Dear Resident Theists

[Napoléon]

I merely mentioned that even scientific leaders such as Hawking lend credence to the immense design and, precision and fine-tuning of the universe.

No they don't. To say so is a total misrepresentation of any work he has ever made. Give me one quote where he lends credence to the immense design and fine tuning of the universe. Just one.

[GrandizerII]

Key word is "appear". It's meant to be rhetorical whereby a difficulty is acknowledged but then a naturalistic solution/explanation is provided. Sort of like how Darwin acknowledged the complexity of the eye.

The universe is not, objectively speaking, finely-tuned for life. We're just conditioned to see it that way since we ourselves experience life and we like to focus on ourselves and the immediate surroundings. But what we often ignore is that the majority of the universe doesn't seem to be filled with life.

And do you agree with his naturalistic explanation of "That because there is a law of gravity the Universe can and will create itself" and "That in the singularity the laws of nature necessarily breakdown"?

The laws of mathematics say that 1+1=2, but the laws have never produced a single dollar, and if the laws of nature or broken down in the singularity, then the naturalistic starting point is also supernatural.

I don't have sufficient knowledge to agree or disagree with him. I'm just your average person, not a scientist.

[Whateverist]

Key word is "appear". It's meant to be rhetorical whereby a difficulty is acknowledged but then a naturalistic solution/explanation is provided. Sort of like how Darwin acknowledged the complexity of the eye.

The universe is not, objectively speaking, finely-tuned for life. We're just conditioned to see it that way since we ourselves experience life and we like to focus on ourselves and the immediate surroundings. But what we often ignore is that the majority of the universe doesn't seem to be filled with life.

And do you agree with his naturalistic explanation of "That because there is a law of gravity the Universe can and will create itself" and "That in the singularity the laws of nature necessarily breakdown"?

I have to think the sentence you quote is a figure of speech. Here "laws of nature" is loose talk to describe the predictability of the world as we find it.

The laws of mathematics say that 1+1=2, but the laws have never produced a single dollar,

A colloquialism (your coinage?) which seems to imply that if there is any value in "the laws of nature" they ought to be profitable. But is there anything on earth more profitable to the production of technology, engineering and design than being able to accurately predict how best to exploit the world as we find it?

.. if the laws of nature are broken down in the singularity, then the naturalistic starting point is also supernatural.

That is an absurd comment. The 'laws' which allow us to predict the properties of materials in the universe as we know it wouldn't apply before the universe had become the way we now experience it. That is not a very remarkable statement.

You seem to imply that when the universe was in conditions prior to those we experience, it was not behaving naturally. But you're the only one claiming that the 'natural laws' which apply now must be eternal. No naturalist thinks that. A naturalist merely thinks there is a natural explanation for how prior conditions led to the conditions we experience now. We don't think there was a jump from a supernatural voodoo universe into the 'natural' universe we know today.

Frankly Kingy this disappoints me. Do you really misunderstand naturalism so badly? Or do you deliberately say what you know to be false merely to mislead.

[Napoléon]

The laws of mathematics say that 1+1=2, but the laws have never produced a single dollar, and if the laws of nature or broken down in the singularity, then the naturalistic starting point is also supernatural.

Herein lies your fundamental misunderstanding. Just because something cannot be currently explained != supernatural.

This is essentially, just a "goddidit" argument.

[GrandizerII]

Quote needs fixing. The quote makes it seem like I was the one who said that.

[Napoléon]

Oops.

[Whateverist]

And do you agree with his naturalistic explanation of "That because there is a law of gravity the Universe can and will create itself" and "That in the singularity the laws of nature necessarily breakdown"?

The laws of mathematics say that 1+1=2, but the laws have never produced a single dollar, and if the laws of nature or broken down in the singularity, then the naturalistic starting point is also supernatural.

I don't have sufficient knowledge to agree or disagree with him. I'm just your average person, not a scientist.

Same here but I recognize illogic and mumbo jumbo when I hear it.

[Kingpin]

I merely mentioned that even scientific leaders such as Hawking lend credence to the immense design and, precision and fine-tuning of the universe.

No they don't. To say so is a total misrepresentation of any work he has ever made. Give me one quote where he lends credence to the immense design and fine tuning of the universe. Just one.

Sure, here's an article he wrote discussing it in the WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1609024244

[Kingpin]

The laws of mathematics say that 1+1=2, but the laws have never produced a single dollar, and if the laws of nature or broken down in the singularity, then the naturalistic starting point is also supernatural.

Herein lies your fundamental misunderstanding. Just because something cannot be currently explained != supernatural.

This is essentially, just a "goddidit" argument.

Not at all, I'm not using a "God of the Gaps" argument.  What I'm saying is simply that both a naturalistic explanation of the beginning of the universe and the theological explanation are both supernatural.  I'm stating that Hawking believes that in the singularity the laws of Nature must be broken down.  Meaning there were no laws of nature, the existence of the universe owes it's explanation outside the laws of nature, or by definition, supernatural.

[Napoléon]

No they don't. To say so is a total misrepresentation of any work he has ever made. Give me one quote where he lends credence to the immense design and fine tuning of the universe. Just one.

Sure, here's an article he wrote discussing it in the WSJ

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...1609024244

And do you care to pinpoint the part where he lends credence to the immense 'design' and fine tuning? I asked for a direct quote not an entire article. On the face of this article it's actually only proving my point. Hell it's entitled "why god did not create the universe". That alone flies in the face of your assertion that he lends credence to design and fine tuning.