Present a BETTER worldview

[Tiberius]

OK so then theism is the best explanation.

No. Perhaps you mistook my post for an actual answer to your questions. It wasn't. It was just an observation of how the "fine-tuning" crowd think.

I have no interest in answering your questions, as I have no interest in writing a 100,000+ word essay, which is what answering your question entails.

Your questions include physics, mathematics, biology, and philosophy. The answers to your questions are already out there if you cared to look. 500 years of science (and counting) is constantly updating those answers with more knowledge, better explanations, etc.

Oh, and you should also know that the inability (or just plain refusal) of someone to answer your question, doesn't make your answer any more valid, so your conclusion above is irrational.

[Minimalist]

OK so then theism is the best explanation.

Theism is no explanation. Childish superstition really does not pass muster, boy.

[theVOID]

OK so then theism is the best explanation.

Yes but what theism? I propose that the fine-tuner was a cosmic wizard with a degree in engineering.

[Ashendant]

OK so then theism is the best explanation.

Yes but what theism? I propose that the fine-tuner was a cosmic wizard with a degree in engineering.

A magic monkey did it

[theVOID]

Most of the time I see atheists, skeptics, and agnostic community putting forth a great deal of effort in debunking and undermining Christianity as a valid worldview. Not much effort at all it seems is given in presenting a BETTER worldview. I would like to defy you to present a reasonable worldview which is BETTER than theism considering the following:

Naturalism/Humanism is better worldview, why? It offers explanations to the same problems but in the vast majority of instances the naturalistic worldview offers far more explanatory power than the theistic/deistic explanations and thus increases our understanding of these phenomenon to the point where practical application is possible.

Any explanation that does not rely on the assertion of non-demonstrable and unneccesary phenomenon or entities is by default the better worldview - Re: Occams razror.

Secondly, your need for explanations for the phenomenon that we do not understand is unfounded - The theistic worldview presupposes that all of these questions are answerable, I on the other hand see no reason to assume that such answers are available.

- please present a BETTER explanation for the existence of our universe, a cosmological argument, which is more rational than Theism gives us. Why is there something, rather than nothing ?

Firstly, these are two different questions.

1) What caused the universe to exist (and is a better explanation than theism)?

Answer: We don't know and that's the honest truth - nobody has ever been able to build a logically necessary case for the existence of the universe - We have naturalistic hypotheses from M-theory to White-hole hypothesis etc, however just like the explanation "God did it" none of them are demonstrable or logically necessary - The only raitional response to this question is to claim no knowledge.

2) Why does anything exist at all?

Answer: We don't know, and also supposing God does not answer this question, for it could simply be rephrased "why does God (a mind) exist rather than nothing?"

Nobody can answer this question, you're simply delluded if you think proposing the existence of an intelligence isn't in violation of the question.

- please present a BETTER explanation for the fine-tuning of

A better explanation - Better than what? all you have is an unfounded hypotheses. If you mean better as in "has the ability to explain the existence of the "fine-tuned" initial conditions and constants" then M-theory and the white-hole hypothesis are just as efficient, why? Becuase they both posit an infinite number of scenarios and this by definition allows an explanation for everything.

If you are asking for a "more substantiated" answer you aren't going to get one, why? Because none of our hypotheses (inclding your God hypothesis) are supported by any ammount of evidence or logical necessity.

- The over 120 finely tuned constants of physics to permit life on earth

This is the same as the last section - M-theory and the White Hole hypothesis both would logically allow for the saisfaction of an infinite number of combined attiributes...

And once again neither these explanations nor your God explanation have any evidence or necessity.

- The initial conditions of the universe. how was it possible the inflation rate of the Big Bang being finely tuned to degree of 1 of 10^120 ?

Fristly, where are you getting the 120 from? Including the constants and the initial conditions there are 11 potential variables that need to be withthin a marignal range of their observed attributes for life to exist in this universe.

Secondly, M-Theory and the White Hole hypothesis both provide mechanism for this to happen.

- the galaxy- sun-earth-moon system :

Our galaxy is one of many hundreds of billions, each with different properties. There is no need for God to explain this, we have very real evidence for the formation of galactic and solar systems in space. As it pertains to the existence of life we can assign probabilities to the occurance of life permitting systems by extrapolating the physical laws taking into account the frequency of systems like ours in the observable universe.

to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning.

Firstly, your math is based on made-up numbers.

Secondly, If you actually knew that the multiverse proposed an infinite number of realities and understood this implication you would not be suggesting that this reality cannot be one of an infinite number...

Thirdly, no the multiverse does not disprove God, so what? We do not believe in God because he can be disproved, we don't believe in him because there is no evidence for his existence nor any logical necessity requiring it.

A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses.

Sure, you simply need energy and a single law.

It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design.

Stupid statement of the day award!

That's like saying a designer of a car is likely to intentionally produce many hundreds of billions of times more non-functional cars than he is functional ones...

Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right.

You don't understand the law of averages do you? Given the masive number of instances of such systems, finding any one that displays any particular number of attributes simultaneously is not dificult to concieve of.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

A better world view than what? Yours,with no basis in reason or evidence ?

Why on earth would I bother? I really,truly don't care about your personal superstitions. Besides, I think you are being completely disingenuous.A presuppositional apologist,you don't want to hear rational alternatives to your woo. Nor do I believe you are willing or capable of assessing such information with anything approaching objectivity

I make no claims, and attract no burden of proof. That honour is 100% yours.

I'm perfectly comfy saying "I don't know" when I don't know. I have no need to appeal to the god of the gaps, aka argument from incredulity. IE "Im too ignorant, too stupid or too unimaginative to think of anything else ,therefore God did it"

[Welsh cake]

- please present a BETTER explanation for the existence of our universe, a cosmological argument, which is more rational than Theism gives us. Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Here's the PREVAILING cosmological explanation of the universe's early development:

Big Bang

- please present a BETTER explanation for the fine-tuning of - The over 120 finely tuned constants of physics to permit life on earth

120? So needless to say you've already done the research required and are simply disappointed God's not one of them?

At any rate a secondary education level science textbook that covers the basics to organic reactions is all you need to understanding the fundamentals involved in biochemistry, if you're referring to Abiogenesis (quite possibly owing to your vague OP) I recommend you give this site a visit:-

http://www.talkorigins.org/

- The initial conditions of the universe. how was it possible the inflation rate of the Big Bang being finely tuned to degree of 1 of 10^120 ?

We can't. That still remains one of the unsolved theoretical problems in physics:

Cosmic inflation

- the galaxy- sun-earth-moon system :

Nebular hypothesis

considering :
to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done.

This... is nonsensical. What do you mean by "x number of attempts" exactly? By life permitting universe I'm assuming you mean the potential for life in the universe? Regardless of how improbable it is?

Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God.

Oh please, these are hypotheses in physics, they have nothing to do with personal belief in magic man in any case.

Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible.

Sorry, but your assertion is broad-faced.

-please explain a BETTER mechanism than design for DNA, consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.

Please phrase the question in a form that is sensible and legitimate.

-please explain, what meaning your life has. And if it has no reason, how can you live happy knowing, that your life is completely futile and senseless ?

I give myself a meaning, a purpose, that's how.

Oh dear I've gone and made your god-concept even more useless than it already is haven't I?

[Zen Badger]

The invisible pink unicorn was responsible for it all.

Now prove me wrong BP.

[Entropist]

Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth

Potentially Hazardous Object: "Near the start of October 2008, NASA had listed 982 PHAs and 65 PHCs.[3] The total Solar System inventory continues to grow, as of 2010, 1,111 PHA are known.[2] Searches for yet-undiscovered PHOs are ongoing, with the most prolific the year prior to June 2005 being the LINEAR and Catalina surveys. Once found, each PHO is studied by various means, including optical, infrared and radar observations, to further determine its characteristics, such as size, composition, rotation state, and to more accurately determine its orbit. Both professional and amateur astronomers participate in such monitoring."

Also, you forgot about the Tunguska event. No planet get special exemptions, including our wee ball of rock.

[blood_pardon]

Hey theVoid,

Thanx for taking the time to reply I know its time consumming.

Answer: We don't know, and also supposing God does not answer this question, for it could simply be rephrased "why does God (a mind) exist rather than nothing?"

If God exists then it does answer the question, but you do have a good point.

If you mean better as in "has the ability to explain the existence of the "fine-tuned" initial conditions and constants" then M-theory and the white-hole hypothesis are just as efficient, why? Becuase they both posit an infinite number of scenarios and this by definition allows an explanation for everything.

The point of this thread was for you to provide a BETTER explanation than God. These claims are just as extrodinary and lack just as much scientific evidence.

Fristly, where are you getting the 120 from? Including the constants and the initial conditions there are 11 potential variables that need to be withthin a marignal range of their observed attributes for life to exist in this universe.
Secondly, M-Theory and the White Hole hypothesis both provide mechanism for this to happen

Here is a list of 93 constants requred for life:
http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe

Again M-theory is not a BETTER explanation.

As it pertains to the existence of life we can assign probabilities to the occurance of life permitting systems by extrapolating the physical laws taking into account the frequency of systems like ours in the observable universe

Can you prove there is even a single planet capable of permiting life?

Firstly, your math is based on made-up numbers.

Secondly, If you actually knew that the multiverse proposed an infinite number of realities and understood this implication you would not be suggesting that this reality cannot be one of an infinite number...

Thirdly, no the multiverse does not disprove God, so what? We do not believe in God because he can be disproved, we don't believe in him because there is no evidence for his existence nor any logical necessity requiring it.

1. Calculated by experts not just randomly made up
2. Your right on this point
3. You have yet to provide a better explanation....

Stupid statement of the day award!

This is such an honor, I want to thank my mom and dad, my wife, my kids, Warner Bros. Studio....

OK. Let me rephrase that:
It was either
1. Physical Neccesity
2. Chance
3. Design

You don't understand the law of averages do you? Given the masive number of instances of such systems, finding any one that displays any particular number of attributes simultaneously is not dificult to concieve of.

You can concieve until the cows come home, but lets say you do find one that is capable of sustaining life. Where did this life come from?

---

Big Bang

This is a non answer. The BB only provides evidence that the universe had a begining which is consistent with what the bible says about creation ex nihilio.

So needless to say you've already done the research required and are simply disappointed God's not one of them?

lol nice

At any rate a secondary education level science textbook that covers the basics to organic reactions is all you need to understanding the fundamentals involved in biochemistry, if you're referring to Abiogenesis...

This is another failure. Abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis.

This... is nonsensical. What do you mean by "x number of attempts" exactly? By life permitting universe I'm assuming you mean the potential for life in the universe? Regardless of how improbable it is?

It's best to just do away with these "technical numbers" and just say its so UNLIKELY its impossible.

Please phrase the question in a form that is sensible and legitimate.

Do you have a better explanation for:

1. DNA
2. Our abiltiy to speak (superior to all other animals)
3. Human self conciousness
4. Morals