The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Borachio]

Crackerbox? Chatterbox, more like!

Oh, look: "Do you believe in aliens?"

No. I've seen no convincing evidence for them.

Do I believe there are no aliens? No. I don't know whether there are any or not.

Do I believe in the probable existence of aliens? No. I personally don't. I've seen the so-called calculations of their probable existence and I find them unconvincing.

 

[Crackerbox]

Crackerbox? Chatterbox, more like!

This is an ad hominem attack, not an retort. It's beneath the standards of the [RD]. It's a classic faux pas in debate.

 

[Flying Pig]

Have you ever been on a debate team? It's a standard aspect of debating when clear demonstrations of logical fallacies are stated. It's a withering attack on the posts of others for the whole point of debate is to try to free yourself from making logical fallacies in order to have a rational debate of ideas.

Everything else is just opinion. What would be the point of labeling this [RD] and then not dealing with logical fallacies?

Thankfully, this isn't a student debating club, and we're not trying to make 'withering attacks' on each other. If we are going to identify fallacies, though, we should at least try to be correct and useful, or at least one of the two.

EDIT: Incidentally, how often does anybody seriously claim to know logic better than the only one of us who is literally paid to critique logic?

 

[El_Machinae]

Plotinus said, "Then the problem becomes: I can't "believe" in something (in your sense) if I don't think that that thing exists. But I can't simply decide to think that something exists. That's not within my power. Is it within yours? If so, can you give us a demonstration?"

This is an appeal to ignorance. Plotinus can't believe in something so he thinks it isn't true. It's the very definition of an appeal to ignorance.

He makes an appeal to probability prior when he believes that atheism is more probable to be true than a belief in God. There is evidence for neither. Atheism is a belief system just as much as any spiritual system. It's definitely NOT an absence of belief which is undefined in philosophy and theology. One can only have disbelief and belief, and these are a matter of choosing some system like atheism (a disbelief in God) versus something like theism (a belief in God).

His entire posts in this topic are riddled with logical fallacies by definition. I've just pointed them out, but anyone is free to look up ad hominems, non sequieurs, appeals to ridicule, appeals to ignorance, appeals to probability, and the like.

What's more, we consider some supposition in philosophy all the time regardless of whether we think it's valid. Just because we don't think something exists or is valid, which are two different attributes, doesn't mean the supposition isn't true. That's the appeal to ignorance. How could one claim any sense of being lettered without considering all manner of suppositions made by some intellectual regardless of whether we believed them to be true?

As far as I can tell, he tried to use your wording within the blue text.

The paraphrase is that he cannot intentionally trust in something he does not believe exists, to my reading.

Additionally, it's a strong statement to say there isn't evidence for God or atheism. There's certainly evidence. You might mean proof?

 

[Crackerbox]

Thankfully, this isn't a student debating club, and we're not trying to make 'withering attacks' on each other. If we are going to identify fallacies, though, we should at least try to be correct and useful, or at least one of the two.

Withering attacks on the POSTS of others, not on each other. You've misquoted me, which is either intentional or a mistake. I would think the later and should be corrected.

You've made a vague claim without substantiation about "being correct and useful". Point out where I haven't been? I've even supplied evidence unlike some who define trust and belief as disconnected things.

 

[Borachio]

This is an ad hominem attack, not an retort. It's beneath the standards of the [RD]. It's a classic faux pas in debate.

You're completely mistaken. It's not an ad hominem attack at all. It's a witty remark, meant to entertain and amuse.

Apparently, you found it amusing, so how can you take it as an attack?

I think your returning comment is self-contradictory.

 

[Crackerbox]

As far as I can tell, he tried to use your wording within the blue text.

The paraphrase is that he cannot intentionally trust in something he does not believe exists, to my reading.

Additionally, it's a strong statement to say there isn't evidence for God or atheism. There's certainly evidence. You might mean proof?

Nope, evidence.
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Show me a fact that is evidence for God. Show me a fact that God doesn't exist without exploring all of the Multiverse (or at the very least the Universe). The former doesn't exist. The later hasn't been done.

We have archeological evidence of events in the Bible as well as people. We have more literature references from papyri about the Bible than any other works of literature that we take as a valid work. We have no evidence for the supernatural and definitely not the SUPERNATURAL (GOD).

The very definition of belief is that we accept and have an affinity for some idea or person without proof or evidence. We believe on faith, and if a Christian faith, then in Jesus Christ. As soon as you discuss proof or evidence, then you remove the very basis for a relationship with God. It's anathema to Christianity as welll as Judaism and Islam.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, I see. It's a semantic disagreement. Eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence. After that, we judge whether it's credible. So, secondary reports of eyewitness testimony then are evidence themselves, but then are also judged according to their credibility.

Why would you need to explore the entire Multiverse to have evidence that God does not exist? It surely then depends on what type of god you're trying to find evidence for? Or, in other words, you need to properly define 'God'. If one keeps whittling away at the definition, sure, you can never prove it doesn't exist. But, for example, one can easily prove that "the God of Noah" doesn't exist merely by showing that Noah doesn't exist.

 

[Crackerbox]

You're completely mistaken. It's not an ad hominem attack at all. It's a witty remark, meant to entertain and amuse.

Apparently, you found it amusing, so how can you take it as an attack?

I think your returning comment is self-contradictory.

Hardly. You're making me smirk at your feeble retort. There's nothing worthy of being labeled wit in that post. Oscar Wilde would definitely frown at it.

 

[Borachio]

Well. I can scarcely pretend to Oscar Wilde status, now, can I?

But if you found it unamusing, why did you laugh at it? Do you often laugh at things which you don't find amusing?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Have you ever been on a debate team? It's a standard aspect of debating when clear demonstrations of logical fallacies are stated. It's a withering attack on the posts of others for the whole point of debate is to try to free yourself from making logical fallacies in order to have a rational debate of ideas.

Everything else is just opinion. What would be the point of labeling this [RD] and then not dealing with logical fallacies?

Well actually... I am a (alumnus) member of the Whig-Cliosophical Society... but does that matter to you? Probably not, so I am not sure why you asked.

I was making a general comment about my personal distaste for logical-fallacy arguments. I intentionally did not quote or reference you precisely because I do not care to make you feel like you have to justify your practice of continually trying to point out logical fallacies. As I said, I used to do the same when I was younger and I am therefore in no moral position to deny you your fun... I am not on a debate team anymore. It was fun for then, but that was then and this is now. As for you... have at it, godspeed

 

[Crackerbox]

Oh, I see. It's a semantic disagreement. Eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence. After that, we judge whether it's credible. So, secondary reports of eyewitness testimony then are evidence themselves, but then are also judged according to their credibility.

Why would you need to explore the entire Multiverse to have evidence that God does not exist? It surely then depends on what type of god you're trying to find evidence for? Or, in other words, you need to properly define 'God'. If one keeps whittling away at the definition, sure, you can never prove it doesn't exist. But, for example, one can easily prove that "the God of Noah" doesn't exist merely by showing that Noah doesn't exist.

I don't require evidence for God. I believe in Yeshua completely on FAITH, which is belief without proof. We have eyewitness testimony in that say the Magdalene papyrus might be as old as 70AD and hence originally written by one of Mathew's followers. Just as we have eyewitness accounts of lots of historical events from primary evidence, then we can either believe that things happened because they were written, even when many years later, by primary witnesses, but this is not a FACT or evidence. Their writing it is a fact, but doesn't mean it's valid as can be claimed it's written by passionate subjective human beings (as some atheists claim) and not the Word of God.

To me, it's the Word of God, but this is debatable, no?

A note to Christians: you cannot convince postmodern people to accept Jesus by intellectual argument. Talk to your pastor/priest about taking a witnessing class instead and take on a mentor. Invite your friends to church instead of useless debates on the Internet. I definitely spent time in the fields for the Lord for decades doing this simple effective witnessing instead of the latter. Think about friendship or romance. You fall in love with your heart, not by your mind, and this is the well tread path to Christianity.

 

[Borachio]

How do you view the Koran, Mr Box?

Is that the word of God, too? And if you don't believe it is, why don't you?

 

[El_Machinae]

See, it's merely a semantic disagreement. To me, eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence. We then collect evidences in order to determine whether we believe a claim.

If you want to say there's no proof, then that's fine. If you want to say the facts are unproven, that's also fine. But the testimony is certainly a type of evidence. In my way of speaking, anyway.

But, keep in mind, even proof of Jesus's supernaturalness wouldn't be proof of God. It would merely be evidence with which we'd form our judgements.

 

[Perfection]

A pretty good book I've read that y'all might find interesting:

Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story by Jim Holt

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-World-Exist-Existential/dp/0871403595

Some of the people interviewed are John Updike, David Deutsch, Adolf Grünbaum, John Leslie, Derek Parfit, Roger Penrose, Richard Swinburne and Steven Weinberg.

I found Derek Parfit and David Deutsch in particular to have interesting insights.

 

[Sommerswerd]

A note to Christians: you cannot convince postmodern people to accept Jesus by intellectual argument.

Well I agree with what I assume is the sentiment behind this statement. Many, many pages back on this thread (or maybe the Saudi religious figure thread... I forget which), I was adamantly making the case that Religious arguments can't be used to prove scientific things and scientific arguments can't be used to prove religious things, partly because religion and science are different, and while you use the scientific method to prove scientific claims, you use a religious method (like prayer) to prove religious things.

Sounds good to me... Logical? Meh

 

[Crackerbox]

Well. I can scarcely pretend to Oscar Wilde status, now, can I?

But if you found it unamusing, why did you laugh at it? Do you often laugh at things which you don't find amusing?

We can laugh at puerile retorts as mockery and not at being genuinely impressed. It was like farting and especting a response.

Well actually... I am an (alumni) member of the Whig-Cliosophical Society... but does that matter to you? Probably not, so I am not sure why you asked.

I was making a general comment about my personal distaste for logical-fallacy arguments. I intentionally did not quote or reference you precisely because I do not care to make you feel like you have to justify your practice of continually trying to point out logical fallacies. As I said, I used to do the same when I was younger and I am therefore in no moral position to deny you your fun... I am not on a debate team anymore. It was fun for then, but that was then and this is now. As for you... have at it, godspeed

Gotcha. I agree with that too. But heck, when I see people making the claim to authority based upon their personal background as some sort of expert, and then screw up basic theology with the definition for faith AND make logical fallacies, then it's irritating. Christians have constant attacks upon their posts since it's presumed that we're not intellectuals, at the same time atheists claim they're intellectuals, so when I see something particularly wretched in a post, I feel compelled to point it out.

How do you view the Koran, Mr Box?

Is that the word of God, too? And if you don't believe it is, why don't you?

How is that pertinent to this topic? That's a rather dated way of spelling that sacred text by the way. Don't you wish to write...Quran? Koran is an anglicized form for an Arabic word so it's quaint.

See, it's merely a semantic disagreement. To me, eyewitness testimony is a type of evidence. We then collect evidences in order to determine whether we believe a claim.

If you want to say there's no proof, then that's fine. If you want to say the facts are unproven, that's also fine. But the testimony is certainly a type of evidence. In my way of speaking, anyway.

But, keep in mind, even proof of Jesus's supernaturalness wouldn't be proof of God. It would merely be evidence with which we'd form our judgements.

We collect evidence in Christianity by eyewitness testimony say by comparing the Synoptic Gospels and see where they agree and disagree. If they're not in perfect agreement due to the personal observations of the primary witnesses, is that a discrepency? You see the problem with stating primary eyewitness testimony in papyri as fact (evidence)? It's a classic plot by atheists to tear this assunder by stating this points to contridictions in the Bible, never mind that if you were to gather any primary eyewitness testimony in historical documents, you'd find the same sort of concentration on some particular aspect of the events. And the sheer volume of papyri is astounding in number.

The Magdalene papyri of Mathew might, just might be as old as 33 AD or so, and if scholars could ever conclusively prove that it's really that old, then it would mean a clear immediate journaling of the events of Christ's life happened. Most of the time these documents are dated far later plus we don't have the hypothecized Q document that points to an earlier immediate journaling of the Gospels. In this way, the Magdalene papyri might be stunning in its implications.

And yet, that doesn't make it a fact that Yeshua (Jesus) was the Son of God, nor that Yahweh is real. These are matters of Faith, not intellectual argument. And really from a true sense of Beauty, this idea of a relationship with the SUPREME BEING is quite astounding versus, "Oh, well there's some evidence that God exists...hooray." The relationship is intensely personal versus intellectual assent.

How loved would your child be if you gave intellectual assent that you considered them worthy versus Yeshua's words of wisdom:
"Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." Matthew 22:37. This is a profound teaching. The sum totality of our being (heart, soul, and mind) becomes integrated in utter love to God who is all BEING. This fragment of the Summary of the Law is so immensely moving as the very basis for I AM and points to the Son of God imparting real TRUTH to us about the existence of a human.

Note to Christians, when you state that the evidence is found in the Word of God, consider that a nonbeliever doesn't esteem the Bible as being any more validity than any other piece of literature. As such, hurling tons of Bible verses at them and hoping one sticks usually does squat. In all probablity the words will be trampled by irritated folks, especially due to bad experiences with itinerant street preachers. It's a curious thing that I can't recall Yeshua ever yelling at Gentiles like that by quoting from Scripture, but he did sup with them, became close to them, cared for them, healed the sick, cast out demons. Maybe he should increase and we should decrease some, no? Maybe Yeshua told us all we need to do to share the Gospel and it isn't by thinking we can win souls for God on the Internet.

 

[Gori the Grey]

However, it's psychologically impossible to put one's trust in something that you think doesn't exist.

That means that I, right now, am literally incapable of putting my trust in God, because I don't think God exists.

That needn't be quite as iron-clad as you set it out, perhaps. C.S. Lewis has a bit (sorry, can't say where; it's been a long time), where he proposes, to people who think they have first to believe in the existence of God before they could then put faith in Him, that they just try it out for a while the opposite way round; live your life trusting in Him (as revealed in the Bible? as mediated by Anglicanism? That would be it's own separate issue, I suppose), and see whether that lived experience doesn't give grounds for believing in His existence. I'm ninety percent sure that Lewis makes it a matter of these different definitions of "believe" that have just come up.

I thought it was a clever argument, at least, because I think Christianity is not primarily an explanation for the workings of the universe, but a frame-of-meaning for one's life.

 

[El_Machinae]

You're conflating 'fact' and 'evidence'. I am using the terms differently. You use evidence to create your beliefs. For example, the testimony given in Matthew is useful, but is deemed less credible (to me) since the author sometimes just makes up stuff for unknown reasons and presents them as fact. This makes the reporting of incredible events less, well, believable.

I quite like the Matt 22:37 instruction. It's why I commonly suggest Christians shuck the parts of the Bible that clearly are libelous towards God.

 

[Borachio]

We can laugh at puerile retorts as mockery and not at being genuinely impressed. It was like farting and especting a response.

Righto. As you wish.

How is that pertinent to this topic? That's a rather dated way of spelling that sacred text by the way. Don't you wish to write...Quran? Koran is an anglicized form for an Arabic word so it's quaint.

It makes no difference how you spell it in Latinized script. It's a transliteration.

Koran, Quran, Qur'an. Take your pick. I've used them all.

It's pertinent because you seem to take the Bible as the literal word of God. Presumably because it declares itself to be so.

The Qur'an also declares itself to be so. Why do you accept the one but not the other?

That is if you don't accept the Qur'an.

What is the basis for you not accepting it?