That atheism is not rationally justified

[abaris]

There's a simple question for those believers, who think god or a god created the universe.

Why's it so vast?

Seems like an awful waste of time and energy just so that god can play with his favorite species. The biblical tale of flat earth and some dome above it would have sufficed. Would have made it much easier to play with the little Sims inside too.

And if this god being is eternal, did he just get bored twiddling his thumbs and decided to build himself a little playfield sometimes?

[Ben Davis]

atheism, while it may not be false, is not rationally justified

This is the crux of the argument: theists looking to devalue the concept of atheism. This argument is nothing more than a poorly thought out marketing exercise based on the idea that 'you're just as bad as us!'.

because reason is inadequate to decide on the matter.

That assumes reason is the mechanism by which atheism is achieved, which is not necessarily the case. For example, if a person has never been introduced to the concept of theism, they would be an atheist by default. Also someone might be an atheist for entirely irrational reasons.

So I have 2 main problems with this argument:

1. it's one big red herring: it doesn't matter whether the position is rationally justifiable or not, it only matters that people don't buy what the theists are selling. Coercing your customers in to buying your product may be the way many religions have worked, historically but it's still a shitty way of doing business.

2. At the end of the day, it's nothing more than a surreptitious attempt to shift the burden of proof: "I don't have to provide justification for God, you have to justify why you don't automatically accept what I say!".

[Chas]

False dichotomy.

3) It could be no other way.
4) It could have been some other way, but it isn't.

But the real point is that there is no apparent fine tuning at all. The entire concept assumes that we couldn't be her if it were different.

So what? Then we wouldn't be here.

Those are not credible options so the dichotomy remains true.

Not credible to you. You are not the arbiter of credibility.

---

More philosophical drivel.

I'll defend the position, just for the heck of it. It's not entirely drivel: if some of the quark masses were a bit higher, no stable atoms would form and everything would be a kind of uniform radiation bath with hydrogen or neutrons in it, and nothing beyond that. It would not be a universe with enough structure for a mind to emerge, or Darwinian evolution to take place.

Yeah, but so what? There is no reason to suppose that any of that had to happen.

---

...reason is unable to settle things when it comes to the existence of God, can we then rely on hope and happiness to decide on the matter?

Then you followed incorrect reasoning. The existence of a Supreme Being has already been adequately demonstrated, first by Aritotle then by Aquinas, modern hubris not withstanding.

No it hasn't. Reliance on ancient philosophers whose arguments have been shown to be flawed is the refuge of the delusional.

[Heywood]

More philosophical drivel.

I'll defend the position, just for the heck of it. It's not entirely drivel: if some of the quark masses were a bit higher, no stable atoms would form and everything would be a kind of uniform radiation bath with hydrogen or neutrons in it, and nothing beyond that. It would not be a universe with enough structure for a mind to emerge, or Darwinian evolution to take place.

I wouldn't bother. Minimalist has no clue what emergent complexity is as evidenced by his "philosophical drivel" statement.

[Ben Davis]

I'll defend the position, just for the heck of it. It's not entirely drivel: if some of the quark masses were a bit higher, no stable atoms would form and everything would be a kind of uniform radiation bath with hydrogen or neutrons in it, and nothing beyond that. It would not be a universe with enough structure for a mind to emerge, or Darwinian evolution to take place.

I wouldn't bother. Minimalist has no clue what emergent complexity is as evidenced by his "philosophical drivel" statement.

Doesn't matter either way. Esquilax's rebuttal is more fundamental.

[Dolorian]

1. it's one big red herring: it doesn't matter whether the position is rationally justifiable or not, it only matters that people don't buy what the theists are selling.

But is you not buying what the theists are selling a rationally justifiable decision?

2. At the end of the day, it's nothing more than a surreptitious attempt to shift the burden of proof: "I don't have to provide justification for God, you have to justify why you don't automatically accept what I say!".

That is one way I feel about it too. It is also trying to set both positions on equal footing without rational justification.

[Esquilax]

The fine tuning? (One "n" in tuning, btw). For what?

Emergent Complexity

And how did you determine that a universe where emergent complexity could form was the success state that the universe was being driven towards?

You're still just assuming fine tuning to be true, in order to argue for fine tuning. Any more circular logic you want to trot out, or do you want to clear up this basic problem with your argument before adding on a bunch of new details?

Then you followed incorrect reasoning. The existence of a Supreme Being has already been adequately demonstrated, first by Aritotle then by Aquinas, modern hubris not withstanding.

Aquinas, really? Are we talking about the Summa Theologica again? That same argument I debunked the last time you brought it up? And yet... hmm, you argument hasn't changed...

[Mister Agenda]

When someone produces EVIDENCE that natural laws are not uniform we can discuss it. Until then................................

Science does not rely on "belief."

Moron jesus freaks believe their godboy came back from the dead.

The only credible ways to explain the apparent fine tunning of the Universe are:

1)either God dunnit.
2)A multiverse exists where the natural laws differ between daughter universes.

Or the universal constants aren't actually as random as supposed, they might be interrelated, or their values might be a necessity for a universe whose energy must add up to zero over the long haul. Or there are multiple configurations that this univers could have had that would allow some sort of intelligent life and it would always appear superficially fine-tuned to the beings capable of noting its conditions. I'm sure I can come up with other possibilities.

---

Those are not credible options so the dichotomy remains true.

That's not a credible objection so the dichotomy remains false.

---

If he could only create life in this universe, then he is limited to creating life in only a universe with these attributes.

More than that: if we need a universe exactly this fine-tuned for us to exist, we live in the only possible universe in which a powerful supernatural force ISN'T required to explain our presence.

[fr0d0]

That same argument I debunked the last time you brought it up?

Too fucking funny

[Mister Agenda]

The fine tuning? (One "n" in tuning, btw). For what?

Emergent Complexity

Why not black holes? Stars? Hydrogen? The ever-dispersing and thinning cloud of photons the universe seems headed to become? Maximum entropy?