The existence of God

[polymath257]

And so if the constants were different, we would not have life and nobody would be around to observe that case.

There are lots of alternative possibilities. Here are a few.

1.There is a multiverse with a lot of universes, each of which has its own set of constants and where every possible combination of constants appears in some universe.

In this case, a very small proportion of the universes will have life, but ALL observations by living things will comes from such universes.

2. The constants change from place to place in *our* universe with all the possible combinations happening somewhere. Once again, the part of our universe with constants allowing for life would be very small, but all observations would come from such locations within our universe.

3. The constants vary and their values are pushed by natural laws in a direction promoting complexity. if this happens, the complexity associated with the production of the elements necessary for life and then of life itself would be automatic.

This sounds like making up any conceivable ad hoc scenario to avoid acknowledging the universe is designed.

1. The multiverse hypothesis is almost unfalsifiable, and there is zero empirical evidence to back it up.

2. This can be said whether the universe is designed or not. Some designed artifact like robots can "say" the same thing about humans, all their observations only come from locations where they exist and where humans designed them.

3. Again, irrelevant. A theist can happily argue with you that God made the universe in such a way that complexity increases with time and life eventually arises.

1. A multiverse comes out naturally from most attempts to formulate quantum gravity.

2. Yes, but it does show that the design/chance argument is fallacious.

3. Again, it shows the design/chance dichotomy is fallacious.

If the only 'evidence' for design is that we fit into the universe we see, that seems like incredibly flimsy evidence.

At the very least, there should first be an investigation into what would be possible or expected if there was no design. Then, and only then, could we compare that expectation to what we actually see.

The problem is that there is no way to know what to expect either with or without design.

Design explains nothing. At *best* it is consistent with what we see, but is not implied by it. But then, so is 'no design'.

Of the two alternatives, the one that goes beyond the evidence more is the one that postulates an unobservable consciousness that controls the laws of nature through some unknown mechanism.

[polymath257]

Much more likely, as complexity rises, life develops to fit whatever constants show up.

Often referred to as "evolution".

yes, that is one method of increasing complexity in biological systems. it does not apply to the production of stars or galaxies since there is no clear selection or mutation mechanism.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm a Christian looking to have a friendly conversation about the existence of God. I'd like to start with one of the Teleology arguments—that God exists based on how fine-tuned the universe is for life. For instance, physical constants, like the gravitational constant and constants of the strong nuclear force, must be within a narrow range to allow for things like atom formation, hydrogen bonding, galaxy formation, etc. This looks like design. The alternative is chance, which doesn't seem adequate. In other words, naturalism cannot account for the fine-tuning of the universe, while design can easily account for it. This is not a trivial problem, or one that can be ridiculed away, since many respected scientists have pointed out how remarkably (and inexplicably) fine-tuned the universe appears. Thanks for your polite responses.

Everyone believes in God's existence so it's futile to cozy up and tried to convince them of something they all ready know. What happened to them is this*
------------------------------------------

*Romans 1:21    Because, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Oh, stop. We all know that deep down you don’t really believe in god. You know it’s all bullshit. You’re just deceiving yourself.

[Pat Mustard]

There's a natural bias in the illusion of fine-tuning - only in a universe where the physical constants are within certain parameters, in a region of the universe where conditions are stable enough to permit evolution to the level of sentience, will such an observation occur.

Even if the universe was created by a god, though, it's a long, long slog to try to connect the dots to the god of Christianity.  Its behaviours in the Old Testament don't engender much confidence as to its competence to fine-tune anything, and its temperament doesn't suggest enough emotional stability to stick with it over the long haul.  Sorry.

Thanks for your reply. Fair enough that it doesn't connect to the Christian God. I just wanted to establish that fine tuning points to a designer of some sort. Your argument is that fine tuning is an illusion? There is a real case to be made that there is fine tuning though. If the physical parameters were different we may not even have atoms, let alone life. Why is the universe like that?

Fine tuning is a falsehood, it's essentially an overapplication of a thought experiment in physics, viz what would happen if certain constants were changed to different values. And the answer, rather than being "there's only a very specific set of circumstances where life can exist" seems to be turning out more like "conditions for life are likely to be far more common than previously thought".

The simple fact is the universe is only suitable for life in a tiny portion of its volume and for a tiny portion of its existence.

[Jehanne]

Everyone believes in God's existence so it's futile to cozy up and tried to convince them of something they all ready know. What happened to them is this*
------------------------------------------

*Romans 1:21    Because, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Oh, stop. We all know that deep down you don’t really believe in god. You know it’s all bullshit. You’re just deceiving yourself.

“Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true.” -- Mark Twain

[snowtracks]

Oh, stop. We all know that deep down you don’t really believe in god. You know it’s all bullshit. You’re just deceiving yourself.

“Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true.” -- Mark Twain

Faith - Biblically,  is trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove. Faith contains two aspects: intellectual assent and trust. Intellectual assent is believing something to be true. Trust is actually relying on the fact that something is true.

[Pat Mustard]

“Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true.” -- Mark Twain

Faith - Biblically,  is trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove. Faith contains two aspects: intellectual assent and trust. Intellectual assent is believing something to be true. Trust is actually relying on the fact that something is true.

Christian faith is belief in a proven falsehood. If you read your bible, you'd know your god couldn't exist.

[Deesse23]

“Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true.” -- Mark Twain

Faith - Biblically,  is trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove. Faith contains two aspects: intellectual assent and trust. Intellectual assent is believing something to be true. Trust is actually relying on the fact that something is true.

Nope, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Nothing about intellectual assent, nothing about facts. You just made shit up.

[Jehanne]

“Having faith is believing in something you just know ain't true.” -- Mark Twain

Faith - Biblically,  is trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove. Faith contains two aspects: intellectual assent and trust. Intellectual assent is believing something to be true. Trust is actually relying on the fact that something is true.

You're walking in a forest and come across a bush that is on fire; off in the distance is a recently passed thunderstorm. What is the most likely cause of the fire:

1) A lightning strike from the thunderstorm released enough activation energy to begin the combustion of the cellulose in the bush. The resulting fire is the rapid and uncontrolled oxidation of the bush.

2) An arsonist hiding nearby poured ethanol on the bush, and with a lighter that he was seen purchasing on video at a nearby convenience store, startied it on fire.

3) An erratic captain of a fully stealthed alien spaceship very briefly entered our Earth's atmosphere and discharged his ship's short range particle weapons, which ignited the bush, before being relieved of duty by the first officer, who commanded the ship to leave our Solar System at high velocity.

4) Two invisible spirits were fighting nearby, and some of their spiritual energy ignited the bush. Neither spirit was harmed in the encounter but they later agreed to attend therapy to be overseen by an elder spirit.

5) God willed the bush to start on fire, and so it did.

[polymath257]

Faith - Biblically,  is trusting in something you cannot explicitly prove. Faith contains two aspects: intellectual assent and trust. Intellectual assent is believing something to be true. Trust is actually relying on the fact that something is true.

Nope, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Nothing about intellectual assent, nothing about facts. You just made shit up.

I have never understood the content of that verse.

'Substance of things hoped for'? What the hell does that even mean? How do things hoped for have a substance?

'Evidence of things not seen'? You mean, like air? or radio waves?