Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 1:09 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
If I were an Atheist
RE: If I were an Atheist
(March 7, 2015 at 9:45 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: First I would have to come to grips with the fact that in spite of a decline in religious attendance and participation atheism isn’t a growing movement. It’s not just an issue of popularity. There are many unpopular beliefs and facts that are believed because of a preponderance of evidence in their favor, not because the belief is popular. Many popular beliefs have been abandoned do to evidence against them. Considering many atheists equate belief in God with belief in Santa Claus how is it they’re not gaining any traction? If the existence of God were as implausible as the existence of Santa Claus then there should be as many atheists as those who don’t believe in Santa Claus. If atheists know something that leads them to conclude belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa they are keeping it a well-guarded secret or they are dismal failures in communication. The question is what are atheists doing wrong? Why aren’t they expressing their viewpoint in a way that actually persuades people? I suspect some atheists enjoy being contrary and being part of a small often loathed minority. Some atheists just like to think there much smarter than most and therefore their belief isn’t for the gullible masses.  

-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.

Therefore was I an atheist I would argue from those facts God doesn’t exist which ironically means I’m making a better argument than most atheists make. I wouldn't antagonize anyone, bash them over the head, question their sanity, just make the case and let it go at that.

If I were one?

match the words.  1-(Atheist/theist), 2-(militant/fundie), 3-(agnostic), 4-(agnostic atheist). 

-this type works with logical fallacies. Data/facts don't really come into play for them.
-these don't know what they don't know so they just go on thinking what they know is enough.
-they just don't know so they don't know.
-these, probably 15 - 20 of the population know what they don't know. 

If I were an atheists, It all starts with honesty in the mirror.  And like personality descriptions is only a general base to start understanding ourselves.  We are all mixtures of each I should think.  
Reply
RE: If I were an Atheist
Mister Agenda,


Quote:If you think we DO know how the universe came into existence, please enlighten us instead of whinging that we're not nice for pointing out the obvious glaring weakness in hypothesis 1, which is that there's no good reason to believe it is true.

Is any atheist going to say there are good reasons to believe God exists but we reject them out of hand anyway.

Quote:Some people never learn they're not mind readers. Hypothesis 1 is at least as inexplicable. It introduces an explanation that has never been demonstrated to be the actual explanation for anything. At least hypothesis 2 is based on the nature of the actual explanation for the origin of the universe not turning out to be of a completely different kind than the explanations for everything else.

The explanation that all phenomena observed is the result of natural processes is based on the assumption its mindless mechanistic processes all the way down to either an endless recession of events that eventually culminated into the events we are now witnessing or at some point natural forces bootstrapped themselves into existence uncaused out of nothing. If the former, how did we pass through an infinitude of past events to reach this event? If the latter how do you distinguish that from a magical event? Secondly things known to be caused by design also have naturalistic explanations for how they work. There is no need to invoke a designer/creator to explain how things work. Lastly we have working models of theism. Designer/creators are the cause of virtual universes. Did virtual universes spring into existence uncaused out of nothing? Are virtual universes the result of an endless recession of events?


Quote:Which actually seem to be attributes of quantum foam. If you consider those divine attributes, I suppose you ought to worship quantum foam. Quantum foam also seems to have the attribute of endless creativity. It's not a sure thing, but the math works and it's consistent with what we know of the universe, which is more than you can honestly say about your supposed Creator.

I'm not sure where your getting information about quantum foam but a quick search says its something theorized (with some evidence in its favor) to exist obviously at the quantum level within our universe.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11792.html

Wheeler imagined that this indeterminacy for space-time required that at the so-called Planck Scale of 10^-33 centimeters and 10^-43 seconds, space-time has a foaminess to it with sudden changes in its geometry into a wealth of complex shapes and textures. You would have quantum black holes appear at 10^-33 centimeters, then evaporate in 10^-43 seconds. Wormholes would form and dissolve, and later theorists even postulated 'baby universe' production could happen under these conditions.

The problem is that we have no evidence that 1) gravity is a quantum field and 2) that space-time has this type of structure at these scales.


I suspect Mr. Agenda you lack belief that quantum foam is the cause of the universe just as much as you lack belief in a personal agent as the cause of the universe yet your willing to throw out quantum foam as some kind of potential cause but purely on philosophical grounds.


Quote:Even if we somehow swallow this explanation, it still leaves us with mindless unguided forces that for unknown reasons have laws of physics that allowed the simplest matter to turn into stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets. For planets to form a process of alchemy occurs inside stars that fuse hydrogen and helium into exotic matter that subsequently turns into second generation stars that have rocky planets. Then a myriad of exacting conditions occurs (minus any plan or intent) that eventually turn inert matter into life.

Yes, it is completely obvious that all you really have to argue against hypothesis 2 with is your own personal incredulity and appeal to ridicule. You needn't belabor it.

Personal incredulity I always have to laugh when atheists invoke that phrase. I'll post several definitions from sources so I won't get the usual accusation of making up a definition to suit me.

incredulity

(ˌɪnkrɪˈdjuːlɪtɪ)
n
1. lack of belief; scepticism

You're going to love this definition...

http://www.yourdictionary.com/incredulity

incredulity

   [in′krə do̵̅o̅lə tē, -dyo̵̅o̅-]
Use in a sentence
[Image: yd_logo_cropped.jpg]
noun
  1. The definition of incredulity is the state of not believing.
    An example of incredulity is the mindset of an atheist.
ROFLOL

What you're accusing me of is having the mindset of an atheist only in regards to the belief our existence is the result of mechanistic processes that didn't intend our existence (or their own existence or the existence of the universe).

The antonym for incredulity is credulity. I put links in here just so I won't be accused of defining words to suit myself.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credulity

Full Definition of CREDULITY

:  readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence


Its hard to wrap my head around this but let me see if I have it right. I should be willing to believe that mindless mechanistic forces caused themselves to exist then caused a universe to exist with conditions for sentient life to exist especially based on slight or uncertain evidence. Is that how it works Mr. Agenda? What do you call it when someone believes in something based on slight or uncertain evidence? Isn't that referred to as an act of faith? Does that describe the attribute you have in regards to how our existence is the result of natural causes?
Reply
RE: If I were an Atheist
(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Mister Agenda,



Quote:If you think we DO know how the universe came into existence, please enlighten us instead of whinging that we're not nice for pointing out the obvious glaring weakness in hypothesis 1, which is that there's no good reason to believe it is true.

Is any atheist going to say there are good reasons to believe God exists but we reject them out of hand anyway.
Why on earth would any? If we thought there were any reasons to believe God exists that were good in the sense that they support the belief being true, we'd be theists, wouldn't we? And we're generally not kind to other atheists when they give stupid reasons for rejecting something.

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: The explanation that all phenomena observed is the result of natural processes is based on the assumption its mindless mechanistic processes all the way down to either an endless recession of events that eventually culminated into the events we are now witnessing or at some point natural forces bootstrapped themselves into existence uncaused out of nothing.
Actually it's based on the observation that it's been natural processes all the way down so far, and the conclusion that there are plausible explanations consistent with the known properties of the universe for the bootstrapping you describe, which you continuously act like you've never heard of such a thing despite the concept being introduced to you repeatedly in your conversations here. I know you have an alternate explanation, but your only argument against this one seems to be that it doesn't sound plausible to you, personally. And that is a fallacy. Even if you're right, your argument gives that possibility zero support.

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: If the former, how did we pass through an infinitude of past events to reach this event?
 First, establish that an infinite number of past events is impossible, using more than your intuition and appeal to ridicule. Second, demonstrate how a Creator avoids the same past event infinitude without employing special pleading. 

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: If the latter how do you distinguish that from a magical event?
 How do you determine that it is a magical event? Short of finding that the universe was spoken or thought or hand-waved into existence, what would lead someone to believe that magic was at work?  

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Secondly things known to be caused by design also have naturalistic explanations for how they work. There is no need to invoke a designer/creator to explain how things work.

Yet here you are, doing just that. 

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Lastly we have working models of theism. Designer/creators are the cause of virtual universes.
 I disagree that creators of virtual universes are enough like the capital 'c' Creator you've been talking about to make them analogous, especially the way you cherry-pick the one similarity and toss out all of the differences like they don't matter. If our universe actually is a simulation, and the creator of it just a person with some technology designed by someone else and no super powers, then our universe has a small 'c' creator...that would be adequate as a working model of theism only if you find 'Joe who imagined our universe and used tools at hand to make a simulation which seems real to the inhabitants' as genuinely equivalent to  the God of philosophical theism. Which of course still leaves the question of 'where did Joe come from'? 

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Did virtual universes spring into existence uncaused out of nothing?
 No. Are your rhetorical questions a waste of the time it took to read them? Yes.  

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Are virtual universes the result of an endless recession of events?
Their designers certainly didn't cause themselves. I appreciate you bringing this up, because it's one of the key differences between the Creator you are trying to invoke as the explanation for our universe, and the creators who are the explanation for virtual universes. The creators you are trying to make analogous to your Creator are themselves contingent, extremely limited and fragile,very flawed beings that could never accomplish their achievement without generation upon generation of predecessors, many of whom were intellectual giants compared to the typical 'virtuality' designer, making it possible. Your analogy is ultimately no more sophisticated than 'person make axe...bigger person must make mountain'.

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I'm not sure where your getting information about quantum foam but a quick search says its something theorized (with some evidence in its favor) to exist obviously at the quantum level within our universe.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11792.html

Wheeler imagined that this indeterminacy for space-time required that at the so-called Planck Scale of 10^-33 centimeters and 10^-43 seconds, space-time has a foaminess to it with sudden changes in its geometry into a wealth of complex shapes and textures. You would have quantum black holes appear at 10^-33 centimeters, then evaporate in 10^-43 seconds. Wormholes would form and dissolve, and later theorists even postulated 'baby universe' production could happen under these conditions.

The problem is that we have no evidence that 1) gravity is a quantum field and 2) that space-time has this type of structure at these scales.


I suspect Mr. Agenda you lack belief that quantum foam is the cause of the universe just as much as you lack belief in a personal agent as the cause of the universe yet your willing to throw out quantum foam as some kind of potential cause but purely on philosophical grounds.
No kidding. Of course I don't believe it. It's a possibility. I have a policy, which I have made extremely explicit and clear to you, that one shouldn't believe something just because it is possible. There isn't enough evidence to believe any proposed scenario for the origin of the universe, including yours. And there's no reason to hold such a belief until the evidence is in. No proposed scenario for the origin of the universe amounts to much more than a philosophical point. Again, including yours. If you think 'picking a side' before the evidence is in is some sort of virtue, you're mistaken.   

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:
Quote:Yes, it is completely obvious that all you really have to argue against hypothesis 2 with is your own personal incredulity and appeal to ridicule. You needn't belabor it.

Personal incredulity I always have to laugh when atheists invoke that phrase.
Of course you do. It involves your old nemesis, Logic.

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I'll post several definitions from sources so I won't get the usual accusation of making up a definition to suit me.

incredulity

(ˌɪnkrɪˈdjuːlɪtɪ)
n
1. lack of belief; scepticism

You're going to love this definition...

http://www.yourdictionary.com/incredulity

incredulity

   [in′krə do̵̅o̅lə tē, -dyo̵̅o̅-]
Use in a sentence
[Image: yd_logo_cropped.jpg]
noun

  1. The definition of incredulity is the state of not believing.
    An example of incredulity is the mindset of an atheist.

ROFLOL

What you're accusing me of is having the mindset of an atheist only in regards to the belief our existence is the result of mechanistic processes that didn't intend our existence (or their own existence or the existence of the universe).

The antonym for incredulity is credulity. I put links in here just so I won't be accused of defining words to suit myself.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credulity

Full Definition of CREDULITY

:  readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence


Its hard to wrap my head around this but let me see if I have it right.
 That'll be the day. 

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I should be willing to believe that mindless mechanistic forces caused themselves to exist then caused a universe to exist with conditions for sentient life to exist especially based on slight or uncertain evidence. Is that how it works Mr. Agenda?
 No, it isn't.

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: What do you call it when someone believes in something based on slight or uncertain evidence?
 Poor reasoning skills, usually. 
[/quote]

(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Isn't that referred to as an act of faith?
 If that's the reason for it, I suppose. I usually save 'act of faith' for someone who believes something despite understanding that the evidence doesn't really support the belief. 
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
RE: If I were an Atheist
(April 6, 2015 at 1:50 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Does that describe the attribute you have in regards to how our existence is the result of natural causes?

Not at all. Do you read with your eyes closed? Because that's the kindest explanation for you coming up with that. I have said, repeatedly, that whether our universe was created or arose naturally is unknowable at this time. Someone who claims to know for sure is likely ignorant of their own ignorance. Faith is not a virtue. One's belief in something should be proportionate to the evidence for it. As I've pointed out before, natural forces demonstrably actually exist, which is a point in their favor as an explanation; but I'm in no position to know if that's actually the case. No one is, even your supposed Creator can't escape from the possibilty that it was created by a higher power that erased evidence of its existence. We could be in some kind of simulation within a naturally occurring or supernaturally created universe (or within another simulation, for that matter) or a good old-fashioned six-day creation story with all the evidence omnipotently erased. Most theistic notions have been carefully crafted to be unfalsifiable (in order to avoid the problem of there being no evidence that they are true), which also makes them unverifiable barring some unmistakable intervention by some version of the Creator. The main problem with an unfalsifiable Creator is not that it is impossible, but that the notion is utterly indistinguishable from a flight of imagination and utterly useless for any practical purpose other than manipulating others if you can convince them it's real. You might be right, but if you are, it's completely coincidental to anything you've offered as a reason to think you're anywhere remotely close to the actual truth.

It's too bad you didn't look up 'fallacy of incredulity' along with the dictionary defintions of the relevant words. You might have saved yourself some time and embarassment if you understood that the fallacy is in presenting your incredulity as support for your argument. There's nothing wrong with being incredulous, particularly if you understand that actually articulating why you're so incredulous is what you should be sharing, instead of whinging about the unbelievableness of some position. In your case, only rarely the position the person to whom you're talking actually holds.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
RE: If I were an Atheist
(April 2, 2015 at 1:42 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Its much more than just the existence of gravity. It is the fine balance between the strength of gravity and other forces. If the relative strength of gravity was only a little more or less the universe as we know it would be much different.

An except from Just Six Numbers.

https://sciencebits.wordpress.com/2008/0...-stronger/

Gravitation is feebler than the forces governing the microworld by the number N, about 10exp36. What would happen if it weren’t quite so weak? Imagine, for instance, a universe where gravity was ‘only’ 10EXP30 rather than 10EXP36 feebler than electric forces. Atoms and molecules would behave just as in our actual universe, but objects would not need to be so large before gravity became competitive with the other forces. The number of atoms needed to make a star (a gravitationally bound fusion reactor) would be a billion times less in this imagined universe. Planet masses would also be scaled down by a billion. Irrespective of whether these planets could retain steady orbits, the strength of gravity would stunt the evolutionary potential on them. In an imaginary strong-gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger. Gravity would crush anything as large as ourselves.

I thought we'd been over this already.  As Don Tow observes in his review of Rees' book:

Quote:We can conclude that instead of having 36 zeros after 1 in the value of N, if there were only 30 zeros after 1, then the universe would be very much different from the current universe, and life as we know it would not be able to exist. Note: On the other hand, if the gravitational force were even weaker, i.e., if N is even larger (having more than 36 zeros after 1), then it would take longer to form galactic structure, and galactic structures would be less densely populated, and larger and perhaps more complex life organisms, different from current life organisms, could exist.

http://www.dontow.com/2010/01/review-of-...-universe/ (emphasis mine)

So in other words, it's only fine tuned if you only look at it from one side.  From the other side of variation, life indeed could exist.  That's not fine tuning.  That's selective vision.

And while we're at it, 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. A point that was brought up early in your first run at this argument (this is round 4). So while the parameters in this region of parameter space may be sensitive to variation, it's clear that there exist in that entire parameter space other viable solutions which could support life. It would seem things are not so fine tuned as Martin Rees would have us believe.
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
RE: If I were an Atheist
Quote:In short theory 2 states we owe our existence to happenstance.

So does hypothesis 1. If the Creator has free will and the power to create anything, the things it could have created are infinite. The odds that we and the universe we are in would be exactly what it wanted to create are one in infinity, effectively zero, if one is consistent about working backwards they way you do for a natural explanation of the universe.


This is the advantage of arguing on a primarily atheist board, you can say something truly absurd and no one calls you out on it. Are you trying to suggest something intentionally purposely designed to operate in a certain way is ultimately the same level of happenstance as things that  without plan intent or design just haphazardly turn out in some fashion?


Quote:Chance or inevitability, to name one other possible alternative off the top of my head. And neither of those amounts to an argument that they aren't actually the case, just a repetition that you personally find it hard to believe, so it must not be true. 

I'll get to the 'possibly' the universe had to be as it is red herring later. Its not just me who finds any alternative explanation hard to believe you yourself appear to find any specific non-god model or theory hard to believe. Do you believe we owe our existence and the universe to something called quantum foam? To save time I'll short circuit the process and assume you believe the theory has merit, but not enough evidence to warrant actual belief. The reason it has merit is because it falls under your general world view of a naturalistic explanation which automatically gives it merit. But you lack belief in the actual theory just as you lack belief in theism.


Quote:True. But why are there any laws of physics never mind specific ones that allowed for the existence of planets and life?
Why wouldn't there be?

You answer my question first...



Quote:One, there's no evidence any of those numbers could have been different [several constants that allow for a universe as we know it]. It's a thought exercise, sheer speculation.

No, its not sheer speculation, its an controvertible fact that several constants are in a delicate balance with one another to allow a star, galaxy, planet and a life permitting universe to exist regardless if they 'had' to be that way for some unknown reason or whether they just happened to be as they are by sheer chance. Even if for some reason they 'had' to be that way minus plan design or intent it was still happenstance that they had to be that way. Moreover the notion they had to be as they are smacks of design. Why do printed circuit boards come out just so? Because they are designed to specification.

Quote:Since we don't know why they have the values they have in the first place, we have no way of knowing what the odds were.

I'm not assigning odds. However it is scientists who are postulating this is one of an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics to account how a life permitting universe could exist by chance. If it had to be as it is...that's too close to design for scientists...


Quote:And why should an omnipotent being care about those six numbers? An omnipotent being doesn't require a specific set of physical constants in order for us to live in whatever universe it creates, if that's what it wants.

Omnipotent is a theological attribute some religious folks attribute to God. I'm not advancing any theological notions. However even if God is omnipotent God could choose to create the universe as we observe.

Quote:If this is the only kind of universe in which we can live naturally, we are in the only kind of universe in which supernatural intervention is NOT required to explain our presence.

Assuming a Creator isn't necessary and that in fact natural forces without plan or intent could cause themselves to exist you would be right. In other words...if you're right then your right. If I'm right, then I'm right right?

Lets take a moment to look at this from the forest level. Unlike most atheists who falsely claim there isn't a shred of evidence not one single fact that is simpatico with belief in theism I don't deny there are facts that support the notion we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves to naturalistic forces that somehow came into existence, somehow became a universe and somehow had the characteristics to cause sentient life to exist. If my opinion we owe our existence to a Creator is wrong it leaves only some mechanistic explanation so if nothing else, it is a second runner up. However, even if it were true is the runner up belief any less miraculous? The counter belief is that natural forces minus any plan or intent or to the best of our knowledge any necessity to exist somehow came to exist.

1. Some unknown forces caused the natural forces we now observe to exist.
2. Natural forces we observe bootstrapped themselves into existence uncaused out of nothing.

If 1 the unknown forces operate outside of time and the laws of physics we familiar with don't apply to these unknown forces then by definition they are supernatural relative to us, they are also transcendent to us. If 2 we owe our existence to a supernatural magic act. But I suppose for the sake of argument you'll push the goal posts further back and call matter and the laws of physics popping into existence uncaused out of nothing natural.

My guess is like with theism you lack belief in 1 or 2.


Quote:The virtue of it is that the only reason a rational person should need to not believe something [theism] is lack of a good reason to think it is actually true.


I have provided several reasons why it is a reasonable belief compared to any counter theories. There isn't a lack of evidence to support the belief we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves to a Creator.

In order for theism to be possibly true (the belief the universe and sentient life were intentionally caused by a Creator) certain conditions must be true or there would be no reason to suggest a Creator is involved. In contrast, there isn't one fact that needs to be true for atheism to be true (the belief (or lack of belief) no Creator exists or was involved in the existence of the universe or sentient humans). In fact there are conditions that if true would significantly favor atheism. For example suppose no universe or humans existed. Not only would atheism be a slam dunk position, there would be nothing existing to attribute to a creator. The claim there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true if that were so . Suppose a universe did exist, but it was utterly chaotic with no laws of physics no rhyme or reason and obviously no life (exactly what one would expect to be the result of mindless mechanistic forces that some how came into existence). Again there would be no reason to raise the question of theism (or anyone to raise such an idea but this is a thought experiment). Again in order for the possibility of theism to be raised certain conditions and facts must be true.



1. A universe has to exist

2. The universe must be such that life can occur and be around long enough for sentience to occur

3. Sentient life must exist

4. There must be stable laws of physics that allow for stars, galaxies, and planets to exist.



Question: Why would mindless mechanistic forces create the conditions necessary for the claim of theism to have any merit?



You say these facts aren't compelling. Anyone who is an atheist and either disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God is going to say that. Is any atheist here or anywhere going to say the aforementioned facts are compelling but I don't give it any credence anyway? Actually there was an atheist who did give these arguments a lot of credence but as a result he became a philosophical theist. I'm referring to Antony Flew.


Reply
RE: If I were an Atheist
(April 10, 2015 at 1:18 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Question: Why would mindless mechanistic forces create the conditions necessary for the claim of theism to have any merit?

First off, your theist claims have no merit. Second, it is called emergence!
Reply
RE: If I were an Atheist
(April 4, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I have my own version of Occam's razor...if its not a fact it doesn't exist.

 
Really now? Do you reject abstractions, then?  I mean, they aren't facts, they are concepts.

Reply
RE: If I were an Atheist
(April 10, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:
(April 4, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I have my own version of Occam's razor...if its not a fact it doesn't exist.

 
Really now? Do you reject abstractions, then?  I mean, they aren't facts, they are concepts.

Apparently his own maxim will have to go since it too isn't a fact.
Reply
RE: If I were an Atheist
Oooh, well this could get fun.

It's not a fact that there's life anywhere else in the universe, therefore life elsewhere in the universe doesn't exist. Therefore, the universe is not fine tuned for life since there is only one planet out of billions upon billions that has life. If the universe isn't fine tuned for life, well we know where that leads....
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  When were the Gospels Written? The External and Internal Evidence. Nishant Xavier 62 3099 August 6, 2023 at 10:25 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Are you a better atheist today than you were yesterday? Foxaèr 17 1518 March 24, 2021 at 5:39 pm
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  If there were no atheists? Graufreud 24 4076 July 20, 2018 at 4:22 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  What were your first questions? Sayetsu 51 7564 March 28, 2018 at 2:36 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  If christianity were true [hypothetical] dyresand 27 3722 June 17, 2016 at 4:22 am
Last Post: Alex K
  Do you think you'd still be a believer if the bible were more pleasant/accurate? Cecelia 53 6845 May 17, 2016 at 11:11 am
Last Post: AkiraTheViking
Question If you were ever a theist... *Deidre* 347 48089 January 12, 2016 at 6:42 pm
Last Post: *Deidre*
  If You Were A Theist Shuffle 15 3575 August 29, 2015 at 1:57 am
Last Post: IATIA
  how old were you jackson 57 9509 January 25, 2015 at 3:23 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Case closed on making cases against the case for stuff, in case you were wondering. Whateverist 27 5514 December 11, 2014 at 8:12 am
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)