| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/07/2008 02:30:00 PM · #526 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
The Fine Tuning Argument is essentially the Intelligent Design Argument (but used to get around the sticky evolution problem).
The WILL of man has created things. But not life. One could say that an intelligent designer is required to create things such as bridges and computers but they are not the same as life itself, nor are they in anyway similar. For me at least, saying that man makes complex things shows that something else made life doesn't work.
Additionally, we run into the regression of the creator. i.e. - who created the creator that created the things? If complexity requires a creator/designer, then isn't what created the complexities complex enough to require a creator?
Assuming that your argument stands as an abductive argument, this still doesn't prove the continued existence of the designer nor does it prove the existence of God as perceived by most religions (i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, etc.). As I said before, you will need further arguments beyond the fine tuning argument to prove God exists. |
The fine tuned argument is far from ID as it is usually spoken of. Evolution is a perfectly capable alternative explanation for the diversity of life (though not the rising of life). ID is not needed to explain it (although this does not make it false). With the fine-tuning there is no current naturalistic explanation. Nothing. Nada. We are frankly devoid of scientific ideas to explain what we currently understand exists (the "fine tuning").
I don't disagree with the rest of what you say. I'm not arguing that at this time. I'm merely showing that deism (if you want to reject "theism" as the proper name) is rational.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 14:30:54. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 02:32:15 PM · #527 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One way or the other the universe did appear from nothing so there is precedent, wouldn't you say? But you are entirely missing my point. Postulating an intelligence is rational. I know quite well you disagree that it's the correct choice. You don't need to show me that. |
Ummm...we don't know if the universe came from nothing. We can't see beyond the Big Bang Theory. And if nothing existed, where did God come from? Also, what is your definition of nothing - be careful here... |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 02:42:34 PM · #528 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One way or the other the universe did appear from nothing so there is precedent, wouldn't you say? But you are entirely missing my point. Postulating an intelligence is rational. I know quite well you disagree that it's the correct choice. You don't need to show me that. |
Ummm...we don't know if the universe came from nothing. We can't see beyond the Big Bang Theory. And if nothing existed, where did God come from? Also, what is your definition of nothing - be careful here... |
The "where did God come from?" is a meaninless question because any other than a "steady state" universe must require a beginning. Unfortunately we have overwhelming evidence to say our universe is NOT a steady state.
Nothing means no matter. Could there be an energy field in which matter "popped" into existence? Potentially (no pun intended). But where did the field come from? Where did the physical laws allowing the field and big bang come from? All ideas (they aren't theories because none of this is "scientific" in the sense of being hypothesis with testability) will eventually face such questions so it's no fair to exclude God just because I can't tell you where he came from. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 02:55:07 PM · #529 |
 DrAchoo, you haven't addressed my second question yet. Even if we came to the conclusion that there must have been an intelligent entity that created our universe (which I still think is a silly conclusion, but anyway):
Originally posted by Sam94720:
2) Where's the rational step to "This intelligence wants you to worship it, it has a son who was born of a virgin and is actually also his own father (and you can eat him in the form of a cracker), it does not want homosexual people to marry, etc."? How can you aquire (rationally) any knowledge about possible characteristics of this intelligence? |
I do not doubt that you are familiar with the scientific method. However, you don't apply it here (as I explained before, when it comes to religion, even some scientists abandon all rationality. The example study I provided showed such an effect in a pretty impressive way, don't you think?). You claim certainty although you have zero scientific evidence to support your theory, only guesswork. In fact, if you define your God properly, it could not possibly be studied by the scientific method. If the laws of physics we've discovered don't apply and logic doesn't apply, you can't really do much science, can you?
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 14:55:18. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 03:43:56 PM · #530 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "where did God come from?" is a meaninless question because any other than a "steady state" universe must require a beginning. Unfortunately we have overwhelming evidence to say our universe is NOT a steady state.
Nothing means no matter. Could there be an energy field in which matter "popped" into existence? Potentially (no pun intended). But where did the field come from? Where did the physical laws allowing the field and big bang come from? All ideas (they aren't theories because none of this is "scientific" in the sense of being hypothesis with testability) will eventually face such questions so it's no fair to exclude God just because I can't tell you where he came from. |
We know our universe is not in a steady state. That's not at question here. I'll give you that our current known universe had a beginning with a Big Bang but, as we cannot see beyond the Big Bang nor outside our universe, we cannot definitively state what happened before nor whether it will happen again. Additionally, it is not believed that the Universe "popped" into existence from nothing, except by those that posit that God exists and created the universe.
Misconceptions about Big Bang Theory
Why is where did God come from a meaningless question?
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:22:15 PM · #531 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One way or the other the universe did appear from nothing so there is precedent, wouldn't you say? |
No, I wouldn't. At no point have I ever claimed personal belief that the universe popped into existence from nothing. That's a misconception of the Big Bang theory. One of the quirks of gravity is that increasing mass leads to smaller objects at certain stages- a neutron star with the mass of our sun can be 12 miles in diameter, and an even more massive black hole can occupy a single point. Does that mean there's nothing at that point? Of course not, even if its volume is essentially zero. So what happens if a supermassive black hole reaches yet another threshold of mass that forces it to be even more compact than a singularity... or rapidly expand from that point? Bingo: a logical extension of what we readily observe/model in nature, and no magic necessary. By contrast, if the universe DID appear from nothing, then you have defined God as nothing.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Postulating an intelligence is rational. |
Stating that intelligent beings can create complex objects is rational. Stating that even more intelligent beings can create even more complex objects is rational. Claiming that ALL complex objects must be created by intelligent beings is not rational, nor does it follow that infinite intelligence would allow a being to create a universe any more than assuming a large enough bird could lift an aircraft carrier to the moon. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:44:44 PM · #532 |
When did time start?
What time was it before time started? |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:48:15 PM · #533 |
Originally posted by RonB:
When did time start?
What time was it before time started? |
My watch stopped. Does that mean time is standing still?
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 16:48:26. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:51:26 PM · #534 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
When did time start?
What time was it before time started? |
My watch stopped. Does that mean time is standing still? |
Can't answer the question, so you make a glib remark, eh?
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:53:11 PM · #535 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I do not doubt that you are familiar with the scientific method. However, you don't apply it here (as I explained before, when it comes to religion, even some scientists abandon all rationality. The example study I provided showed such an effect in a pretty impressive way, don't you think?). You claim certainty although you have zero scientific evidence to support your theory, only guesswork. In fact, if you define your God properly, it could not possibly be studied by the scientific method. If the laws of physics we've discovered don't apply and logic doesn't apply, you can't really do much science, can you? |
Why are you trying to apply the scientific method to a philosophic problem? Can you apply the scientific method to judge the beauty of a piece of art? Can you apply the scientific method to decide when killing is wrong? Can I apply the scientific method to know my purpose in life? Can the scientific method be applied to ask what caused the big bang (don't answer yes on that one, you'll be wrong).
This is, I think the most fundamental flaw I bump into when dealing with atheists. They assume that all things are subject to the domain of the scientific method. If it cannot be subject, it is irrelevant. Personally I find this to be the equivalent of intellectual blinders. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:53:19 PM · #536 |
Originally posted by RonB:
When did time start? |
Why do you assume it had a starting point? |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:55:39 PM · #537 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
When did time start?
What time was it before time started? |
My watch stopped. Does that mean time is standing still? |
Can't answer the question, so you make a glib remark, eh? |
No, I just asked another question, equally valid as your own, in response to yours. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:57:07 PM · #538 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "where did God come from?" is a meaninless question because any other than a "steady state" universe must require a beginning. Unfortunately we have overwhelming evidence to say our universe is NOT a steady state.
Nothing means no matter. Could there be an energy field in which matter "popped" into existence? Potentially (no pun intended). But where did the field come from? Where did the physical laws allowing the field and big bang come from? All ideas (they aren't theories because none of this is "scientific" in the sense of being hypothesis with testability) will eventually face such questions so it's no fair to exclude God just because I can't tell you where he came from. |
We know our universe is not in a steady state. That's not at question here. I'll give you that our current known universe had a beginning with a Big Bang but, as we cannot see beyond the Big Bang nor outside our universe, we cannot definitively state what happened before nor whether it will happen again. Additionally, it is not believed that the Universe "popped" into existence from nothing, except by those that posit that God exists and created the universe.
Misconceptions about Big Bang Theory
Why is where did God come from a meaningless question? |
I pointed out it is meaningless because all ideas of our origins are faced with the same question equally. Why discriminate one idea over another because of it?
We cannot "definitively state what happened before" the Big Bang is an understatement. It is impossible to state what happened before. Not only is it impossible, it is also untestable. So even though something like a Higgs field or a multiverse sound more "scientific", they are as "religious" as positing an intelligent creator. They also run into the very same "where did they come from?" question that God does. So I ask you, how are you anywhere other than right beside me when dealing with the question of the origin of our universe? |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:57:43 PM · #539 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
When did time start? |
Why do you assume it had a starting point? |
Why do you answer a question with a question?
Is the question too hard? |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:59:14 PM · #540 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
When did time start?
What time was it before time started? |
My watch stopped. Does that mean time is standing still? |
Can't answer the question, so you make a glib remark, eh? |
No, I just asked another question, equally valid as your own, in response to yours. |
OK. I'll answer yours, then you answer mine.
Here's my answer to your question: No, just because your watch stopped, it does NOT mean that time is standing still.
Now, you answer mine. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 04:59:42 PM · #541 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is, I think the most fundamental flaw I bump into when dealing with atheists. They assume that all things are subject to the domain of the scientific method. If it cannot be subject, it is irrelevant. Personally I find this to be the equivalent of intellectual blinders. |
What if they just believe something's true because they believe it or because a Greek author said so? Would that be removing intellectual blinders or putting them on? |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:04:21 PM · #542 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
When did time start? |
Why do you assume it had a starting point? |
Why do you answer a question with a question?
Is the question too hard? |
Not at all. Time has always existed. Proof: a starting point can only be defined by time. If time doesn't exist, then it cannot start at a particular time and there could not be a time before time. Now, can you answer my question? Take your time.
EDIT: Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say time never existed since it's a concept of measurement rather than a physical thing. It's like asking when length started. :-)
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 17:10:40. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:06:16 PM · #543 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is, I think the most fundamental flaw I bump into when dealing with atheists. They assume that all things are subject to the domain of the scientific method. If it cannot be subject, it is irrelevant. Personally I find this to be the equivalent of intellectual blinders. |
What if they just believe something's true because they believe it or because a Greek author said so? Would that be removing intellectual blinders or putting them on? |
To believe something "just because" is possibly to put blinders on. But to apply philosophical principles to problems when they are more appropriate than the scientific method is. We've had this discussion before. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:07:42 PM · #544 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
When did time start? |
Why do you assume it had a starting point? |
Why do you answer a question with a question?
Is the question too hard? |
Not at all. Time has always existed. Proof: a starting point can only be defined by time. If time doesn't exist, then it cannot start at a particular time and there could not be a time before time. Now, can you answer my question? Take your time. |
So the more appropriate question would be "Does the dimension of time exist outside our universe?" |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:13:43 PM · #545 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To believe something "just because" is possibly to put blinders on. But to apply philosophical principles to problems when they are more appropriate than the scientific method is. We've had this discussion before. |
Believing something "just because" isn't philosophy. Neither is assuming a Greek author's word must be fact.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Does the dimension of time exist outside our universe?" |
Why do you assume there's an outside?
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:17:21 PM · #546 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To believe something "just because" is possibly to put blinders on. But to apply philosophical principles to problems when they are more appropriate than the scientific method is. We've had this discussion before. |
Believing something "just because" isn't philosophy. Neither is assuming a Greek author's word must be fact.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Does the dimension of time exist outside our universe?" |
Why do you assume there's an outside? |
Because it is natural to assume the conditions that led to the Big Bang existed in something. At the least the physical laws that governed that a Big Bang would happen were present. What were they present in? "Nothing" is far from being a satisfying answer, even to the naturalist.
I don't disagree with your statement about belief. I don't count myself as being part of that, but that's beside the point.
Message edited by author 2008-08-07 17:18:20. |
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:25:08 PM · #547 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
When did time start? |
Why do you assume it had a starting point? |
Why do you answer a question with a question?
Is the question too hard? |
Not at all. Time has always existed. Proof: a starting point can only be defined by time. |
More accurately, by space-time, unless you only mean a starting point in time. But then, if you DO mean a starting point in time, you don't need time to be eternal, since the starting point could be stated relative to the time that time started. For example, if time started at the Big Bang, then any point in time could be stated in relation to that event, though only in a positive direction.
Originally posted by scalvert:
If time doesn't exist, then it cannot start at a particular time and there could not be a time before time. |
From your response, I believe that I accurately deduce that you are of the opinion that time is eternal - that it has no beginning and no end.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Now, can you answer my question? Take your time. |
Surely,
I do not assume that time had a starting point. I believe, like you, that time is eternal.
I also believe that God is eternal, as well.
And just as there was no time before time, there was no God before God. God did not need to have a creator, since the creator ( God ) always was, is, and will be.
And, because God is eternal, He is not bound by time - he can be anywhere and everywhere anywhen and everywhen.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:35:57 PM · #548 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I do not assume that time had a starting point. I believe, like you, that time is eternal.
I also believe that God is eternal, as well. |
I believe time is eternal because it's a comparative measurement (length, width, temperature, time, etc.), not an "existing" thing. You could always measure something even before there were two events or points to measure. Do you consider God a unit of measurement?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it is natural to assume the conditions that led to the Big Bang existed in something. At the least the physical laws that governed that a Big Bang would happen were present. What were they present in? |
Tsk... you obviously didn't read Dahkota's link on misperceptions of the Big Bang. "It needs neither a center to expand away from nor empty space on the outside (wherever that is) to expand into. When it expands, it does not claim previously unoccupied space from its surroundings."
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:42:02 PM · #549 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
I do not assume that time had a starting point. I believe, like you, that time is eternal.
I also believe that God is eternal, as well. |
I believe time is eternal because it's a comparative measurement (length, width, temperature, time, etc.), not an "existing" thing. You could always measure something even before there were two events or points to measure. Do you consider God a unit of measurement? |
So by grouping time into the same categlry with length, width, temperature, (etc.) do you really mean to imply that length is eternal? width is eternal? temperature is eternal? etc.?
|
|
|
|
08/07/2008 05:43:33 PM · #550 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
I do not doubt that you are familiar with the scientific method. However, you don't apply it here (as I explained before, when it comes to religion, even some scientists abandon all rationality. The example study I provided showed such an effect in a pretty impressive way, don't you think?). You claim certainty although you have zero scientific evidence to support your theory, only guesswork. In fact, if you define your God properly, it could not possibly be studied by the scientific method. If the laws of physics we've discovered don't apply and logic doesn't apply, you can't really do much science, can you? |
Why are you trying to apply the scientific method to a philosophic problem? Can you apply the scientific method to judge the beauty of a piece of art? Can you apply the scientific method to decide when killing is wrong? Can I apply the scientific method to know my purpose in life? Can the scientific method be applied to ask what caused the big bang (don't answer yes on that one, you'll be wrong).
This is, I think the most fundamental flaw I bump into when dealing with atheists. They assume that all things are subject to the domain of the scientific method. If it cannot be subject, it is irrelevant. Personally I find this to be the equivalent of intellectual blinders. |
The existence of God is not a philosophical question, it's a scientific one. A universe with a god would be fundamentally different from one without a god. Saying "The existence of God is not a scientific question!" falls into the same category as saying "Where did God come from? Hahaha. God does not need an explanation, silly!". You are simply stating that the rules don't apply and that you are right because you are right.
The argument "You can't prove that I love my wife and therefore God exists." is also silly. No, you cannot use the scientific method to judge the beauty of a piece of art because it depends on the subjective view of an observer. You can, however, measure this subjective view (you can make polls and ask people what they think of a piece of art, for example). Everything that has an effect in the real world can be studied scientifically. You may never be able to explain it in every detail, but you can examine it.
At the moment you guys are playing a game of "See, you can't answer this question about the origin of the universe, therefore God exists!". This makes no sense. There are things we simply don't understand, like the nature of time. Maybe we will never be able to understand it, because we are limited by the world we live in. And maybe one day we'll find out. If an ant tried to figure out what created the lawn it lives on, you would laugh because the ant doesn't even realize it lives on a planet! Well, we are in the exact same situation, just on a different scale.
Yes, there are things we cannot explain. I, for example, wouldn't say that I understand the big bang theory or quantum mechanics. However, I fail to see the logic step to the existence of a god. And even more difficult is the step to my question no. 2 you still haven't addressed:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
2) Where's the rational step to "This intelligence wants you to worship it, it has a son who was born of a virgin and is actually also his own father (and you can eat him in the form of a cracker), it does not want homosexual people to marry, etc."? How can you aquire (rationally) any knowledge about possible characteristics of this intelligence? |
|
|
