What are the chances of God arising by randomness, out of interest? I'm still with option A here.
The fine-tuning argument for God's existence
- Thread starter Unicorny
- Start date
The problem with this line of thinking is that you are automatically assuming that said higher power is the Judaeo-Christian God, which still doesn't explain everything else, given how many differing concepts there are of God and the afterlife, even in Christianity.
If we are going to go down the "what's more likely?" route, why is it a given that said higher power is God, as we (might) understand him to be, rather than Ra, Osiris, Zeus, Vishnu or some other unfathomable creator-deity?
By default, there's a 50% chance of God existing, and a 50% chance of God not existing, since direct evidence both for and against the notion of God cannot be attained.
So taking the 50% in favor of God's existence as a starting point, you can proceed to factor in the evidence both for and against it, and either work your way in favor of it or against it.
The idea of God being exclusive to the Judaeo-Christian tradition is both redundant and pointless. If God does exist, then He automatically assumes authority over all creation, the universe, and therefore, is the God of everything.
Religion may offer differing concepts of God and the afterlife, but certain things about God can be logically inferred as:
1) He must be One 2) Must be eternal 3) Uncreated 4) Immortal, and so on and so forth.
Labels do not matter, you can call said entity whatever you want, Ra, Osiris, Zeus, Vishnu, or XYZ, it's the definition of said entity that matters.
Yes, it is exactly what to expect with postselection.
Any number you can quote for the probability is full of crap.
That's akin to burying your head in the sand. Watch the video that I've posted above. 1 in 10^60 is the best odds, other constants exhibit even lower tolerances of error. Millions of orders smaller.
False analogy. There's nothing against the notion of God's existence that defies every day common sense. It's a 50%-50%. As in, if you were to die now, existence of God has an equal chance.
No video is going to convince me that we have a theory of the universe that can make such predictions. Especially when the best theories we have contradict each other.
So any number coming out of this is going to be full of crap.
Looks you're afraid of watching it than anything else. Any reasonably logical person with an open mind would watch the video out of curiosity, if not in the interest of hearing all sides of the argument.
Thanks for letting me know where your closed mindset lies.
Afraid? I just won't waste my time for a video that cannot be correct. Otherwise it would have generated a Nobel prize.
So many logical fallacies in one sentence. Something has to be a Nobel Prize winner to be correct? Otherwise, it cannot be correct? Why is the Nobel Prize of any relevance in the first place?
The claim it so outrageous, that if proven true, would be the most important breakthrough in theoretical physics in the last 50 years. If there was anything to it, I would know about it and so would the Nobel prize committee.
Outrageous claims cannot be true? And if true, they must be winners of the Noble Prize, or for the better, must be known by you in advance?
They can be true. But if they were proven true, they would make such a big splash that someone who somewhat follows the literature, like me, could not miss it.
Then I guess you must have missed out on the Anthropic Principle or the multiverse theory, since they were brought up from the fine-tuning evidence.
In fact, if you even had the slightest idea of what you're talking about here, you'd easily find the above fine-tuning max. deviations in any number of literature out there, for an example:
In the book "God, Science and Mind By Dennis Polis" - they're given as follows:
The author goes and and states: "If the magnitude of the Big Bang had differed by as little as 1 part in 10^60, life would not evolved in the universe".
Wait... according to your logic: it must be not be correct since you haven't heard of it before, am I correct?
Hilarious. You either accept that fact that cosmic constants as such G just randomly happened to be fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^60, or they are so by intelligent design.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
To accept that the Universe is fine tunned, I would have to accept that another reality/Universe/entity was there beforehand, something you say there is no proof of,and have argued against, so your theory assumes the acceptance of a multi-verse of some kind where our norm is not the case.
or I can go with God's "I am that I am" and just accept that the Universe just is the way it is.
The Multiverse proposal coming out of String theory and the AP in this context are unproven conjectures. They are essentially trying to mask the failure of String theory to derive the vacuum of our universe. Trying to derive hard numbers from it is delusional.
To derive those, you need a working Grand Unified Theory. Nobody has that.
To derive those, you need a working Grand Unified Theory. Nobody has that.
Both false. The multiverse theory is pure speculative conjecture that will never have proof by definition.
To accept the why the universe is fine-tuned to a 1 part in 10^60 precision at minimum, you can either 1) believe that it happened by chance - a gigantic leap of faith or 2) believe that it was made so intrinsically by design - which brings up the question as to who designed it as such?
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
I tend to agree, but a fine tunned Universe has to have God somewhere for him to design it (implied multi verse), unless he is in our Universe which I tend to think he is, so we happen to live in a universe that happens to have a God you don't need Multi-verses, you only need our Universe
apart from the fact that God fine tunning the Universe is pure speculative conjecture
you can not have your cake and eat it too, as they say
but the fine tunned theory says that there is a good chance a universe would collapse if not the way it is, according to your video, so if that happened 10^60 times, to pick a random number, then our current universe is not fine tunned but probaly inevitable
Aside from being pure speculative conjecture, the multiverse theory raises more questions than it cares to answer. For example, how did the mechanism behind the multiverse come to be? Who designed it to pump out an endless number of universes? It requires laws and fine-tuning in itself.
10^60 is a huge number. To paint an analogy: grab 20 six-sided dice. Roll them every day, day & night nonstop for the rest of your life. You're highly likely to never roll all 6's.
And yet, the odds of getting a constant like G to within a life permitting range is 45 magnitudes lower, i.e 10^45. And we're supposed to think it's random? That's insane.
God does not need to (and lies outside the physical real of the universe). timtofly explained it pretty well above.
Again, your failure to conceive of random chance does not in any way disprove the theory that the universe was created by random chance.
However, even if we accept the idea that the universe was fine-tuned by some distant, higher power, you are making a vast logical leap to suddenly equate that power with God. That is justified absolutely nowhere in this long list of quadrillion-to-one chances you've posting as proof for your case.
However, even if we accept the idea that the universe was fine-tuned by some distant, higher power, you are making a vast logical leap to suddenly equate that power with God. That is justified absolutely nowhere in this long list of quadrillion-to-one chances you've posting as proof for your case.
Similar threads
- Locked
