Help out an atheist

[Reivax]

I myself am a skeptic, metaphysical naturalist and agnostic atheist. Lately I've been having a discussion with a theist (Catholic) on the Catholic Answers forum. He accepts science, and is in fact a scientist himself (a biologist), with a scientific knowledge stretching far beyond my own. He considers himself a skeptic and freethinker and has submitted some in-depth scientific articles on the talk origins website (talkorigins.org). He argues for God from a variety of classic cosmological arguments as well as others, arguing that God is a logical necessity.

I am sure there will be a lot of people who may read this that are tired of the Theist/Atheist debate, and for good reason, and may have perhaps read some of his articles or similar articles before. But for those of you who are interested, and willing to read some of his articles (they are quite lengthy), I ask what do you make of the arguments proposed?

I ask this for two main reasons. Firstly because I don't have an adequate understanding of some of the scientific and philosophical terms in the article. Secondly, I would like to increase my argumentative skills and recognize in the future similar arguments and how to counteract them reasonably.

Cosmological arguments for God:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

How can a scientist believe in God?:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/scientist-belief-god.htm

Arguments against Naturalism:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/naturalism_is_true.htm

Thanks in advance for your help, I look forward to hearing your replies! :D

[angrysoba]

If there was an a priori proof for the existence of God then what would this leave for faith to do?

Or you could handwave him away with:

Anthony Kenny has demolished all of Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God. I have no time to spell out his refutations here so, er... just read some of his books.

Admittedly he might then claim he is a bigger freethinker or something swinish like that! Tell him "Tish and fipsy...with knobs on!"

[TubbaBlubba]

The cosmological arguments make an awful lot of silly assumptions, such as the idea that the laws of the universe can somehow be fine-tuned. We have never observed a change in the laws of the universe and there is no reason to assume they can change. It's akin to, "OMG! The value of pi in euclidean space is FINE-TUNED to make a perfect circle!", as if someone actually thinks that the value of pie in euclidean space was blurted out by a random number generator.

[angrysoba]

The cosmological arguments make an awful lot of silly assumptions, such as the idea that the laws of the universe can somehow be fine-tuned. We have never observed a change in the laws of the universe and there is no reason to assume they can change. It's akin to, "OMG! The value of pi in euclidean space is FINE-TUNED to make a perfect circle!", as if someone actually thinks that the value of pie in euclidean space was blurted out by a random number generator.

I don't believe that is the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Or at least, not the classical one anyway.

[MRC_Hans]

The faults with the fine-tune argument are:

1) Since we do not know whether the natural laws could be different, or how different they could be, we cannot assign a probability to the universe being as it is. It may be the only way a universe can be.

2) It makes no sense to apply probability after the fact. Roll a dice 20 times: A priori any sequence is highly improbable, yet one will happen.

3) The reason we are observing a universe where sentient life forms can evolve is that such a universe is the only place we could be. (The puddle argument*)

Hans

* A water puddle may wonder at how perfectly it fills the hole it occupies.

[Gawdzilla]

talkorigins.org

[Bikewer]

Fine-tuning arguments fall apart if there is more than one universe.

[Gawdzilla]

Fine-tuning arguments fall apart if there is more than one universe.

Fine tuning argument fall apart when there's one. This one isn't fine tuned for us, it's most vacuum, the remainder of which is most flaming balls of gases. And we haven't been around for the vast majority of the time its been here.

Fine tuning is egocentric hogwash.

[HansMustermann]

It's not clear if those constants could have been in any other proportion. See, when you write it in Planck lengths and times, the speed of light is 1, G is 1, etc. All those constants with lots of decimals -- and what are the odds of them being exactly that, right? -- are just artifacts of our arbitrary choice of units.

CAN they be in any other proportion there than 1? It's not a given.

I mean, really, it's like marveling at the fact that 1 foot is 0.3048 metres, and how God must have fine-tuned to be exactly that. But really, it's just the effect of converting between two arbitrary units that humans chose for no particular reason.

[MRC_Hans]

Fine tuning argument fall apart when there's one. This one isn't fine tuned for us, it's most vacuum, the remainder of which is most flaming balls of gases. And we haven't been around for the vast majority of the time its been here.

Fine tuning is egocentric hogwash.

That is another problem with fine tuning. There is a huge range of environments in this universe, and only a tiny fraction of those support any form of life. A universe fine tuned for humans would be crawling with Sol-like stars, all surrounded by Earth-like planets, and it wouldn't have this silly c speed limit that makes interstellar travel so hard.

Hans

[Gawdzilla]

It's not clear if those constants could have been in any other proportion. See, when you write it in Planck lengths and times, the speed of light is 1, G is 1, etc. All those constants with lots of decimals -- and what are the odds of them being exactly that, right? -- are just artifacts of our arbitrary choice of units.

CAN they be in any other proportion there than 1? It's not a given.

I mean, really, it's like marveling at the fact that 1 foot is 0.3048 metres, and how God must have fine-tuned to be exactly that. But really, it's just the effect of converting between two arbitrary units that humans chose for no particular reason.

The Fine Tuning Forkers must have found a speculative article written by a scientist, wondering what would have happened if one variable was changed ever so slightly.

[Aepervius]

Also the 3rd link is not much an argument against naturalism, rather than a quasi solipsist argument. Which leads us to nowhere. There are no real aergument agaisnt naturalism in that article than "you might be wrong and your brain is deluding you" and "correlation is no causation".

I maintain that there is no real argument or even *evidence* against naturalism (all phenomena labeled as supernatural, are either false or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses). if there was , it would be incredible.

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't believe that is the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

Or at least, not the classical one anyway.

I just went at what was at the top of the link labeled cosmological arguments. No way in hell I'm reading that entire page.

The Cosmological argument, or argument from first cause, is much easier to dissect. It assumes a very simplistic idea of causality, which is not the the way it is used in modern science. Basically, IIRC, causality in modern physics means that things cannot be caused by other things that would require faster-than-light travel or transmission from further than a wavelength away. This does not make impossible "self-caused" events such as the Big Bang, rendering the argument meaningless.

[Leumas]

All of this comes under the heading Fine Tuning Argument.

My favorite book debunking this whole God Of Hindsight farce (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215736&highlight=hindsight) is:
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us (http://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Why-Universe-Designed/dp/1616144432/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319458442&sr=8-1-spell)

I don't like this book but it is a must read:
The Grand Design (http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553805371/ref=pd_sim_b_59)

If you want to DAZZLE him and boggle his mind with science that debunks his "science" here is the book to do it. Warning this book is not for the science fainthearted:
The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? (http://www.amazon.com/Comprehensible-Cosmos-Where-Laws-Physics/dp/1591024242/ref=pd_sim_b_26)

Here are some more books that are GREAT for arguing on the same line but for normal people:

God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/ref=pd_sim_b_1)
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338/ref=pd_sim_b_3)
The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture (http://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-religion-infects-culture/dp/0970950519/ref=pd_sim_b_7)
The Religion Virus: Why We Believe in God: An Evolutionist Explains Religion's Incredible Hold on Humanity (http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Virus-Evolutionist-Religions-Incredible/dp/1846942721/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319462110&sr=1-1)
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Never-Happened-Refutation/dp/067974049X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312219215&sr=8-1)
The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion (http://www.amazon.com/Static-Universe-Exploding-Cosmic-Expansion/dp/0986492620/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1312219215&sr=8-2)
Big Bang Blasted (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Blasted-Lyndon-Ashmore/dp/1419639226/ref=pd_sim_b_6)

These books are a great general argument against religion and christianity in particular

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Delusion-Why-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689/ref=pd_sim_b_15)
The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths (http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct-Reinforce/dp/0805091254/ref=pd_sim_b_18)
All Bart Ehrman's books (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=bart+ehrman&x=0&y=0) but especially

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1319460858&sr=8-2)
Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195182499/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1319460858&sr=8-4)

All Richard Dawkins books (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3ARichard+Dawk ins&keywords=Richard+Dawkins&ie=UTF8&qid=1319461034&sr=1-2-ent&field-contributor_id=B000AQ3RBI) but especially

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319461040&sr=1-5)
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/B004AYCWY4/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319461040&sr=1-4)

101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History (http://www.amazon.com/101-Myths-Bible-Invented-Biblical/dp/1570718423/ref=pd_sim_b_95)
Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Wars-Patriarchs-Emperors-Christians/dp/0061768936/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319462872&sr=1-1)
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=pd_sim_b_64)
The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (Archaeology and Biblical Studies) (http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Historical-Israel-Debating-Archaeology/dp/1589832779/ref=pd_sim_b_2)
Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Essays-Religion-Related-Subjects/dp/0671203231/ref=pd_sim_b_42)
The Future of an Illusion (http://www.amazon.com/Future-Illusion-Sigmund-Freud/dp/1614270864/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319461752&sr=1-2)
The Age Of Reason (http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reason-Thomas-Paine/dp/1603863419/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319461806&sr=1-2)
Challenging the Bible: Selections from the Writings and Speeches of Robert G. Ingersoll (http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-Bible-Selections-Writings-Ingersoll/dp/1932968261/ref=pd_sim_b_2)
Superstition in All Ages (http://www.amazon.com/Superstition-All-Ages-Jean-Meslier/dp/1770831347/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319463004&sr=1-1)
Biblical Nonsense: A Review of the Bible for Doubting Christians (http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Nonsense-Review-Doubting-Christians/dp/0595341829/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319463107&sr=1-1-spell)



BUT....BUT.... the absolutely best book to read to debunk Christianity is this one (http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-King-James-Version/dp/1585160806/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319467018&sr=8-3).

But seriously….. the best argument against a DESIGNER that cannot be debunked is
Who designed the designer?
And if someone is going to say s/he/it does not need one by any casuistry ever devised then the retort is:
If you believe such an intelligent and amazing Designer can exist without a need for a designer…why can't you accept that a MUCH LESS amazing thing like the universe can also exist without the need for a designer?
This argument is in my mind the ultimate debunker of any god(s). Even if there is a designer then s/he/it is just an ALIEN who had to EVOLVE itself before becoming able to create OTHER life.

[Toontown]

I'm certainly no proponent of the fine-tuning speculation, but I'm not much of a fan of most arguments against it either.

The faults with the fine-tune argument are:

1) Since we do not know whether the natural laws could be different, or how different they could be, we cannot assign a probability to the universe being as it is. It may be the only way a universe can be.

This argument might be valid if true. But we have no clue that the constants cannot vary. It is speculative and falls by the wayside if it is proven that natural laws are dependent on variable initial conditions, which may well be the case.


2) It makes no sense to apply probability after the fact. Roll a dice 20 times: A priori any sequence is highly improbable, yet one will happen.

This argument holds if and only if there is no a priori constraint on any possible sequence of events. Trouble is, there is an a priori constraint, which you are about to acknowledge.


3) The reason we are observing a universe where sentient life forms can evolve is that such a universe is the only place we could be. (The puddle argument*)

Your (2) and your (3) seem to be contradictory. In (2) you imply that all sequences are equally likely to be observed. In (3) you say that the only sequence that can be observed is the one that results in the specific observers' existence. The problem is that (2) is a generality which is inapplicable to the specific situation.

We know for a fact that (3) is correct, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. (3) only tells us that perhaps some beings might observe a universe, and if they do, then that universe would be a universe in which those specific beings could exist - duhh. So (3) really doesn't tell us much. Our own experience tells us much more. Our own experience tells that certainly, some beings are observing a universe, and those beings are us, specifically.

I think there is a better and more simple counter to the fine-tuning argument. Simply propose a multiverse in which multitudes of pocket universes are being spawned, having variable constants (laws) as a result of random initial conditions. In such a multiverse, the existence of the pocket universe we, specifically, would be in is a near certainty.

Yes, the multiverse is speculative, but so is the fine-tuning argument, based as it is on a paucity of actual knowledge about the true nature of the universe. There is nothing wrong with countering a speculation with a more simple and better speculation.

And if it turns out that there is no multiverse, then revert to (1). I don't really like (1). I sense there is something wrong with it, but I can't formulate my objection right now.

[Leumas]

Another argument is
Even if there is a God....how is it a given that this marvelous creator committed adultery, incest, and pedophilia with his own married mother to impregnate her with himself so as to be encarnated.

Also so that three wise men morons can follow a star that will lead them to Herod's Palace so that he can be made aware of his birth. And then run away to Egypt while Herod is massacring thousands of children in his stead.

And then wait 30 years until he grows up and then go execrate some Jewish leaders and posses Judas with a demon so that he would be forced to snitch on him.

And don't forget the few legerdemains here and there to IMPRESS a few people while most were not even impressed and 99.9% of the world did not even get to know about it.

And then allow the Romans to torture and crucify him at the behest of those execrated Jews and then PRETEND to die. Then pretend to do some magical resurrection and then disappear never to be seen again except by Paul 20 years later who turns around and disagrees with and corrupts EVERYTHING Jesus ever said and with his previous disciples.

Unfortunately all the above proves to be FUTILE and results in absolutely NOTHING for another 300 years except for some dupes who fight among themselves due to not being able to understand what exactly Jesus wanted them to worship or how and when they were supposed to be saved from all the misery they were promised would stop in the lifetime of the disciples let alone theirs.

So finally Jesus decided to appear to some DESPOTIC WARMONGERING KILLER. I guess by that time he had learnt that illiterate fishermen are useless just as much as a chameleon educated persecuting Roman Jew. He realized that he needed to change tack by recruiting a DESPOTIC KILLER to CONQUER and kill his way to Imperial power in order to OBLIGATE people at the end of a sword and by rapine to avow the god of his ex-madam mother.

Yet all this still was not of any immediate effect.

It took centuries more of all sorts of torture and killing and rapine and extirpation and battles and plagues and amnesia of all knowledge and slavery and serfdom to obligate the ragtag defeated demoralized remnants of society to truckle under in despondent despair and disavow all their ancestral cultures and traditions and start genuflecting to Jesus.

And all this so that in over 2000 years still the minority of humanity can deny all science and reason and claim to be saved from the sins of the allegorical Eve in the metaphorical Eden while waiting for the utter destruction of the world and the “exuding of lakes of blood” of billions so that they can spend eternity in heaven interminably hymning in servile obeisance under the feet of the crowned Jesus sitting on a jewel encrusted gold throne at the right hand of himself sitting on another equally bejeweled throne.

All this is a logical deduction from being compelled to irrefutably conclude some creator from all the Intelligent Imbecilic Design they see around them. And all human beings that have ever existed and the majority of those who do exist and might still exist got it all wrong by not concluding the above farce as the only logical outcome.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You could always ask him, granting him the fine tuning argument (which has its own problems), how this argument doesn't point to Chthulu as the fine tuner? There is nothing in the argument that necessarily points to a being worthy of worship. Or that the universe is just really weird and somehow self-organizing, setting those limits without prior intelligence.

And that is not the cosmological argument, properly speaking, since it is simply a physics version of the teleological argument. But since the teleological argument is a sub-type of cosmological argument, whatever..........


And, yes, the multiverse is the way out of it if you want a satisfying answer. It may also be that things are the way things are and there is no explanation, which is not a particularly satifying answer.


ETA:

The other issue is origin from nothing. The concept of nothing makes no sense, or thinking about nothing preceding something in an absolute sense; so no side is any better off in this debate. Eternal presence is the only answer that makes any sense; again, this tells us nothing about eternal presence aside from its being. Eternal presence does not imply moral worth.

[Leumas]

Another argument that is good is
The Anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)

[ponderingturtle]

I just want to know when did the catholic church give up on its traditional god and become deists?

[The Shrike]

Another argument is
[INDENT]Even if there is a God....

Kudos for a brilliant response.

To the OP, I was a compartmentalized "Catholic biologist" for much of my career too, and remained fully convinced that science answered "how" and religion answered "why." There's a comes a point, however, at which your otherwise critically thinking friend needs to step up and declare how much of the Catholic doctrine he accepts as factually true, and decide if he really is a Catholic.

For example, Catholics are great at glossing over anything distasteful from the Old Testament, re: killing, slavery, etc. I bet your friend dismisses the Noah story as allegory and is under no compunction that a literal Eve was seduced by a literal snake. He might not buy the virgin birth or the walking on water; he just likes all the stuff Jesus said about loving everybody and he digs the trappings and traditions of the Church.

Ditching some of those core beliefs, however, makes him un-Catholic in the eyes of many, and that certainly includes those guys in the funny evening gowns in the Vatican. But to be anything like Catholic, he must at least believe in a literal Jesus who literally died and literally came back to life 3 days later. He must believe that Jesus's actual body and blood are miraculously and infinitely reconstituted whenever a priest recites certain prayers over bread and wine and they pass over the tongue of a faithful recipient. He must believe that his belief potentially opens a spiritual portal for him to live forever in some kind of everlasting paradise.

Since I was a little boy in my Catholic school uniform, I knew that the Genesis stories were human fabrications designed to teach a lesson. It wasn't until adulthood, however, that I developed the courage to admit to myself that I didn't really believe the other stuff either. Once I did that, it was patently obvious to me that my whole life had been colored by putting stock in complete rubbish, just as Leumas' post illustrates.

So, rather than debate about things we really have a difficult time knowing right now (e.g., the origin of the uni/multiverse), ask him to comment on things that are unambiguous (e.g., the current doctrine of the Catholic church). Which ones does he accept, which does he reject, and why?

[Mehdimentio]

Multiverse theory is, among other arguments, a valid criticism of the religious claims based on our universe's physical constants. What if there are other universes, and we live in a universe which happens to support life (tautologically)?
Also, as Tubba pointed out, we don't know if the constants have the properties to be changed, or in this case "fine tuned". The cosmological constants may just be the way they are because they have to. There's a reason we haven't named them "The cosmological variables."
The antrophic principle is also relevant in this context. We have evolved in a universe that supports us, therefore we observe it as such. The same could be said for hypothetical creatures of other properties than the ones we recognize in the biology that we are familiar with.

The notion of a deity being responsible for our universe being the way it is proposes more questions than it can answer, but that's just the consequence you have to take when using science to support your bias.

[slingblade]

BUT....BUT.... the absolutely best book to read to debunk Christianity is this one (http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-King-James-Version/dp/1585160806/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319467018&sr=8-3).

:bigclap

[Dani]

A link on the Fine-Tuning Argument:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning-revisited.html

It's been a long time since I read it, but from what I recall it doesn't differ much from what has already been said in this thread.

[welshdean]

Another argument is Even if there is a God....how is it a given that this marvelous creator committed adultery, incest, and pedophilia with his own married mother to impregnate her with himself so as to be encarnated.

Also so that three wise men morons can follow a star that will lead them to Herod's Palace so that he can be made aware of his birth. And then run away to Egypt while Herod is massacring thousands of children in his stead.

And then wait 30 years until he grows up and then go execrate some Jewish leaders and posses Judas with a demon so that he would be forced to snitch on him.

And don't forget the few legerdemains here and there to IMPRESS a few people while most were not even impressed and 99.9% of the world did not even get to know about it.

And then allow the Romans to torture and crucify him at the behest of those execrated Jews and then PRETEND to die. Then pretend to do some magical resurrection and then disappear never to be seen again except by Paul 20 years later who turns around and disagrees with and corrupts EVERYTHING Jesus ever said and with his previous disciples.

Unfortunately all the above proves to be FUTILE and results in absolutely NOTHING for another 300 years except for some dupes who fight among themselves due to not being able to understand what exactly Jesus wanted them to worship or how and when they were supposed to be saved from all the misery they were promised would stop in the lifetime of the disciples let alone theirs.

So finally Jesus decided to appear to some DESPOTIC WARMONGERING KILLER. I guess by that time he had learnt that illiterate fishermen are useless just as much as a chameleon educated persecuting Roman Jew. He realized that he needed to change tack by recruiting a DESPOTIC KILLER to CONQUER and kill his way to Imperial power in order to OBLIGATE people at the end of a sword and by rapine to avow the god of his ex-madam mother.

Yet all this still was not of any immediate effect.

It took centuries more of all sorts of torture and killing and rapine and extirpation and battles and plagues and amnesia of all knowledge and slavery and serfdom to obligate the ragtag defeated demoralized remnants of society to truckle under in despondent despair and disavow all their ancestral cultures and traditions and start genuflecting to Jesus.

And all this so that in over 2000 years still the minority of humanity can deny all science and reason and claim to be saved from the sins of the allegorical Eve in the metaphorical Eden while waiting for the utter destruction of the world and the “exuding of lakes of blood” of billions so that they can spend eternity in heaven interminably hymning in servile obeisance under the feet of the crowned Jesus sitting on a jewel encrusted gold throne at the right hand of himself sitting on another equally bejeweled throne.

All this is a logical deduction from being compelled to irrefutably conclude some creator from all the Intelligent Imbecilic Design they see around them. And all human beings that have ever existed and the majority of those who do exist and might still exist got it all wrong by not concluding the above farce as the only logical outcome.

That's not a bad argument. It all comes from the bible, if it's real, point out the absurdities in it. If it's all allegory, then, meh.

[TubbaBlubba]

Another argument is
Even if there is a God....how is it a given that this marvelous creator committed adultery, incest, and pedophilia with his own married mother to impregnate her with himself so as to be encarnated.

Also so that three wise men morons can follow a star that will lead them to Herod's Palace so that he can be made aware of his birth. And then run away to Egypt while Herod is massacring thousands of children in his stead.

And then wait 30 years until he grows up and then go execrate some Jewish leaders and posses Judas with a demon so that he would be forced to snitch on him.

And don't forget the few legerdemains here and there to IMPRESS a few people while most were not even impressed and 99.9% of the world did not even get to know about it.

And then allow the Romans to torture and crucify him at the behest of those execrated Jews and then PRETEND to die. Then pretend to do some magical resurrection and then disappear never to be seen again except by Paul 20 years later who turns around and disagrees with and corrupts EVERYTHING Jesus ever said and with his previous disciples.

Unfortunately all the above proves to be FUTILE and results in absolutely NOTHING for another 300 years except for some dupes who fight among themselves due to not being able to understand what exactly Jesus wanted them to worship or how and when they were supposed to be saved from all the misery they were promised would stop in the lifetime of the disciples let alone theirs.

So finally Jesus decided to appear to some DESPOTIC WARMONGERING KILLER. I guess by that time he had learnt that illiterate fishermen are useless just as much as a chameleon educated persecuting Roman Jew. He realized that he needed to change tack by recruiting a DESPOTIC KILLER to CONQUER and kill his way to Imperial power in order to OBLIGATE people at the end of a sword and by rapine to avow the god of his ex-madam mother.

Yet all this still was not of any immediate effect.

It took centuries more of all sorts of torture and killing and rapine and extirpation and battles and plagues and amnesia of all knowledge and slavery and serfdom to obligate the ragtag defeated demoralized remnants of society to truckle under in despondent despair and disavow all their ancestral cultures and traditions and start genuflecting to Jesus.

And all this so that in over 2000 years still the minority of humanity can deny all science and reason and claim to be saved from the sins of the allegorical Eve in the metaphorical Eden while waiting for the utter destruction of the world and the “exuding of lakes of blood” of billions so that they can spend eternity in heaven interminably hymning in servile obeisance under the feet of the crowned Jesus sitting on a jewel encrusted gold throne at the right hand of himself sitting on another equally bejeweled throne.

All this is a logical deduction from being compelled to irrefutably conclude some creator from all the Intelligent Imbecilic Design they see around them. And all human beings that have ever existed and the majority of those who do exist and might still exist got it all wrong by not concluding the above farce as the only logical outcome.

Yeah but that's a metaphor.

[Mehdimentio]

A case of special pleading which is not very special...

[Dani]

Yeah but that's a metaphor.

Yeah, but a metaphor of what?

[Reivax]

So, rather than debate about things we really have a difficult time knowing right now (e.g., the origin of the uni/multiverse), ask him to comment on things that are unambiguous (e.g., the current doctrine of the Catholic church). Which ones does he accept, which does he reject, and why?

That's a good point. I presented him with the argument from inconsistent revelations. To this he simply replied that Catholicism is the most reasonable religion because there is good historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, to which he points to William Lane Craig's arguments. Theists love this guy, he is often quoted as being the best Christian debater. I must admit I have not read any of his stuff, and have only seen a few videos of him debating. I'm not sure if anyone else has anything to say about William Lane Craig's arguments and how 'good' they are, I'm sure they do. ;)

[TheGoldcountry]

Let me preface this by saying that this argument is weak ( actually, not an argument, but a response)

the Universe is scary
get over it

[Leumas]

That's a good point. I presented him with the argument from inconsistent revelations. To this he simply replied that Catholicism is the most reasonable religion because there is good historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, to which he points to William Lane Craig's arguments. Theists love this guy, he is often quoted as being the best Christian debater. I must admit I have not read any of his stuff, and have only seen a few videos of him debating. I'm not sure if anyone else has anything to say about William Lane Craig's arguments and how 'good' they are, I'm sure they do. ;)


Have a look here
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/adolf_grunbaum/comments.html


Also the first book (http://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Why-Universe-Designed/dp/1616144432/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319458442&sr=8-1-spell) in my first post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7698000#post7698000) is a major debunking of the Craig BS.


Also watch this debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac) where he is ridiculed by Bart Eherman

Also see this site (http://realevang.wordpress.com/category/unapologetics/).

[TheGoldcountry]

again, I'm not being dismissive to either side (or trying not to, at least). I was raised in Catholicism. I was an altar boy. (Before the obvious jokes start, no I was not molested, and my priest was a great guy. I came to the conclusion, on my own, that God was a human construction. It is very obvious now, looking back, but I had to deconstruct years of brainwashing.

[TimCallahan]

The argument below, copied from one the links posted in the OP, was used in the final chapter of Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantinga, a review edition of which I recently read:

Darwin recognized the problem that natural selection may not suffice to explain the human mind's capacity for recognition of truth and objective thought – evolution selects only for physical adaptation and behavior, not for correctness of beliefs *).

Plantinga called this "Darwin's doubt" and used it as his final clinching argument against naturalism. The assertion in this argument is that since the human mind has the capacity to recognize truth and to be objective, and since these aren't necessarily selected for by natural selection alone. You have plug Go in to account for the human recognition of truth.

The two big problems with this argument are that the ability to learn is most certainly selected for by natural selection and that the human mind is, in fact innately irrational and subjective. Thus, we can learn to become objective; we can learn to put into practice both laws of logic and disciplines such as the scientific method. However, we would not need the elaborate structure of the scientific method were it not for the innate subjectivity of the human mind.

The human mind's innate capacity to recognize truth, that is, the capacity to recognize truth in the absence of specific training (i.e. learning, for which natural selection does select) is rather limited. We grasp the truth in the concrete and the immediate - such as that movement in the tall grasses might well be caused by a predator that is stalking us - yet can and do survive quite well with a lot of erroneous notions about more abstract, of contra-intuitive truths. For example, for most of the existence of human beings on this planet, most humans accepted tat lightning bolts were being hurled at the earth by an angry god and that the sun went about the earth, which was stationary.

Our limited rationality, well adapted to the concrete and immediate, yet unable to innately grasp abstract truths unable to grasp them without considerable learning and training is exactly what we would expect from natural selection alone.

[Leumas]

I just want to know when did the catholic church give up on its traditional god and become deists?


When they stopped being able to burn and torture scientists and stop science from proving almost everything about the Bible to be false.


When they could not stuff the Genie back in the bottle and keep him corked in they decided to MOLD the genie to their service.

This is the concept of God Of The Gaps and God Of Hindsight (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215736&highlight=hindsight) put together.

It is not as if the Catholic Church has not been EVOLVING all along from day one. Right from its inception the Church has learnt that ABSORBING pagan gods and customs by MORPHING them to fit the Jesus farce is in fact a good strategy. And they have been doing this from the beginning..... Paul started the tradition of being all things to all people in order to convert them to the Jesus claptrap..

So now that science is also part of the prevailing culture they learned how to ABSORB and MORPH it.

It is better to be Deists for the ones that cannot swallow the BS and keep them in the FOLD than to be dogmatic and loose them…..so then all becomes a metaphor or allegory… BUT…BUT…keeping Jesus of course.

[roger]

Darwin recognized the problem that natural selection may not suffice to explain the human mind's capacity for recognition of truth and objective thought – evolution selects only for physical adaptation and behavior, not for correctness of beliefs *).

Plantinga called this "Darwin's doubt" and used it as his final clinching argument against naturalism. ...
The two big problems with this argument are .The biggest problem is that it relies on 150 year old science at the very infancy of it's birth.

[tsig]

I myself am a skeptic, metaphysical naturalist and agnostic atheist. Lately I've been having a discussion with a theist (Catholic) on the Catholic Answers forum. He accepts science, and is in fact a scientist himself (a biologist), with a scientific knowledge stretching far beyond my own. He considers himself a skeptic and freethinker and has submitted some in-depth scientific articles on the talk origins website (talkorigins.org). He argues for God from a variety of classic cosmological arguments as well as others, arguing that God is a logical necessity.

I am sure there will be a lot of people who may read this that are tired of the Theist/Atheist debate, and for good reason, and may have perhaps read some of his articles or similar articles before. But for those of you who are interested, and willing to read some of his articles (they are quite lengthy), I ask what do you make of the arguments proposed?

I ask this for two main reasons. Firstly because I don't have an adequate understanding of some of the scientific and philosophical terms in the article. Secondly, I would like to increase my argumentative skills and recognize in the future similar arguments and how to counteract them reasonably.

Cosmological arguments for God:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

How can a scientist believe in God?:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/scientist-belief-god.htm

Arguments against Naturalism:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/naturalism_is_true.htm

Thanks in advance for your help, I look forward to hearing your replies! :D

Fine tuning assumes the universe was made for us.

[TimCallahan]

You might also want to look up the work of the physicist Victor Stegner. He's pointed out that the universe isn't all that fine-tuned.

[Leumas]

You might also want to look up the work of the physicist Victor Stegner. He's pointed out that the universe isn't all that fine-tuned.

Funny you should mention him.... that is the 3rd book (http://www.amazon.com/Comprehensible-Cosmos-Where-Laws-Physics/dp/1591024242/ref=pd_sim_b_26) I mention in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7698000#post7698000).....but that is a HARD book to fathom if you are not a nuclear physicist.

[Lord Emsworth]

Cosmological arguments for God:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

That is a God-of-the-Gaps all right, despite the author's lame attempts to pre-empt that charge. In the end, all that he does is point out a bunch of problems or "problems" only to spectacularly fail to explain how with this God-thingamajig it is all different.

Not having an explanation, does not mean that ... ahemmm, yeah what exactly are you suppose to conclude anyway? And even if he stands there and asserts that 'it all' really is a principle problem for science -- still no God-thingamajic. And even if the problems and "problems" have nothing to do with "design within nature" but with "the design of nature itself" that still does not tell us anything about what God-thingamajic is or has to do with the price of rice in China.

If you want to have God as an explanation, then I am afraid you'll have to provide such an explanation too. And explanation means explanation, and not just theo-babble. Otherwise, we are just left - at worst - with nothing.

[TubbaBlubba]

The argument below, copied from one the links posted in the OP, was used in the final chapter of Where the Conflict Really Lies by Alvin Plantinga, a review edition of which I recently read:

Darwin recognized the problem that natural selection may not suffice to explain the human mind's capacity for recognition of truth and objective thought – evolution selects only for physical adaptation and behavior, not for correctness of beliefs *).

Let me guess, 6th edition of On the origins...


As Dawkins joked in one of his books, I forget which, it should rather be called "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, and a whole bunch of other things".

[Minoosh]

Yeah, but a metaphor of what?

We grow into being in a dark, warm, quiet place where all our needs are met and we are one with our creator. Our creator feeds us; our needs come first.

We fall, and are propelled into blood, noise, blinding light, pain, hunger, tears, excrement and need.

I've recently started wondering if religion has something to do with wanting to recapture a time when we were taken care of and at one with our creator.

[TheGoldcountry]

We grow into being in a dark, warm, quiet place where all our needs are met and we are one with our creator. Our creator feeds us; our needs come first.

We fall, and are propelled into blood, noise, blinding light, pain, hunger, tears, excrement and need.

I've recently started wondering if religion has something to do with wanting to recapture a time when we were taken care of and at one with our creator.

Sounds like a birth metaphor. Call your mom. Tell her thanks.

[Soapy Sam]

There are many better dismissals of the "fine tuning" mish mash than this, but this is still worth asking-(IMO)- What difference would it make to anything if humans or indeed Earth had never existed?

It wouldn't bother us any, because - and here's a clue- we wouldn't exist.

So who or what would it bother?

Some immensely alien entity that creates universes for it's own amusement?

Hello?

Let's run that one past again in case we missed something.
...an immensely alien entity that creates universes for it's own amusement.

Would we expect such an entity to give a flying toss about what happens to a species of ape with thumbs and a tendency towards aggression?
Seriously?

So, if our non existence would not matter to us , or to any hypothetical creator - and assuredly does not matter to the unfolding of the cosmologicwotsit...to whom precisely would it matter?

Now either you think someone cares, or you don't. But there's no way you can prove that there is a necessity for someone to care.

Me? I think it's pretty damn cool that all the bang whizz photon stuff happens to have given rise to me. It's more than cool; it's great. (From my POV- others may feel differently).
But nothing will convince me I am part of some grand universal plan.
Unless it's a profoundly daft one.

[MuDPhuD]

Dr. Moritz's arguments against naturalism rely on the notion that mind and brain are separate entitities; that the reasoning mind cannot be a product of the evolved brain.
In addition to the arguments, already mentioned above, that a sense of reason is obviously highly evolutionarily adaptive and the presence of multiple inherent biases in our reasoning abilities (biases which incidentally are the very things which make science necessary) I can offer the evidence that the "mind" is an emergent property of brain activity. Mental activity is coincident with brain activity, and predictably modified by physical, electrical, and chemical interference with brain activity. There is no aspect of mental life which is not dependent on the associated brain structures. Mood, personality features, all aspects of memory (short term, long term, episodic, etc.), language, emotion, problem solving... In short everything that is YOU is also your brain. Remove the right piece of brain tissue and memories are lost, emotionality is distorted or personality changes. Bath the syanpses in psychoactive pharmaceuticals and you get alterations in perception, emotion, personality, or the ability to reason. Electrically stimulate the brain in the right place and you hear music, recall memories from childhood, or feel emotional responses.
Well you ask, what if the the brain is simply the interface with the ethereal mind. I guess that could explain why damaging the brain appears to alter the mind, but I don't quite see why stimulating the brain should alter the non-physical mind.
In short the argument presented by dr. Moritz does not seem to be sound in light of our modern understanding of neuroscience and the brain.

[fuelair]

Have a look here
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/adolf_grunbaum/comments.html


Also the first book (http://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Why-Universe-Designed/dp/1616144432/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319458442&sr=8-1-spell) in my first post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7698000#post7698000) is a major debunking of the Craig BS.


Also watch this debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac) where he is ridiculed by Bart Eherman

Also see this site (http://realevang.wordpress.com/category/unapologetics/).

I must assume you do this a lot. Cooool!!!!!

[Piggy]

Also watch this debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac) where he is ridiculed by Bart Eherman

I'm 7 minutes into this, Bart hasn't yet said a word, and Craig has made more idiotic mistakes than I can count.

[Hydrogen Hypothesis]

I've watched other videos with Craig and his arguments always baffle me.

At 12:30 he's advocating that the conviction of the early Christians to die for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead is in itself evidence for their belief. :confused: He then goes on to explain that Ehrman is making a "mistake" in confusing "the evidence for a resurrection with the best explanation of the evidence."

Unfortunately even with a high speed connection I can't see the rest of it, and I've been attempting to download it for over an hour. Oh well.

I'm too new to post a link, but you can find it on youtube "Bart Ehrman (3/21/11)". Ehrman's talk there is particularly good (to get back on topic!) it provides excellent points worth bring up to anyone who calls themselves Christian. Even for those Christians who don't take the bible literally, one has to wonder at some of the books being forgeries, translation problems, and other issues.

[Piggy]

I'm an hour and a half into the video, and Craig's arguments are so profoundly wrong that there's no way Ehrman could possibly explain why they're wrong in the time he's allotted.

That said, as a rhetorician, I have to give Ehrman rather poor marks in refutation. I find myself shouting obvious refutations at the screen which Bart does not bother to bring up.

He does a decent job, if you're already familiar with the actual scholarship, as Ehrman is. But if you're inclined to agree with Craig, I don't see that Ehrman scores very many clearly persuasive blows.

Had I been debating Craig, for example, I would have immediately knocked the legs out of his alleged four "facts", which are not facts at all, and are not, as he claims, accepted by the majority of scholars.

Bart doesn't really hit his stride until the second round of the debate, but even then he scores more negative points (e.g. why hasn't Craig addressed some of his objections) than positive ones.

[Hydrogen Hypothesis]

Ehrman makes excellent points, but he's just not much for improvisation, which is understandable, he's a Professor, lecturing is his job.

Another thing I've noticed is that the formal structure of debates with moderators and time allotments make it seem more like a scripted talk, and they then don't have enough time to actually debate the points made by the person previously. They are in essence knocking each other's strawmen down. I often yell at the screen too, for that very reason. A lot of Craig's debates have me yelling at he screen, but that might be for other reasons....

[Piggy]

Ehrman makes excellent points, but he's just not much for improvisation, which is understandable, he's a Professor, lecturing is his job.

The best lecturers can improvise. Hell, Hugh Kenner's lectures were nothing but improvisation, and the man was a freaking genius.

Or perhaps I should say, Hugh Kenner's lectures were nothing but improvisation because the man was a freaking genius.

And the thing is, I know for a fact, because I've read his work, that Ehrman had enough ammo in his belt to decimate Craig's alleged "four facts" right off the bat. The trouble is, despite being a good writer -- most of the time... "Jesus, Interrupted", for example, was a rambling mess -- he is not a good enough rhetoritician to appreciate the need to do so.

Had he destroyed Craig's bogus "four facts" in his opening remarks, rather than relying on his prepared opening gambit, he would have saved himself a lot of trouble, and probably swayed nearly every fence-sitter in the audience.

ETA: I've consistently observed that scientists who attempt to debate creationists often lose the debate, despite being correct on every point, precisely because they do not understand that a debate is rhetorical contest, not a contest of facts.

[epepke]

I myself am a skeptic, metaphysical naturalist and agnostic atheist. Lately I've been having a discussion with a theist (Catholic) on the Catholic Answers forum. He accepts science, and is in fact a scientist himself (a biologist), with a scientific knowledge stretching far beyond my own. He considers himself a skeptic and freethinker and has submitted some in-depth scientific articles on the talk origins website (talkorigins.org). He argues for God from a variety of classic cosmological arguments as well as others, arguing that God is a logical necessity.

OK, I'll try. I've read them. Each article is actually pretty good, and most of the objections in this thread he has at least tried to counter.

Cosmological arguments for God:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

OK, just internally. Various astrophysicists, including Stephen Hawking, have concluded that the inflationary phase could result in a universe that looks remarkably the same even given widely different initial conclusions. Moritz asserts that the inflation itself would have to be fine-tuned, but it's a fairly bald assertion, giving only a Wikipedia page. Furthermore, it's a bit disingenuous, only mentioning A Brief History of Time and ignoring what Hawking has said over the past quarter century.

His argument against the multiverse idea is similarly weak. There's little more than handwaving over statistics. He states,

n fact, it creates another fine-tuning problem. In order to solve the fine-tuning problem of our particular kind of universe, the multiverse would have to make the occurrence of that universe by a pure chance process statistically inevitable, against all overwhelming odds.

Um, not really. We have a process, called evolution, that has not created perfect beings, but it has certainly produced something which, in terms of the total Shannon information of the genome, is orders of magnitude more improbable than fine-tuning of the universe. Since there are theories that are similar to evolution by natural selection, such as that universes spawn off child universes through the formation of black holes, it's not unreasonable. This would probably be too hard to explain without a serious understanding of information theory, though, and it's a bit esoteric.

In any event, it's quite hard to assign a probability for calculating likely statistics from one case, but it is equally hard to declare that there are overwhelming odds against it (which is probably why he doesn't do it.

However, it gets a lot more fun and easier when you look at his second article and compare it with the first:

How can a scientist believe in God?:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/scientist-belief-god.htm

in which he says

In fact, classical theology holds that He is the simplest entity imaginable, because as an infinite, immaterial being He is not composed of any parts.

Do you see the bovine fecal matter here? In the first article, he dismisses what he calls the "Necessity of the laws of nature" idea, which reduces to the idea that the laws of nature are simple and do not have a high degree of variability. Yet this exact same idea becomes perfectly fine when he calls it "God." If he invokes a god to fine-tune the universe, then that god would have to have, at least, some puzzle-solving abilities, which it cannot have if it is the simplest entity imaginable. If these puzzle-solving abilities are attributed to its infinite nature, then he cannot simply dismiss the inevitability of fine-tuning of the universe.

At this point, I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is something wrong with his brain, and there is not much point in debating him. Still, this is fun, and I'll continue.

The arguments about the contradictions in the omnipotence of god show up a pretty deep lack of understanding of set theory.

Most of the rest of this essay is either decent, dumb, or irrelevant. Mostly, though, if he has reached an accommodation between his religion and science, hooka dooka for him.

Arguments against Naturalism:

http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/naturalism_is_true.htm

This one is pretty nonsensical, and most of what I can get out of it is that he is fond of straw men, which I already knew.

[yomero]

From the first link in the OP:

The apparent extreme fine-tuning of the laws of nature, necessary to allow for physical evolution of the universe and evolution of life, is reviewed. The probability is strong that it is due to actual design – pointing to the existence of God – since this is the only assumption with sufficient explanatory power. The article shows that all non-design proposals fail to explain the apparent fine-tuning.

I have my own strong fine-tuning argument:

Have you noticed that the ABC's come in alphabetical order? WOW!!! This proves that God exists. Try to debunk THAT,you godless heathens!

[MRC_Hans]

I'm certainly no proponent of the fine-tuning speculation, but I'm not much of a fan of most arguments against it either.
This seems to imply that you have no opinion about the subject?

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7697692#post7697692)
The faults with the fine-tune argument are:

1) Since we do not know whether the natural laws could be different, or how different they could be, we cannot assign a probability to the universe being as it is. It may be the only way a universe can be.




This argument might be valid if true. But we have no clue that the constants cannot vary. It is speculative and falls by the wayside if it is proven that natural laws are dependent on variable initial conditions, which may well be the case.

We have no clue either way, but it is not a binary option: The constants may be variable within more or less narrow limits, so the range of significantly different possible universes may be limited. Remember that there is a huge range of conditions in the present universe. The total range of conditions could change quite drastically while still including the sub-range where life is possible.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7697692#post7697692)
2) It makes no sense to apply probability after the fact. Roll a dice 20 times: A priori any sequence is highly improbable, yet one will happen.

This argument holds if and only if there is no a priori constraint on any possible sequence of events.

Trouble is, there is an a priori constraint, which you are about to acknowledge.

That is true, I failed to include the second part: No matter how improbable the result is, once it is achieved, the probability is irrelevant. It is highly to win the lotto, yet some people do.

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7697692#post7697692)
3) The reason we are observing a universe where sentient life forms can evolve is that such a universe is the only place we could be. (The puddle argument*)


Your (2) and your (3) seem to be contradictory. In (2) you imply that all sequences are equally likely to be observed. In (3) you say that the only sequence that can be observed is the one that results in the specific observers' existence. The problem is that (2) is a generality which is inapplicable to the specific situation.

As I already noted, I may have been unclear. Let me rephrase #3: No matter how improbable a universe for us may be, that is where we are going to be. This observation has no connection with the assessment of the probability.


We know for a fact that (3) is correct, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough.

What do you mean by "not far enough"? Are we here or are we not?

(3) only tells us that perhaps some beings might observe a universe, and if they do, then that universe would be a universe in which those specific beings could exist - duhh.

And that is exactly the point: Every puddle fits its hole perfectly.

So (3) really doesn't tell us much. Our own experience tells us much more. Our own experience tells that certainly, some beings are observing a universe, and those beings are us, specifically.

The fact that we are the puddle is obvious, and irrelevant. The argument goes for any existing observer (and most likely we are not the only ones).

I think there is a better and more simple counter to the fine-tuning argument. Simply propose a multiverse in which multitudes of pocket universes are being spawned, having variable constants (laws) as a result of random initial conditions. In such a multiverse, the existence of the pocket universe we, specifically, would be in is a near certainty.

The multiverse is a another valid falsification of the fine-tuning argument. The problem with it is that is adds a speculation on your part, whereas my arguments refute speculations from the other part. It is a matter of taste.

Yes, the multiverse is speculative, but so is the fine-tuning argument, based as it is on a paucity of actual knowledge about the true nature of the universe. There is nothing wrong with countering a speculation with a more simple and better speculation.


True. Even a speculative scenario is a valid falsification, but I doubt that you may get a proponent of the fine-tune argument to agree that a multiverse is more parsimonious than a creator.

Hans

PS: How you we make nested quotes?

[Leumas]

I must assume you do this a lot. Cooool!!!!!


No...not at all....it is just that this Craig guy really irritates me just like hemorrhoids.....he reminds me of TV Evangelists...for some reason I keep checking my pockets and counting my fingers while I am listening to him.... :hypnotize

[Jon.]

We grow into being in a dark, warm, quiet place where all our needs are met and we are one with our creator. Our creator feeds us; our needs come first.

We fall, and are propelled into blood, noise, blinding light, pain, hunger, tears, excrement and need.

I've recently started wondering if religion has something to do with wanting to recapture a time when we were taken care of and at one with our creator.

Sounds a lot like the theory advanced by Freud in Civilization and its Discontents.

[Hydrogen Hypothesis]

No...not at all....it is just that this Craig guy really irritates me just like hemorrhoids.....he reminds me of TV Evangelists...for some reason I keep checking my pockets and counting my fingers while I am listening to him.... :hypnotize

Anyone with working mental faculties ought to be uncomfortable while listening to his pseudo-intellectual claptrap. I feel my IQ dropping just listening to the guy talk himself in circles, in an attempt to confuse the audience and obfuscate the issues. But that's not the worst, the worst is the christians who champion HIM as the best person to debate against scientists and scholars.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Fine tuning argument fall apart when there's one. This one isn't fine tuned for us, it's most vacuum, the remainder of which is most flaming balls of gases. And we haven't been around for the vast majority of the time its been here.

Fine tuning is egocentric hogwash.

Exactly. We evolved to fit the universe. If the universe was different, life would have taken a different form. The universe was not created just so to compel up to evolve into the exact form we just happened to take. If the universe was hostile enough to life that life couldn't exist in any form, we wouldn't be around in any form at all to complain or speculate about it.

[Leumas]

Exactly. We evolved to fit the universe. If the universe was different, life would have taken a different form. The universe was not created just so to compel up to evolve into the exact form we just happened to take. If the universe was hostile enough to life that life couldn't exist in any form, we wouldn't be around in any form at all to complain or speculate about it.



I think Yomero said it perfectly well...... I love his analogy :thumbsup:


I have my own strong fine-tuning argument:

Have you noticed that the ABC's come in alphabetical order? WOW!!! This proves that God exists. Try to debunk THAT,you godless heathens!

[Isentropic Frontkick]

Another argument is
Even if there is a God....how is it a given that this marvelous creator committed adultery, incest, and pedophilia with his own married mother to impregnate her with himself so as to be encarnated.

Also so that three wise men morons can follow a star that will lead them to Herod's Palace so that he can be made aware of his birth. And then run away to Egypt while Herod is massacring thousands of children in his stead.

And then wait 30 years until he grows up and then go execrate some Jewish leaders and posses Judas with a demon so that he would be forced to snitch on him.

And don't forget the few legerdemains here and there to IMPRESS a few people while most were not even impressed and 99.9% of the world did not even get to know about it.

And then allow the Romans to torture and crucify him at the behest of those execrated Jews and then PRETEND to die. Then pretend to do some magical resurrection and then disappear never to be seen again except by Paul 20 years later who turns around and disagrees with and corrupts EVERYTHING Jesus ever said and with his previous disciples.

Unfortunately all the above proves to be FUTILE and results in absolutely NOTHING for another 300 years except for some dupes who fight among themselves due to not being able to understand what exactly Jesus wanted them to worship or how and when they were supposed to be saved from all the misery they were promised would stop in the lifetime of the disciples let alone theirs.

So finally Jesus decided to appear to some DESPOTIC WARMONGERING KILLER. I guess by that time he had learnt that illiterate fishermen are useless just as much as a chameleon educated persecuting Roman Jew. He realized that he needed to change tack by recruiting a DESPOTIC KILLER to CONQUER and kill his way to Imperial power in order to OBLIGATE people at the end of a sword and by rapine to avow the god of his ex-madam mother.

Yet all this still was not of any immediate effect.

It took centuries more of all sorts of torture and killing and rapine and extirpation and battles and plagues and amnesia of all knowledge and slavery and serfdom to obligate the ragtag defeated demoralized remnants of society to truckle under in despondent despair and disavow all their ancestral cultures and traditions and start genuflecting to Jesus.

And all this so that in over 2000 years still the minority of humanity can deny all science and reason and claim to be saved from the sins of the allegorical Eve in the metaphorical Eden while waiting for the utter destruction of the world and the “exuding of lakes of blood” of billions so that they can spend eternity in heaven interminably hymning in servile obeisance under the feet of the crowned Jesus sitting on a jewel encrusted gold throne at the right hand of himself sitting on another equally bejeweled throne.

All this is a logical deduction from being compelled to irrefutably conclude some creator from all the Intelligent Imbecilic Design they see around them. And all human beings that have ever existed and the majority of those who do exist and might still exist got it all wrong by not concluding the above farce as the only logical outcome.

Awesome!

[The Shrike]

Came across some Catholic propaganda in an old pile of papers last night. The magazine had a regular Q & A column that beautifully illustrated a point I had made upthread.

Q: How did Jesus survive in the desert for 40 days with no food or water?
A (from "The Church"): The number 40 held important symbolism to the Hebrews, and is not intended to be interpreted literally. The reality is that Jesus fasted and prayed in the desert for an unspecified "long time," and his faith in God sustained him during his fast.

The writer concluded the answer with a nod to Jesus' penchant for teaching via parable to demonstrate that the message of stories from the bible should supersede what literal details we think we've translated from it. This viewpoint plays very well with Catholics who fancy themselves as far more sane and rational than biblical literalists who are demonstrably wrong according to what we know of science. As long as Catholics maintain their "god of the gaps, with Middle Ages traditions" thing, they think they're OK with science.

The part that makes no sense then is the selective literal interpretations of scripture that are central to Catholic faith. If you don't buy that Jesus was literally born of a virgin or that bread and wine actually do trans-substantiate into the "flesh" and blood of a once-mortal man from Nazareth who is actually a part of the being responsible for the existence of the universe, then you are not a Catholic.

To the OP, if your friend professes to be Catholic then he must believe at least the above.

[Leumas]

Came across some Catholic propaganda in an old pile of papers last night. The magazine had a regular Q & A column that beautifully illustrated a point I had made upthread.

Q: How did Jesus survive in the desert for 40 days with no food or water?
A (from "The Church"): The number 40 held important symbolism to the Hebrews, and is not intended to be interpreted literally. The reality is that Jesus fasted and prayed in the desert for an unspecified "long time," and his faith in God sustained him during his fast.

The writer concluded the answer with a nod to Jesus' penchant for teaching via parable to demonstrate that the message of stories from the bible should supersede what literal details we think we've translated from it. This viewpoint plays very well with Catholics who fancy themselves as far more sane and rational than biblical literalists who are demonstrably wrong according to what we know of science. As long as Catholics maintain their "god of the gaps, with Middle Ages traditions" thing, they think they're OK with science.

The part that makes no sense then is the selective literal interpretations of scripture that are central to Catholic faith. If you don't buy that Jesus was literally born of a virgin or that bread and wine actually do trans-substantiate into the "flesh" and blood of a once-mortal man from Nazareth who is actually a part of the being responsible for the existence of the universe, then you are not a Catholic.

To the OP, if your friend professes to be Catholic then he must believe at least the above.



So how are we supposed to interpret this:
Luke {19:27} But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

[punshhh]

We grow into being in a dark, warm, quiet place where all our needs are met and we are one with our creator. Our creator feeds us; our needs come first.

We fall, and are propelled into blood, noise, blinding light, pain, hunger, tears, excrement and need.

I've recently started wondering if religion has something to do with wanting to recapture a time when we were taken care of and at one with our creator.

Yes the path of return, you return to the side of the creator along with your experience while you were away. The purpose of creation/manifestation.

[The Shrike]

So how are we supposed to interpret this:
Luke {19:27} But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

It's supposed to be "sleigh them before me." Jesus was directing his followers to round up the unfaithful and take them them on sleigh rides. Then, with mugs of hot cocoa around a crackling fire, explain to them that with Jesus they can feel warm and snuggly and happy like that - no matter what - forever.

[Leumas]

It's supposed to be "sleigh them before me." Jesus was directing his followers to round up the unfaithful and take them them on sleigh rides. Then, with mugs of hot cocoa around a crackling fire, explain to them that with Jesus they can feel warm and snuggly and happy like that - no matter what - forever.


If you go back to the original Greek you will find..... :D

Anyway...the Greeks did not have sleighs nor Hot Cocoa....I am not sure about the mugs? :D

[Fascination]

[QUOTE=Leumas;7698000]All of this comes under the heading Fine Tuning Argument.

My favorite book debunking this whole God Of Hindsight farce (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215736&highlight=hindsight) is:
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us (http://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Fine-Tuning-Why-Universe-Designed/dp/1616144432/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319458442&sr=8-1-spell)

I don't like this book but it is a must read:
The Grand Design (http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553805371/ref=pd_sim_b_59)

If you want to DAZZLE him and boggle his mind with science that debunks his "science" here is the book to do it. Warning this book is not for the science fainthearted:
The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? (http://www.amazon.com/Comprehensible-Cosmos-Where-Laws-Physics/dp/1591024242/ref=pd_sim_b_26)

Here are some more books that are GREAT for arguing on the same line but for normal people:

God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (http://www.amazon.com/God-Failed-Hypothesis-Science-Shows/dp/1591026520/ref=pd_sim_b_1)
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338/ref=pd_sim_b_3)
The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture (http://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-religion-infects-culture/dp/0970950519/ref=pd_sim_b_7)
The Religion Virus: Why We Believe in God: An Evolutionist Explains Religion's Incredible Hold on Humanity (http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Virus-Evolutionist-Religions-Incredible/dp/1846942721/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319462110&sr=1-1)
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Never-Happened-Refutation/dp/067974049X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312219215&sr=8-1)
The Static Universe: Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion (http://www.amazon.com/Static-Universe-Exploding-Cosmic-Expansion/dp/0986492620/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1312219215&sr=8-2)
Big Bang Blasted (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Blasted-Lyndon-Ashmore/dp/1419639226/ref=pd_sim_b_6)

These books are a great general argument against religion and christianity in particular

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Delusion-Why-Faith-Fails/dp/1616141689/ref=pd_sim_b_15)
The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths (http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct-Reinforce/dp/0805091254/ref=pd_sim_b_18)
All Bart Ehrman's books (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=bart+ehrman&x=0&y=0) but especially

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1319460858&sr=8-2)
Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195182499/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1319460858&sr=8-4)

All Richard Dawkins books (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3ARichard+Dawk ins&keywords=Richard+Dawkins&ie=UTF8&qid=1319461034&sr=1-2-ent&field-contributor_id=B000AQ3RBI) but especially

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319461040&sr=1-5)
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/B004AYCWY4/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319461040&sr=1-4)

101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History (http://www.amazon.com/101-Myths-Bible-Invented-Biblical/dp/1570718423/ref=pd_sim_b_95)
Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Wars-Patriarchs-Emperors-Christians/dp/0061768936/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319462872&sr=1-1)
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=pd_sim_b_64)
The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (Archaeology and Biblical Studies) (http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Historical-Israel-Debating-Archaeology/dp/1589832779/ref=pd_sim_b_2)
Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Essays-Religion-Related-Subjects/dp/0671203231/ref=pd_sim_b_42)
The Future of an Illusion (http://www.amazon.com/Future-Illusion-Sigmund-Freud/dp/1614270864/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319461752&sr=1-2)
The Age Of Reason (http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reason-Thomas-Paine/dp/1603863419/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319461806&sr=1-2)
Challenging the Bible: Selections from the Writings and Speeches of Robert G. Ingersoll (http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-Bible-Selections-Writings-Ingersoll/dp/1932968261/ref=pd_sim_b_2)
Superstition in All Ages (http://www.amazon.com/Superstition-All-Ages-Jean-Meslier/dp/1770831347/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319463004&sr=1-1)
Biblical Nonsense: A Review of the Bible for Doubting Christians (http://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Nonsense-Review-Doubting-Christians/dp/0595341829/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319463107&sr=1-1-spell)



BUT....BUT.... the absolutely best book to read to debunk Christianity is this one (http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-King-James-Version/dp/1585160806/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1319467018&sr=8-3).

But seriously

[Halfcentaur]

I despise William Lane Craig. He creates knots of self affirming "logic" intended to confuse and trick others, and the funny thing is the theists who champion him just seem to do so because he seems smart. Every debate I've seen with him ends up with him using language in place of logical debate, and the scientists he challenges seem unable to deconstruct his flimsy arguments, instead relying on the facts to speak for themselves.

[Leumas]

I despise William Lane Craig. He creates knots of self affirming "logic" intended to confuse and trick others, and the funny thing is the theists who champion him just seem to do so because he seems smart. Every debate I've seen with him ends up with him using language in place of logical debate, and the scientists he challenges seem unable to deconstruct his flimsy arguments, instead relying on the facts to speak for themselves.


It is not so much despise as it is that every time I watch him doing his hand gestures while talking I subliminally feel like smacking the shamming huckster.


Watch any of his debates and notice well his hand gestures and how he curls his fingers. He DELIBERATELY is trying to emulate this hand gestures like in this picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg).

For example watch minutes 30:30 to 31:22 in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8)....he does this in almost all hid debates.


4KBx4vvlbZ8

[Leumas]

Another argument is
Even if there is a God....how is it a given that this marvelous creator committed adultery, incest, and pedophilia with his own married mother to impregnate her with himself so as to be incarnated.



Kudos for a brilliant response.



Thanks very much .....but I have just seen this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII6-IyaT3o&feature=BFa&list=UL2Clm6nlWxzc&lf=mfu_in_order) that is a thousand times more brilliant....why didn't I think of that :o

mII6-IyaT3o&feature=BFa&list=UL2Clm6nlWxzc&lf=mfu_in_order

[quarky]

All the world is but a stage.

We pretend the drama we're in.

God is like an obvious reference point.
It helps with the math of pretension.

Square root of negative one.

Is it imaginary?
Is it useful?

Suspending our critical thinking can certainly lead to more enjoyment of sci-fi movies.

Hopefully, it quits before the burkhas.