Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Grand Nudger]

Either of you two god botherers ever wonder why the god who made us by magic from clay would need to make oceans to support us?

You can keep wondering about all kinds of stuff being not the way you think it should be if we were indeed fine tuned. It all boils down to : fine tuned universe = heaven. And that's absolutely wrong because one can't justly live in heaven without deserving it, that's what a just God would do, and that's exactly what you have.

A just God wouldn't give one heaven a priori, he would give a reasonably flawed world. The next thing depends on one's performance in it

I think that you might have missed a few steps before that "therefore heaven"...but who cares?  If I don't have any interest in joining your club - why would I want to spend eternity in your club?

Everything is surprising, we just get used to stuff, and that's the real issue. The clever thing to do is to continue to wonder despite the fact that we figured out how certain things work.

You're clearly working with a different definition of surprise.  I am not surprised to find that the necessities of existence are met, in the case of existence.  This state of affairs is tautologically expected to be true.  If some animal needs water, we expect to find water - but it doesn't matter whether a god put the water there or not.  However water came to be, if a creature that depends on water exists...water must exist.

an·throp·ic prin·ci·ple
/anˌTHräpik ˈprinsəp(ə)l/
noun

1. the cosmological principle that theories of the universe are constrained by the necessity to allow human existence.
   

...now, why this appears to be true in a natural universe is self explanatory..but again, why this seems to be true in a magical universe is an open question.

[LadyForCamus]

Either of you two god botherers ever wonder why the god who made us by magic from clay would need to make oceans to support us?

You can keep wondering about all kinds of stuff being not the way you think it should be if we were indeed fine tuned. It all boils down to : fine tuned universe = heaven. And that's absolutely wrong because one can't justly live in heaven without deserving it, that's what a just God would do, and that's exactly what you have.

A just God wouldn't give one heaven a priori, he would give a reasonably flawed world. The next thing depends on one's performance in it

In any case, it is absolutely ridiculous to be amazed or surprised by the fact that everything a creature needs to exist, exists, when we observe that the creature does, in fact, exist.  It would be more wondrous, and more indicative of something unknown, if we found fish living on a planet with no oceans, no water.  Same goes for man.

Everything is surprising, we just get used to stuff, and that's the real issue. The clever thing to do is to continue to wonder despite the fact that we figured out how certain things work.

---

Seems we’ve drifted a long way away from Klorophyll demonstrating the existence of his god.

This topic is not about the existence of God, nevertheless I already answered your request pages ago.

I think what we know so far about the universe being tuned for us, makes anyone who claims we came here by chance absolutey dishonest. If I remember correctly, you already seem to agree that something can't come from nothing. Since we are mortal beings, and there has to be always something, doesn't that warrant then an eternal cause, at least, whose properties can be inferred from its effects?

1. That the universe is fine tuned is a bald assertion, not an explanation. 
2. Whether or not there was always something tells us nothing about the existence of any kind of intelligent being.

[R00tKiT]

I think that you might have missed a few steps before that "therefore heaven"

I didn't intend for that to be a complete case for heaven, all I'm saying is that what's actually happening is what a just God would do, if he exists.

You're clearly working with a different definition of surprise.  I am not surprised to find that the necessities of existence are met, in the case of existence.  This state of affairs is tautologically expected to be true.  If some animal needs water, we expect to find water - but it doesn't matter whether a god put the water there or not.  However water came to be, if a creature that depends on water exists...water must exist.

That's a vacuous reasoning. You're not really saying much except describing some existent reality. And any really fine tuned universe will have the same tautologically true stuff you're talking about. 

...now, why this appears to be true in a natural universe is self explanatory

Again, you can say the same thing about a chair wired to fit the human body, and even derive your own chairtropic principle. None of that changes the fact that the chair was designed.

---

1. That the universe is fine tuned is a bald assertion, not an explanation.

And what would it take for you to acknowledge this fact? A golden skin?

2. Whether or not there was always something tells us nothing about the existence of any kind of intelligent being.

If the universe is indeed fine tuned, coming to existence by chance is no longer a reasonable hypothesis. We're left with either the multiverse or an intelligent designer.

[LastPoet]

Now, I gave reasonable explanations on how wrong these fine tuning arguments are . I went ignored and replaced by others that prick kloro's ego. Oh well, carry on.

[LadyForCamus]

I think that you might have missed a few steps before that "therefore heaven"

I didn't intend for that to be a complete case for heaven, all I'm saying is that what's actually happening is what a just God would do, if he exists.

You're clearly working with a different definition of surprise.  I am not surprised to find that the necessities of existence are met, in the case of existence.  This state of affairs is tautologically expected to be true.  If some animal needs water, we expect to find water - but it doesn't matter whether a god put the water there or not.  However water came to be, if a creature that depends on water exists...water must exist.

That's a vacuous reasoning. You're not really saying much except describing some existent reality. And any really fine tuned universe will have the same tautologically true stuff you're talking about. 

...now, why this appears to be true in a natural universe is self explanatory

Again, you can say the same thing about a chair wired to fit the human body, and even derive your own chairtropic principle. None of that changes the fact that the chair was designed.

---

1. That the universe is fine tuned is a bald assertion, not an explanation.

And what would it take for you to acknowledge this fact? A golden skin?

And, what would it take for you to acknowledge an argument from ignorance fallacy? There are things on this planet that appear designed, but are not designed. Is a snowflake, or a crystal designed? There are also things on this planet that appear designed and are designed. Therefore, the appearance of design is not a valid indicator of actual design. “It’s just obvious” is not an argument; it’s an assertion. In order to reasonably conclude design, you need to provide evidence of a designer.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you might have missed a few steps before that "therefore heaven"

I didn't intend for that to be a complete case for heaven, all I'm saying is that what's actually happening is what a just God would do, if he exists.

If you say so, I guess?  Does it matter, if I don't care whether there's a heaven, or a god..or if it's your heaven, or your god?  No.  I don't want to join your club.  How can I make this more clear?

You're clearly working with a different definition of surprise.  I am not surprised to find that the necessities of existence are met, in the case of existence.  This state of affairs is tautologically expected to be true.  If some animal needs water, we expect to find water - but it doesn't matter whether a god put the water there or not.  However water came to be, if a creature that depends on water exists...water must exist.

That's a vacuous reasoning. You're not really saying much except describing some existent reality. And any really fine tuned universe will have the same tautologically true stuff you're talking about. 

If you say so...there are two possible ways that all of that true stuff can be.  One of them is absent any god.  That makes god unnecessary.

...now, why this appears to be true in a natural universe is self explanatory

Again, you can say the same thing about a chair wired to fit the human body, and even derive your own chairtropic principle. None of that changes the fact that the chair was designed.

Do you really reject the anthropic principle?  Isn't the anthropic principle exactly why you think some god is needed?  Something has to account for the requirements of mans existence, and any cosmological notion must account for those requirements?

I don't think that you've thought this through.  Not enough to convince someone that your fairy tales are credible..and certainly not enough to convince someone to join your club, if you managed that.

[The Architect Of Fate]

If a just god created the earth it should be paradise their is no rational reason it's should not be and all humans should be flawless saints  by nature nor would we need an after life  .What we get instead is delusional theists  trying desperately to rationalize away what we actually see a universe that only makes sense without their crap .

---

I didn't intend for that to be a complete case for heaven, all I'm saying is that what's actually happening is what a just God would do, if he exists.

If you say so, I guess?  Does it matter, if I don't care whether there's a heaven, or a god..or if it's your heaven, or your god?  No.  I don't want to join your club.  How can I make this more clear?

That's a vacuous reasoning. You're not really saying much except describing some existent reality. And any really fine tuned universe will have the same tautologically true stuff you're talking about. 

If you say so...there are two possible ways that all of that true stuff can be.  One of them is absent any god.  That makes god unnecessary.

Again, you can say the same thing about a chair wired to fit the human body, and even derive your own chairtropic principle. None of that changes the fact that the chair was designed.

Do you really reject the anthropic principle?  Isn't the anthropic principle exactly why you think some god is needed?  Something has to account for the requirements of mans existence, and any cosmological notion must account for those requirements?

I don't think that you've thought this through.  Not enough to convince someone that your fairy tales are credible..and certainly not enough to convince someone to join your club, if you managed that.

Accept needs to account for it .it's sufficient that it is

[R00tKiT]

And, what would it take for you to acknowledge an argument from ignorance fallacy? There are things on this planet that appear designed, but are not designed.

I would suggest you start by defining "designed" as you're using it here, just to make sure you're not including "directly seeing the designer" in the definition. In which case it's automatic for you to reject any argument from design.

Therefore, the appearance of design is not a valid indicator of actual design.

Again, it seems the only thing that would convince you of design is witnessing the design process, you are excluding any argument starting from precise laws of chemistry/physics that led to the things you think they only have the appearance of design. And the existence of laws do warrant a lawgiver.

And it took a lot of damn conditions for things to even have the appearance of design. That's what you're not getting.

If you say so...there are two possible ways that all of that true stuff can be.  One of them is absent any god.  That makes god unnecessary.

The true staff as a whole warrants an explanation, if you remove god you're not really left with any good hypothesis.
If something always existed there are two ways only : a entity that always existed or some infinite regress.

Do you really reject the anthropic principle?  Isn't the anthropic principle exactly why you think some god is needed?  Something has to account for the requirements of mans existence, and any cosmological notion must account for those requirements?

I don't think that you've thought this through.  Not enough to convince someone that your fairy tales are credible..and certainly not enough to convince someone to join your club, if you managed that.

I don't reject it, it's a meaningless principle to me. "We exist therefore the universe made it possible for us to exist" is really nothing.
The anthropic principle in its stronger form states : " The universe must make our existence possible ", and this already supposes a deity, I think.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you say so...there are two possible ways that all of that true stuff can be.  One of them is absent any god.  That makes god unnecessary.

The true staff as a whole warrants an explanation, if you remove god you're not really left with any good hypothesis.
If something always existed there are two ways only : a entity that always existed or some infinite regress.

Sure, "the true stuff" requires an explanation, and not for nothing, it has one.  You simply wish to add another possibility in.  That a god turned a wrench and played in the dirt.  Like I said, fine, if you say so, but since we're considering two possible explanations - god is not necessary to the explanation.  

Do you really reject the anthropic principle?  Isn't the anthropic principle exactly why you think some god is needed?  Something has to account for the requirements of mans existence, and any cosmological notion must account for those requirements?

I don't think that you've thought this through.  Not enough to convince someone that your fairy tales are credible..and certainly not enough to convince someone to join your club, if you managed that.

I don't reject it, it's a meaningless principle to me. "We exist therefore the universe made it possible for us to exist" is really nothing.
The anthropic principle in its stronger form states : " The universe must make our existence possible ", and this already supposes a deity, I think.

If it were meaningless you wouldn't be insisting that cosmological notions are necessarily constrained to account for the existence of man and his requirements.  You're basing your argument for god on it. I'd call that meaningful. It's disastrous, but still very meaningful.

What about acknowledging that a creature that drinks water must live in a universe with water presupposes a god?  Explain that.  As far as I can tell, it only presupposes that there must be water, and some process by which water occurs, if there are water drinkers. I'll point out, again, that it's actually the existence of a creature that drinks water..in a universe without water, that would be the surprising and miraculous and potentially divine universe. For some odd reason, we just so happen to be living in the unremarkably natural one, instead.

We had a poster (can't remember who) link a video that went along the lines of how the worst thing about theism, was that it made him sound like an idiot. This is one of those times. Believers are conditioned to believe not just in superstitious shit, but to disbelieve in anything that conflicts with that superstitious shit. This damages their credibility and the credibility of their faith, tying it...for no necessary reason, to the stupid shit they say. That's why it's never taken an army of atheists to destroy a religion. They do it to themselves.

You're doing it right now. If your religion requires you to accept ignorant superstitions -and- reject tautologically true statements about the universe....then your religion is doomed. Personally, I think it's just you. That your religion would do fine, and do better, without the stupid shit that you say.

[R00tKiT]

Sure, "the true stuff" requires an explanation, and not for nothing, it has one.  You simply wish to add another possibility in.  That a god turned a wrench and played in the dirt.  Like I said, fine, if you say so, but since we're considering two possible explanations - god is not necessary to the explanation. 

If I understand what you're saying correctly, we agree that there can possibly be only these exact two explanations : God or infinite regress. So infinite regress is the explanation you think is more reasonable, right?

If it were meaningless you wouldn't be insisting that cosmological notions are necessarily constrained to account for the existence of man and his requirements.  You're basing your argument for god on it.   I'd call that meaningful.  It's disastrous, but still very meaningful.

No pal, my argument resembles the teleological argument. And I don't recall the latter being solely built on the anthropic principle.

And a small reminder for you : I don't reject the anthropic principle. I just don't think it's an argument.

I'll point out, again, that it's actually the existence of a creature that drinks water..in a universe without water, that would be the surprising and miraculous and potentially divine universe.  For some odd reason, we just so happen to be living in the unremarkably natural one, instead.

This is really funny, and, I might add, stupid. The divine universe you're advocating for is the universe that makes no sense, that is not intelligible, in which the simplest tautologies are false. If such a creature exists, then, unfortunately for us, our scientific method can't account for it, can't explain it, can't predict its behavior, etc. It might prove god to you, but it would do a great disservice to our god given ability to understand the world.

To put it in simple terms : you prefer the (unintelligble universe+god) pack to the pack - I would argue - you already have : (intelligible universe+god).

The funny thing here is that if the universe were indeed as you want it to be, you would again simply go the other route : a divine universe is the universe where your nonsensical creature doesn't exist, where only orderly laws work.

We had a poster (can't remember who) link a video that went along the lines of how the worst thing about theism, was that it made him sound like an idiot.  This is one of those times.  Believers are conditioned to believe not just in superstitious shit, but to disbelieve in anything that conflicts with that superstitious shit.  This damages their credibility and the credibility of their faith, tying it...for no necessary reason, to the stupid shit they say.  That's why it's never taken an army of atheists to destroy a religion.  They do it to themselves.

You're doing it right now.  If your religion requires you to accept ignorant superstitions -and- reject tautologically true statements about the universe....then your religion is doomed.  Personally, I think it's just you.  That your religion would do fine, and do better, without the stupid shit that you say.

I repeat : I don't reject the tautologies you're talking about. And you can play the "theists destroy their religion" game somewhere else.