Present a BETTER worldview

[blood_pardon]

No it isn't. Logic is well defined. Particular statements are either illogical (i.e. they follow logically) or they are not. There isn't any room for interpretation or opinion. It may well be true that some people choose to act irrationally and insist that they are correct despite the flaws in their reasoning. When people have deeply held beliefs, revealing those beliefs as illogical isn't usually taken well

Im sure there are instances where interpretation and opinion matter a great deal, it would depend on the topic at hand.

Your assumption, like the rest of your argument, is baseless. I have a great interest in changing your mind.

Why do you want me to walk away from my faith?

If you want an example of a fallacy you make, it would be this one: "to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done"

Ignoring the fact that you do not explain the origin of these numbers, or even how you know that to create a life-permitting universe, you need that many attempts (give that we don't even know if there was an initial "attempt"). Ignoring all that, you are arguing from large numbers, and hoping that we ignore the small numbers. What are the small numbers? Well, you give the start of the range as 1. 1 attempt. What you want us to think is that "gosh, we really might need 10^500 attempts at a universe being created that can sustain life?!?", and from there we think, that is highly improbable; it can't have happened. What you don't want us to think is "wait a minute, he's admitted to the universe maybe only needing 1 attempt to sustain life...that works out fine".

Your use of large numbers is a classic statistical trick that I see a lot. You want us to think that 10^500 is so improbable, it can't happen, but you do not give us any context into which we can put that amount. Your forget the key thing here; even if you have a very low probability of something happening, as long as the probability isn't 0, it can happen on the first go.

Im simply stating what is commonly believed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape

By all means, try to convince us, but if people don't want to, or outright refuse to debate you, it doesn't mean that you automatically win. An opponent's refusal or inability to debate proves nothing about your argument

I agree, but if a person isnt going to present facts then why should they post a response at all to a thread like this? Its like "I can prove you wrong but I just dont want to. So na na nuh na na."

[Welsh cake]

1.Ummm, dude. The Big Bang isn't the beginning of the universe, it's the birth of spacetime from the "Einsteinian singularity"
2.The big bang has nothing to say about the nature of reality prior to this event since relativistic equations are dependent on the notion of frames of reference in spacetime - Thus no spacetime no equations.
3. M-theory is frankly the best hypothesis for this phenomenon. Stephen Hawking's new book "The Grand Design" is a really good introduction to the subject, i'd highly recommend it.

1. I never said it was.
2. Never said it did.
3. I've already read your response. Very insightful - however he refused to accept it as an explanation for the existence of the universe.

Umm, you really didn't answer the question, you answered a different question

A classic instance of garbage in, garbage out; although I'm still not certain what those original "120 constants" ever were supposed to be, or where they were cited from. I'd appreciate a link.

However there is no reason to assume that suitably-self aware structures made out of fundamentally different components cannot exist.

?
Are you responding to me here? Again, as much as I enjoy nitpicking, I don't recall ever making such claims.

Yeah, again... i think you misunderstand what fine-tuning is, then again his whole "inflation rate of the big bang was fine tuned" is complete nonsense because the inconsistency of inflation is what made gravity non-uniform and thus allowed the formation of influential masses.

GIGO. Besides I'm still waiting for him to explain what the hell he meant by providing "a BETTER mechanism than design for DNA, consciousness, the ability of thinking and speech, and morality".

So, what do you think would serve you as a good enough evidence?
I doubt if God will ever show Himself somewhere in the stars above and speak to us. That'll happen next on the day of resurrection, I believe.

My standards of evidence... I couldn't possibly hope to list in one reply, I have different standards for different claims. Regardless of empirical verifiable data, you providing a positive clear ontology or meaningful definition for the god concept would be a HUGE start.

[theVOID]

Im sure there are instances where interpretation and opinion matter a great deal, it would depend on the topic at hand.

No, logic is trivially true (by the definitions given). There is no interpretation as all values are boolean, either true or false.

Why do you want me to walk away from my faith?

I think he just wants you stop using such a stupid argument.

Firstly, Saying "God did it" just replaces one mystery with another - Instead of asking "why is there anything that can fluctuate at all?" we need "why is there anything to be known at all (all-knowing)" or "why is there anything to have power over" (all-powerful) or "why is there anything that can be described as Good at all?" any one of God's attributes is dependent on their being something to have power and knowledge over etc.

There is also the more fundamental questions of "why is there a god rather than nothing".

None of what you have said solves this problem.

Im simply stating what is commonly believed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape

That doesn't say that a life permitting universe has a probability of 1/10^500, it says that according to the Feynman sum of histories there could be as many as 10^500 universes.

It also states that for any given configuration, the more probable ones will occur many times. The most likely outcome was thought to be a re-collapse, where the post-inflationary factors were too uniform, causing gravity to collapse for another attempt at expansion.

Universes like ours, where the cosmic inflation bore inconsistencies that allowed gravity to from matter are less probable, but could still occur 10^? number of times

Universes that had not only inflationary inconsistency but the same initial conditions and laws as our universe are less probably still, though there could effectively still be hundreds of billions of them.

I agree, but if a person isnt going to present facts then why should they post a response at all to a thread like this? Its like "I can prove you wrong but I just dont want to. So na na nuh na na."

I'm going to argue for them, seeing as I have the time (i'm in a SQL class...).

You have pointed out the fine-tuning problem quite well, though your number of constants and factors 1^120 of whatever it started out is a number pulled out of the ass of some creationist. The differences are believed to be a much more paltry number because there are some instances that can be combined to a single common denominator, such as Electricity, magnetism, the charge of the electron, the speed of light etc can all be put down to the Electromagnetic effect, which in turn can be combined with the weak-force and the strong-force, which may be related to gravity, in this instance there would be as few as 2 actual conditions, energy and a single law, that with some level of randomness and a feedback loop can generate 10^500 combinations of universes.

And the main contention is the one I made previously, supposing God was responsible achieves nothing, you simply replace on mystery with another, and then you can get into the probabilities of any specific God existing which i assure you, since god can be define ad infinitum (is not a confined hypothesis) is infinitely more improbable than us being in a universe that is 1/10^500 other universes of various degrees of difference.

[IceSage]

The human body is so flawed it's not even funny, if god really did humans he pretty much failed at correcting very basic flaws

I once had a discussion about this with some fundie Christians. In the thread, basically the argument was how other animals and species can better adapt to certain, simple negative aspects. For example, a certain species (I think it was a dolphin?) has a way to breath, and a separate way to swallow, so there's no way they "choke." The question proposed to the Christians was: "How come God doesn't fix our flaws? Why can't we have more advanced breathing methods, as to not die by something as simple as choking?"

Most of them replied with, "God told us not to be glutenous, so don't eat so much and you won't choke."

...

[blood_pardon]

And the main contention is the one I made previously, supposing God was responsible achieves nothing, you simply replace on mystery with another, and then you can get into the probabilities of any specific God existing which i assure you, since god can be define ad infinitum (is not a confined hypothesis) is infinitely more improbable than us being in a universe that is 1/10^500 other universes of various degrees of difference.

The bible says that if you draw near to Him, He will draw near to you. If you do reach the conclusion that He exists (as many atheists have) then begining a real relationship with Him begins with prayer. It takes alot of faith to sit in a room all alone and talk to a Being you cannot see, it pleases Him though and I assure you if you seek Him you will find Him.

I dont think the string theory is more likely than God existing, I think your just saying that because its the only solution that naturlists currently have.

Most of them replied with, "God told us not to be glutenous, so don't eat so much and you won't choke."

lol

[Live_free]

All of your arguments are presuppositional. You come from a mind set of "There is a god and everything else is wrong". Your arguments are incredibly weak. But as they are so moronic and show absolutely no logical basis there is no reason to reply. Why? Because even if I did like some have you will just say "no" and throw out more repugnant bullshit..

All your arguments either suppose a god exists, sorry that isn't how it works.

Also I laughed when you talked about the constants. As you appear to think that we are the only type of life form that could have evolved. We are like this and can tolerate certain aspects and not others because we evolved in this system. If we evolved where the average temperature was 2 thousand degrees people could still make the same argument. At the end of the day it's bogus and whoever shoved this shit up your ass should feel bad for creating yet another idiot.

[theVOID]

The bible says that if you draw near to Him, He will draw near to you. If you do reach the conclusion that He exists (as many atheists have) then begining a real relationship with Him begins with prayer. It takes alot of faith to sit in a room all alone and talk to a Being you cannot see, it pleases Him though and I assure you if you seek Him you will find Him.

Just because you reach the end of your understanding of the argument and have nothing intelligent to say doesn't mean you get to start preaching. I do not give a flying fuck what's in your ancient book, nor do i give a fuck about your silly religion or your God concept.

You realize every other religion makes these claims about finding God too right? So why should I believe any of these contradictory conclusions to be privy to the truth of reality, let alone your specific theism - the product of bronze-age, illiterate, primitive, barbaric, sand-dwelling Jews?

I dont think the string theory is more likely than God existing, I think your just saying that because its the only solution that naturlists currently have.

The only solution you have is another mystery - forgive us silly naturalists for using every ounce of reason and knowledge available to us and realising that we have a theory that can explain the fundamental aspects of reality that is both mathematically consistent with what we know about reality and doesn't need a cosmic wizard of some kind...

Also you would be wrong to think that M-theory is the only hypothesis:

There is the possibility that black holes in one universe cause a white hole that spawns another

There is the possibility that some of the constants aren't so constant, which changes the statement from "the universe is within a narrow range of life-permitting parameters" to "this corner of the universe is within a narrow range of life permitting parameters" which completely mitigates the Fine-tunning problem.

There is the idea of the cyclic universe that endlessly expands and collapses each time forming a slightly different inflationary discrepancy, and thus a slightly different universe.

There is also the very real possibility that we haven't even conceived of the answer yet. Even if none of the current propositions are true there is still no case for a cosmic wizard getting involved.

God is a mind, a psychology, which are the most complicated systems in the known universe. To replace simple physics with such a thing and claim that not only have you solved the problem of why there is something rather than nothing, but that it's the most simple explanation for the known universe too makes you deluded.

[blood_pardon]

You realize every other religion makes these claims about finding God too right? So why should I believe any of these contradictory conclusions to be privy to the truth of reality, let alone your specific theism - the product of bronze-age, illiterate, primitive, barbaric, sand-dwelling Jews?

Tell me when is the last time a Buddhist tried to convince you about spiritual things? A jew? Muslim? Hindu? African witch doctor? Maybe at some point in your life someone has (i know there are some muslims here) but 99 percent of the time its a Christian in your life reminding you again and again maybe not directly but their there and you hear it. Over and over again you have heard that you sir are in a desperate condition and NEED a savior. This sir is God trying to get your attention, believe it or not.

The only solution you have is another mystery -

Coming to the conclusion that God created the universe doesn't solve all mysteries your right. Once you reach this understanding then you can begin to focus on what ACTUALLY MATTERS, like what is God? what has He been doing for all eternity? What's next? How should I live?

- forgive us silly naturalists for using every ounce of reason and knowledge available to us and realising that we have a theory that can explain the fundamental aspects of reality that is both mathematically consistent with what we know about reality and doesn't need a cosmic wizard of some kind...

So then you have completley eliminated the possibiltiy of intelligent design even though you have no BETTER explanation.

God is a mind, a psychology, which are the most complicated systems in the known universe. To replace simple physics with such a thing and claim that not only have you solved the problem of why there is something rather than nothing, but that it's the most simple explanation for the known universe too makes you deluded.

I never meant to imply that God is a simple being. We might go through all eternity trying to get a grasp on what it is He even is. That's what heaven is all about I think. Marvelous revelation after revelation after revelation.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Tell me when is the last time a Buddhist tried to convince you about spiritual things? A jew? Muslim? Hindu? African witch doctor? Maybe at some point in your life someone has (i know there are some muslims here) but 99 percent of the time its a Christian in your life reminding you again and again maybe not directly but their there and you hear it. Over and over again you have heard that you sir are in a desperate condition and NEED a savior. This sir is God trying to get your attention, believe it or not.

This is why I like christianity the least of most of the major religions. I can deal with the irrational beliefs, but only Christians try so very aggressively to convince me to believe in their irrational beliefs. Plus, some of those religions are far more rational in many ways.

Be that as it may, christians are not god. Since Christians are not god, their constant annoyance is not a direct representative of God attempting to get my attention so much as Christians being very annoying.

Coming to the conclusion that God created the universe doesn't solve all mysteries your right. Once you reach this understanding then you can begin to focus on what ACTUALLY MATTERS, like what is God? what has He been doing for all eternity? What's next? How should I live?

No, but the problem is that it presents more problems than you've solved.
Essentially, not only didn't you not solve the problem of how the universe and life came to be, but now you have to prove how and why this being exists.

So then you have completley eliminated the possibiltiy of intelligent design even though you have no BETTER explanation.

Intelligent design is nothing. It solves, predicts, and answers nothing about anything. It's not an explaination at all. It's philosophy based on zero empirical evidence.

I never meant to imply that God is a simple being. We might go through all eternity trying to get a grasp on what it is He even is. That's what heaven is all about I think. Marvelous revelation after revelation after revelation.

I believe the wise philosopher Murderface stated this best: "I'd rather die than go to heaven."

[IceSage]

Tell me when is the last time a Buddhist tried to convince you about spiritual things? A jew? Muslim? Hindu? African witch doctor? Maybe at some point in your life someone has (i know there are some muslims here) but 99 percent of the time its a Christian in your life reminding you again and again maybe not directly but their there and you hear it. Over and over again you have heard that you sir are in a desperate condition and NEED a savior. This sir is God trying to get your attention, believe it or not.

So apparently the more annoying someone is, the more you should believe them? Because this is your logic.

Also, I can only recall 2 or 3 times in my entire LIFE of anyone directly coming to me, or someone announcing me, or anyone trying to convince me, etc, that "Christ is the way" and I need to convert to Christianity, etc.

I've had more people convince me of Paganism than I've never had people try to discuss Christianity with me.

It's true that I've interacted and know a lot about Christianity at this point, simply KNOWING about something doesn't make it true, or means you should believe in it on a baseless assumption.

Also, are you forgetting 9/11? The entire world that day, a bunch of nutbags tried to remind us of Islam. That's pretty annoying... Does that mean that I should start praising Allah now? I find destruction and the discussion of the event more bothersome and annoying than any Christian I've encountered. According to your logic, I should just convert now, and start bombing people, and await my virgins, or whatever.

Coming to the conclusion that God created the universe doesn't solve all mysteries your right. Once you reach this understanding then you can begin to focus on what ACTUALLY MATTERS, like what is God? what has He been doing for all eternity? What's next? How should I live?

I find it hard to believe that your mind tries to focus on what "actually matters" when what you think "actually matters" doesn't exist, is not present, and has no evidence or "evidence" that isn't self-fulfilling that even hints at it, outside of "word of mouth."

So then you have completley eliminated the possibiltiy of intelligent design even though you have no BETTER explanation.

Are you seriously still on this "BETTER EXPLANATION" bullcrap? I thought we explained to you a few pages ago that your question was answered, and the thought of a "better" explanation, or even an explanation period, doesn't matter.

What is, is. What's been researched, has been researched. What's been discovered, has been discovered.

Your logic is absurd. I'm guessing you're old enough to know how babies are made, correct? At this point in your life, instead of accepting how they're conceived and what the process is, are you seriously suggesting that the explanation of "A stork comes, and leaves a baby in a nice basket on your doorstep" is something you'd accept because it "sounds good?"

How about a seed into a flower? Do you believe that fairies or some other creature transforms the seed, rather than how it actually happens?

This is what you're basically doing:

HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN > Here you are > MUST BE GOD!

When it's really

HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN > Here you are > I'm here because the universe began.

But for some reason, the very basic principal of it you think needs more of an explanation than you're given, so you simply don't except it. You might as well do this:

HOW THE UNIVERSE BEGAN > Here you are > Ducks sneezed.

Like, what other or "BETTER" explanation do you want, aside from what actually happened?
What makes you think there's suppose to be more?
Why must there even be more, and why must it jump from what it is, to "God."