If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

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

Answer: they didn't. The claim of theism remains baseless speculation.

---

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.

Who I never heard of before his conversion to 'Somethingism' which certain Christians make a big deal out of because they are impressed by persons and credentials instead by substance and reason. I won't go into the circumstances of how unscrupulous Christians exploited Flew when he became senile. I'll be charitable and assume he was still in possession of his faculties when he flipped. But that was piss-poor reasoning on display there.

[Whateverist]

Right. The over-the-top claims of theism have no merit.

It is the mindlessness of those who take such positions who account for the necessary conditions.

[Drew_2013]

Surgenator

The fine-tuning argument is an argument from ignorance, a fallacy. The whole argument boils down to

1) Look at all these (maybe) independent variable that are tightly constrained to get the universe I know of.
2) Life is in my universe
3) So these parameters determine what life-permitting universe are possible (another fallacy)
4) I cannot understand how these variables came to be what they are (ignorance)
5) God did it.

All the fancy science concepts that you can throw out doesn't prevent the main problem of the argument, ignorance.

This is exactly the kind of argument that persuades only those completely totally convinced of atheism.

Mr Agenda,

In the face of the laws of physics existing and the absence of any reasoning why they shouldn't, the question of why they should is  moot. Maybe it's not properly a 'why?' question.

The reason they shouldn't is obvious. According to atheists there was no planner, designer, engineer or intent for a universe to come into existence then cause the myriad of exacting conditions to allow stars, galaxies, planets and solar systems and ultimately sentient life. None of this was planned and there was no planner according to atheists. The reason there shouldn't be rhyme or reason to the universe is because there was no rhyme or reason behind its creation. The fact there are laws of physics in which nature appears to be bound to operate in a specified manner should be an anomaly and head scratcher to atheists not theists. I believe the universe was intentionally caused, created and designed to cause sentient life to exist so it doesn't surprise me that there are laws of physics which make that happen. Perhaps the greatest scientist of all time is Isaac Newton he believed the universe was knowable and could be explained mathematically precisely because he believed an intelligent agent created the universe. Below is the law of gravitation. Newton didn't invent this law, he discovered it. Mindless forces according to atheists some how produced this law that allows us to predict the orbit of planets and other celestial bodies. And they produced a host of other laws that are the basis for today's technology and for our existence. This is just one of many laws and formula's we have uncovered through observation and experimentation. But we didn't invent them or cause them to exist. They were there waiting to be discovered. This would be akin to going to a network closet that was put together by children who had no idea how to design a network and discover they put one together that not only worked, but there was logic and reason to how it was put together.


This in part is why its ludicrous for atheists to claim there is no evidence in support of theism. Its an argument you can make here in an atheist forum but if we were debating before impartial audience neither convinced of theism or atheism you'd be laughed at to continually claim there is no evidence, no facts no data no reason for folks to have the opinion we owe our existence to design.

Without knowing whether they could be different [constants], speaking of odds is just an interesting 'what if?' exercise.

I'm not making an odds argument. How is it any less inexplicable from an atheists viewpoint that if somehow mindless forces and matter came into existence they by some unknown necessity would have to have the characteristics to cause life even though they had no intention for life or even themselves to exist? You're making an argument only totally completely committed atheists would pay heed to. We do know one reason why things happen in a certain fashion, because they were planned and designed to occur in a specific manner. The idea the constants just happened to be as they are is more in keeping with the notion we are the result of mindless forces that didn't intend anything we observe to happen and also leaves room for the possibility this is one of an infinitude of universes with variable characteristics and naturally we'd find ourselves in the one that allows our existence.

I'm going into weasel mode and put words into your mouth. You don't really subscribe to objection you raise that for some unknown reason the constants had to be as they are do you? I suspect you don't believe that anymore than you do that the constants were designed to be as they are. But this is atheism 101 we raise bullshit objections we don't actually believe are true just to obfuscate. We contort ourselves into any position to explain away any evidence or facts that appear contrary to our narrative.

Why do printed circuit boards come out just so?
No kidding. Why do snowflakes come out just so? Entropy.

Snow flakes don't perform a function other than being snowflakes. It makes no difference what shape or characteristic they are.

Accounting for the slightly life-tolerant properties of this universe had nothing to do with any of the multiple universe hypotheses. Quantum alternates explain certain problems in quantum physics. Any origin hypothesis that isn't constrained to originating one universe will probably go on initiating others. What justification do you have for believing that your proposed Creator only made one universe?

According to Martin Rees [Martin John Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow, Kt, OM, FRS, HonFREng[1] FMedSci (born 23 June 1942) is a British cosmologist and astrophysicist. He has been Astronomer Royal of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich since 1995[3][4] and was Master of Trinity College, Cambridge from 2004 to 2012 and President of the Royal Society between 2005 and 2010.[5]] the fine tuning of the universe for life is exactly why he postulates multiverse and because he is an atheist and doesn't believe a Creator intentionally caused the constants to be as they are. He also discussed the universe had to be as it is but realized its just as inexplicable that if a universe 'had' to be in a configuration that allows for life as opposed to 'having' to be in a configuration that doesn't allow for life (or planets or stars and so forth).

I'm not proposing the Creator made only one universe my justification for thinking this is the only universe is because its the only universe we can factually say does exist. The theory this is one of an infinitude of universes is a naturalism in the gaps theory. You would pounce on any god in the gaps arguments but you raise naturalism in the gaps arguments even though you don't subscribe to them. You don't actually subscribe to the theory this is one of many universes do you? You raise the possibility the only universe we know of had to have the characteristics it does because for some unknown reason it 'had' to...but you don't believe that. You raise the possibility this is one of a multitude of universes...but you don't actually believe that is true. You know what people who raise possibilities they don't think are true are called? Their called bullshitter's Mr Agenda. The reason people bullshit is to obfuscate.

Why are you even here if you're going to post drivel like that?

To keep up with your drivel.

It is your position that it is so enormously unlikely that a universe could exist that is not 100% inimical to life, that Someone must have planned it. But if we found ourselves in any of the supposed infinity of possible hostile universes that don't allow for life to exist, our presence would be proof positive of supernatural intervention. But we live in the ONLY one (according to you) where we can exist without any laws of nature being bent for us. Something that is not only irrelevant to an omnipotent God, but irrelevant to a simulated universe programmer.

Its not just my position. Who would theorize or predict that if somehow matter came into existence it would be bound by laws of physics that would compel it to turn into a universe with gravity, stars, galaxies, planets and then chemistry would occur that would then turn inert matter into biological matter that would ultimately culminate into the existence of intelligent human beings who wonder how we got here? The laws of nature as we know them appear to have contorted themselves into a mind boggling narrow set of characteristics not only to allow life but all the other things we observe. If on the other hand we could observe other universes that were utterly chaotic, with no life and no laws of physics that would be exactly what we would expect from mechanistic forces that came into existence apart from plan or design.

Because a programmer is an autonomous being they might decide to create a simulated universe in which sentient life would emerge as a result of the characteristics of the simulated universe they created. If such life were to arise they too would wonder how they came to be. No doubt there would be theists and atheists in such a simulated world.


Bottom line is as I wrote in the OP. Theism and atheism are beliefs or opinions about how our existence came about whether planned or unplanned, whether by design or coincidence. There is no smoking gun incontrovertible no brainer evidence in favor of either opinion. The antagonistic approach by atheists to constantly claim there isn't evidence or reason to think theism is true is not only false, but a poor argument that only convinces fellow atheists who don't need convincing. A new approach by atheists that acknowledges there are reasons and evidence that would lead a person to conclude we owe our existence to a Creator but offers facts that seem to contradict that notion would actually go a lot further. However I take some comfort in knowing most lay atheists won't pay heed to my advice and as a result continue to be a very small minority.

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread...peace.

[robvalue]

No. That is not what theism or atheism are. You are layering on what you think are the logical consequences of each.

[FatAndFaithless]

No idea how you get from math equations to God without one giant appeal to ignorance. But whatevs, see ya.

[robvalue]

36 pages and still misrepresenting atheism. Quite astonishing.

[Angrboda]

Victor Stenger is not without his critics...

Professor Victor Stenger is an American particle physicist and a noted atheist, who popularized the phrase, “Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings”. Professor Stenger is also the author of several books, including his recent best-seller, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is Not Designed for Humanity (Prometheus Books, 2011). Stenger’s latest book has been received with great acclaim by atheists: “Stenger has demolished the fine-tuning proponents,” writes one enthusiastic Amazon reviewer, adding that the book tells us “how science is able to demonstrate the non-existence of god.”

Well, it seems that the great Stenger has finally met his match. Dr. Luke A. Barnes, a post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for Astronomy, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, has written a scathing critique of Stenger’s book. I’ve read refutations in my time, but I have to say, this one is devastating.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112...4647v1.pdf

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...a-fallacy/

And Barnes is not without his critics, namely Stenger himself:

Postdoctoral fellow Luke Barnes has written a lengthy, highly technical review of the scientific literature concerning the fine-tuning problem titled “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life”. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning did not address the scientific literature. Barnes’ paper is written for experts in the field, who were not my intended audience and with whom I have no significant scientific disagreements. Barnes does not challenge my basic conclusions. Nor, to my knowledge, has anyone on the long list of reputable physicists and cosmologists who Barnes insists believe in fine-tuning. In fact, several were consulted in writing the book.

Fallacy was concerned with the widespread argument found in theological and religious apologetic writings that the putative fine-tuning of the parameters of physics and cosmology cannot be the product of purely natural forces. I agree that life, as we know it on Earth, would not exist with a slight change in these parameters. However, there is no reason to limit ourselves to earthly life but consider the possibility of other forms of life, carbon-based or otherwise. Depending on what you count, about thirty parameters are generally suggested as being fine-tuned. Of these, some theists have claimed that five parameters exist that are so exquisitely fine-tuned that changing any single one by one part in 10 40 or more would mean that no life of any kind was possible. These crucial parameters are:

1. The ratio of electrons to protons in the universe
   
2. The expansion rate of the universe
   
3. The mass density of the universe
   
4. The ratio of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces
   
5. The cosmological constant
   

In Fallacy, I give plausible reasons for the values of each within existing, well-established physics and cosmology.

The remaining parameters are also supposed to be fine-tuned to many orders of magnitude. I show that they are at best fine-tuned, if you want to call it that, to 10-20 percent. Barnes seems to want me to reduce this to maybe 1-5 percent. But nowhere does he show that they should be 10 -40 . My essential point is, when all parameters are taken together the region of parameter space that should allow some form of life to evolve is not the infinitesimal point that the theist literature would want us to believe.

In Fallacy, I formulate some of my arguments with certain simplified assumptions, such as semi-Newtonian cosmology. Barnes attacks these by using higher-level arguments that are quite irrelevant. He fails to explain why my simplifications are inadequate for my purposes.

In short, Barnes objections are largely superfluous. However, I cannot leave it at that since he has in several places misrepresented and misunderstood what I have said...

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.4359.pdf (bold emphasis mine)

And so it goes.

As I pointed out previously, "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." Do you have an actual objection to Stenger's simulations as pointed out previously, or were you merely hoping that a sufficient poisoning of the well might distract the reader from the fact that you have no point here?

[Surgenator]

Surgenator

The fine-tuning argument is an argument from ignorance, a fallacy. The whole argument boils down to

1) Look at all these (maybe) independent variable that are tightly constrained to get the universe I know of.
2) Life is in my universe
3) So these parameters determine what life-permitting universe are possible (another fallacy)
4) I cannot understand how these variables came to be what they are (ignorance)
5) God did it.

All the fancy science concepts that you can throw out doesn't prevent the main problem of the argument, ignorance.

This is exactly the kind of argument that persuades only those completely totally convinced of atheism.

And your point is? .... Other people argreeing with me, who happen to share my view, does NOT make the logical errors in your argument disappear.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm normally tenacious, but even I can eventually reach the conclusion that a point has come where the responses that I'm getting aren't worth my replies.

[Whateverist]

Yeah, if atheists and/or agnostics can have saints, I'd nominate you Mr. A.