That atheism is not rationally justified

[Alex K]

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.

Exactly, and as I like to put it: sitting on the edge of inhospitability and destruction (parametrically speaking) is exactly what you would expect from a universe which is anthropically selected, and it is what you would *not* expect from a designed universe.

[Esquilax]

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

Too fucking funny

What was the argument I'm talking about, Hobbit?

[Ben Davis]

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

Not necessarily. It could be because the genie on your shoulder talks to you and tells you not to believe anything anyone says except him...

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

That was my 'bad marketing' point. Thanks for saying it in far fewer words than I did

[Mister Agenda]

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.

But what are the odds of the universe being fine-tuned to be in exactly THAT state? It's ultimately an after-the-facts odds argument that it couldn't have happened the way it did without intent because the odds against are so great, but you could say the odds of any given state are unbelievably unlikely to have 'happened by chance' if you presume the natural laws could have had any values at all. That only states that can support intelligent life would have anyone wondering about the odds isn't actually an argument that those states are the ones being aimed at...you can't get there without first establishing that there IS an aim, and a post hoc explanation (looking around the universe for something you can say was the target) doesn't get you that, it can't be more than a mere assertion.

---

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

You have no clue how to defend your postiion, as evidenced by your lack of defense for it. See how that works when other people do it?

[Mudhammam]

I came across some argument recently. The general gist of it is that some beliefs cannot be demonstrated. Reason does not inclines us to believe or not those things. But we must necessarily make a decision because it is not possible to remain neutral on the issue. It being the case that 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?

What this line of reasoning is implying is that given the nature of the question, atheism, while it may not be false, is not rationally justified; because reason is inadequate to decide on the matter.

The argument which is being pushed under this premise, as a follow up of sorts, is that compared to atheism, Christianity offers a superior view of life because it provides a better context for our hope and happiness (the criterion we must turn to in order to decide on the question of the existence of God).

"The 'salvation of the soul'--in plain language: 'the world revolves around me.'"

There are a lot of questions that reason is inadequate to solve: is the Sun conscious? Is the star Sirius home to our ancestors? Somehow I don't find myself compelled to affirm either of these two propositions simply because it's not a matter that can be determined by logic. If, on the other hand, I want to feel justified in the positive claim that a "yes" answer to each of those two suggestions is true, I think just about everybody can agree that "it makes me feel good" is not a satisfactory condition on which to posit my claim. The situation is worse with the Christian god because to be fair, my two examples are more likely to be true.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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 awe and wonder of the universe and our rare and tenuous existence make us all the more precious.

[TreeSapNest]

Whenever I read topics like these I question whether folks would think me irrational for believing my neighbor saw a mouse in his basement for no other reason than he told me so. :-)

[Faith No More]

The awe and wonder of the universe and our rare and tenuous existence make us all the more precious.

True, but that's no reason to emotionally accept the anthropocentric position that we are some sort of desired result or end goal of the physical laws of the universe.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Whenever I read topics like these I question whether folks would think me irrational for believing my neighbor saw a mouse in his basement for no other reason than he told me so. :-)

You can't prove he didn't see it.

[Mudhammam]

The awe and wonder of the universe and our rare and tenuous existence make us all the more precious.

So... if we hadn't been placed on an island contaminated by disease and calamity that threatens our existence and livelihood, surrounded by inhabitable waters in which danger perpetually lurks on every side as far as the eye can peer... we would be made less precious?