindrop falling on your head are too small for it to happen. Nevertheless, out of all the countless billions of raindrops on the planet, all of the possible places you could be, all of the possible places the rain could fall, all of the possible times and orientations, weather conditions, humidity, wind and countless other factors, that raindrop still fell on your head.

In the end, the chances of us finding ourselves in exactly the universe in which we find ourselves is exactly 1:1. This is where we are and getting here doesn't require a guiding hand or creator in any way. Our existence in this universe was inevitable.

[Mister Agenda]

Five lines of evidence, two arguments. 1-4, affirming the consequent; 5, fine-tuning. A universe in which it is possible for us the evolve and survive is the only kind of universe that DOESN'T require a supernatural explanation for our existence.

[Whateverist]

Thus far I have submitted 4 lines of evidence in favor of theism along with argumentation why those facts support theistic belief as opposed to the non-theistic model.



5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.

Isn't the same thing true of our planet? A real Goldilocks set of circumstances to be sure. But are those conditions as they are so that someone's creation will be nice and cozy? Or are we here to ask the question because the conditions for our existence made it possible to become observers?

I fail to see how Goldilocks conditions at the galactic or local levels are any indication of tinkering. That we are here means that the necessary conditions are here to permit it. That is neither evidence of fine tuning nor of random luck. It is just unsurprisingly necessary.

[Cyberman]

Not quite - "according to atheists" there isn't any phenomena or event that requires an invisible, magic creator which can only be defined as a "god".

And this is because they have naturalistic explanations and models that account for the existence of the universe and life?

No, because the burden of proof is on the person proposing the existence of the entity extra to the "naturalistic explanations" that already account for observed reality.

Please put this debate to bed once and for all and tell me about these verified theories.

What debate would this be, then? Because I can promise you I haven't mentioned any such thing. Presumably this is another of those extraneous entities thirsting for justification.

Or more accurately, the creator that is usually proposed has still, after all these centuries, to be even demonstrated as something that exists in reality.

I agree, the existence of a Creator is an opinion. I am making a cogent case from facts that support that belief.

You're attempting a case, to be sure, but cogency is for the audience to decide.

[Mister Agenda]

Isn't the same thing true of our planet? A real Goldilocks set of circumstances to be sure. But are those conditions as they are so that someone's creation will be nice and cozy? Or are we here to ask the question because the conditions for our existence made it possible to become observers?

I fail to see how Goldilocks conditions at the galactic or local levels are any indication of tinkering. That we are here means that the necessary conditions are here to permit it. That is neither evidence of fine tuning nor of random luck. It is just unsurprisingly necessary.

The universe is so hospitable to life that it's miraculous and so hostile to life that earth being hospitable to life is miraculous.