The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Tigranes]

But these are false dichotomies. I believe in Socrates not because I can perform some kind of epistemological act distinct from the senses and reason. I use my senses to read Plato and other authors who describe Socrates. I use my reason to consider whether these reports should be trusted or not. I don't just decide to believe them (or not to believe them) distinct from my senses and reason. If that decision were distinct, as you suggest, then it would be arbitrary, because why should I choose to trust rather than mistrust, or to trust one report rather than another? As soon as you try to answer that question, you're using senses and reason.

You implicitly acknowledge this yourself when you talk about "trusting credible source". How do you distinguish between a credible source and one that isn't credible? By using your senses and reason, of course.

You also contradict yourself when you try to argue, as you did above, that the fine-tuning argument and similar arguments work - when you said that the chances of the universe being as it are are very tiny unless you invoke God as an explanation. That's an attempt to show that belief in God is rational. You can't then turn around and insist that belief in God has nothing to do with reason but instead comes from "the heart".

If you really held the strongly fideist view that belief in God is solely about "trust" and "the heart" and has nothing to do with the senses or reason, there'd be no point debating the question at all. You wouldn't even be able to give any explanation for believing in this god rather than that one.

Plotinus, Plotinus. ..
People calling you the smartest guy in the room trying to finish this debate. How can you call hierarchy a dichotomy? How can you read what I say and argue against it by ... reaffirming what I just said? Again: Now, senses are subservient to reason, they do not use reason -- reason uses them. Reason and senses are subservient to heart, they do not use moral right and wrong, heart is the one who considers all the available sources of obtaining the information in order to decide which moral opinion the person is going to form.

Of course your heart is using your senses and reason just like your father's, you both use everything available in choosing to trust or dismiss Jesus, and yet you both arrived to the different conclusions. In one case limited self recognized limitations and trusted the Message, in the other pride prevented to get on the knees.

 

[Perfection]

The presumption that it is pride that gets in the way of an atheist believing in God strikes me as a little arrogant.

 

[Borachio]

You really like parentheses, don't you ? Not a post goes by without familiar pattern: some cute puffy statement involving dear self, then something generally inclusive to feel good about self, then parenthesis to give opponent a cheek, and finally there is a mandatory twist, which makes you feel better on the expense of the opponent.

Eh? I do like parentheses, yes.

But as for the rest of your meta analysis, I couldn't really say. I just write down stuff as it occurs to me. (And the parentheses serve some kind of function that tells me at least, that I'm diverting from the main thrust).

Have you read The Fall by Albert Camus? Every time I engage in debates with you I feel like I am talking to Jean-Baptiste Clamence. "Pronounce to yourself the words that years later haven't ceased to resound through my nights, and which I will speak at last through your mouth: "O young girl, throw yourself again into the water so that I might have a second time the chance to save the two of us!" A second time, eh, what imprudence! Suppose, dear sir, someone actually took our word for it? It would have to be fulfilled. Brr...! the water is so cold! But let's reassure ourselves. It's too late now, it will always be too late. Fortunately!"

I have read La Chute, yes. But such a long time ago, unless it's slipped somehow into my subconscious, I don't think this is significant. Camus is in the category of philosophers too hard for me to understand.

As for the quote, is it from The Fall? I don't recognize it, which isn't surprising. Nor do I know what it means, or what you mean by quoting it at me.

How do I know? Well, our Father had informed us. I have chosen to trust bits of information made available to us, you have chosen to play your own god and define right from wrong. This is where we stand so far. You believe in self, I believe in Him.

And this is part of what I find so baffling about you, Mr Tigranes: you seem to play both sides at once over and over again.

"you have chosen to play your own god and define right from wrong" Really? I don't think so. Especially as I've repeatedly stated on this very forum that I don't know right from wrong, consider myself to be morally bankrupt, and that I know nothing for sure (hardly a god-like attribute, imo, though I flatter myself that it places a high value on truth).


"I have chosen to trust bits of information made available to us" doesn't tell me how you've chosen which bits to trust, or why you chose the bits you did.

I honestly can't see how you are any less "believing in yourself" than I am. In fact, I'd say you're believing in yourself a lot more. I'm saying I don't pretend to knowledge I don't have: I'm content to say I simply don't know, when I honestly don't. You're saying you've chosen to trust certain "bits of information".

My position at the moment is that the Bible is simply a rather arbitrary collection of more or less ancient texts, written by a bunch of people who may or may not have been sincere in their writing.

Why am I wrong? Explain it to me like I'm five years old.

I'm basically asking you the same question over and over. Why do you always seem to dodge the issue?

You believe in self, I believe in Him.

This looks nice. But what does it mean? It doesn't seem to me to mean anything at all. Unless it's some kind of veiled judgement on my character. Which is fine with me, if that's what it is.

Anyway, speaking of posting patterns, I've noticed one of yours, Mr Tigranes. You seem, to me, to studiously ignore me for a few pages and then, it seems, you can't help yourself but reply to something I've written. I don't object to being ignored at all. But why you reply to the output of mine that you do has me somewhat perplexed by its randomness. And yet you say that nothing random happens in the Universe and challenge us to produce something random. I present exhibit one to you: your own posting style.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'heart' Tigraines. Do you mean the limbic system?

 

[Tigranes]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'heart' Tigraines. Do you mean the limbic system?

Oh come on. How many times we need to go through the same thing. Remember the ice cream and broccoli?

 

[Tigranes]

The presumption that it is pride that gets in the way of an atheist believing in God strikes me as a little arrogant.

There is nothing ever convenient about truth. Do you have room for something even more striking? There are these people, you see, called Christians, perhaps the craziest people on planet Earth. They honestly believe their moral limitations were so grave that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. You either call yourself a good person who does not need to be saved and call God's opinion arrogant, or you risk being called names like arrogant while informing about God's opinion. Nothing new.

 

[Borachio]

Tell me again about the icecream and the broccoli.

I don't remember it. If I ever knew it.

 

[Tigranes]

Anyway, speaking of posting patterns, I've noticed one of yours, Mr Tigranes. You seem, to me, to studiously ignore me for a few pages and then, it seems, you can't help yourself but reply to something I've written. I don't object to being ignored at all. But why you reply to the output of mine that you do has me somewhat perplexed by its randomness. And yet you say that nothing random happens in the Universe and challenge us to produce something random. I present exhibit one to you: your own posting style.

Borachio ... in all honesty... Do you see how many years I was around here and how many you had? How many posts you have accumulated and how many I did? If you were the only person I chose to debate with -- even then there is not a slightest chance I could ever keep up with you. But I am the absolute minority in this thread and things we discuss put us in radically different categories. For you God is an abstract idea you might discuss at your leisure time -- for me He is my Father. We simply have different stakes in any discussions about God. "Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new." For you I am another more or less entertaining target to pass your time with debating/attacking, for me you are a fellow human hurting yourself in front of my eyes by rejecting God's love. Of course I get emotional and take break sometimes.

What you call being random is simply interference between limited time and taking everything I read and say very, very seriously. This only applies to religious [RD] threads, and, perhaps, things like Armenian genocide, in all the other threads I am pretty easy going.

 

[Borachio]

Pfft. Please! I've spent, or wasted, most of my life thinking about this very issue, and you dismiss it as an abstract idea I might discuss at my leisure!

But where I put a high value on truth and not pretending to knowledge I don't have, you're content with persuading yourself that by an effort of will you can believe in a pan-dimensional being with whom you have a personal relationship. Apparently.

 

[Arakhor]

There are these people, you see, called Christians, perhaps the craziest people on planet Earth. They honestly believe their moral limitations were so grave that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.

I don't think that all Christians believe in original sin, but other than that, believing that you have the inside-track on absolute morality is pretty much the defining trait of a great many religions.

 

[warpus]

That's why in order to participate in this discussion you should assume that we don't know whether God exists or not (even if that's not what you believe) - and attempt to use the fine-tuning argument for his existence to.. well, to show that he exists. Or show that the fine-tuning argument is bunk.

Anything else detracts from the discussion, especially people who assume that God exists in the first place. That's fine that you believe that - but for the purposes of this thread.. well... it kind of makes any comment you'll make here useless, no? We're not arguing whether God exists or not - we're discussing whether the "fine-turning" argument is bunk or not. And if you already assume that he exists - why the need for the fine-tuning argument?

 

[timtofly]

This is turning into a strange back and forth between people attempting to use reason and science to discuss the topic (as it should be), vs a deeply religious individual who is throwing Bible verses at them and taking the existence of God as something that's a given.

That's like a mute man and a blind man discussing contemporary art in a language they can't even themselves speak.

The problem is that some have not made it past belief to the knowledge step. Those who know God, can only be condescending like any other one who knows what they know, but cannot get that information across in a concrete way. I would like to see how science would work, if human thought input was taken away. Each human has too choose what they will accept, or won't accept. Any information is useless unless it is applied. That is why belief is so important, but yet belief is also useless withought knowledge.

 

[Sommerswerd]

And if you already assume that he exists - why the need for the fine-tuning argument?

Isn't that the whole point of the fine tuning argument? For people who already believe in God to try to step out of the faith-based self-affirming sphere and into the a reason based discussion where they try to prove God exists to people who refuse to just "believe" it?

 

[warpus]

Isn't that the whole point of the fine tuning argument? For people who already believe in God to try to step out of the faith-based self-affirming sphere and into the a reason based discussion where they try to prove God exists to people who refuse to just "believe" it?

The way you show that a proof/argument works - is you make 0 assumptions about the thing you are trying to prove - and work through the argument you're using and show that it undeniably leads to the thing. Then you say: "In conclusion, I've now shown that this argument is a solid one for the proof of the existence of God."

In essence, you start with a blank slate, you apply your argument, and you get your conclusion.

But instead there's people saying claptrap like "Well, it's obvious that God exists, isn't it?". That doesn't add anything to the discussion. Neither do random Bible quotes or "love" this or "faith" that. It has no impact on what we're supposed to be discussing.

In essence people who do that are making a mockery of this thread - by wandering in here, basically saying: "Well, this is all pretty obvious, eh - this argument we're supposed to be talking about? You don't even need it. That's silly. God just exists, okay?"

 

[Sommerswerd]

The way you show that a proof/argument works - is you make 0 assumptions about the thing you are trying to prove - and work through the argument you're using and show that it undeniably leads to the thing. Then you say: "In conclusion, I've now shown that this argument is a solid one for the proof of the existence of God."

In essence, you start with a blank slate, you apply your argument, and you get your conclusion.

But instead there's people saying claptrap like "Well, it's obvious that God exists, isn't it?". That doesn't add anything to the discussion. Neither do random Bible quotes or "love" this or "faith" that. It has no impact on what we're supposed to be discussing.

In essence people who do that are making a mockery of this thread - by wandering in here, basically saying: "Well, this is all pretty obvious, eh - this argument we're supposed to be talking about? You don't even need it. That's silly. God just exists, okay?"

I agree with everything you just said... However, it does not really respond to my question, at least it does not seem to. I am honestly asking if the Fine-tuning argument "belongs" primarily to the faithful, or if it is a "devil's advocate" kind of situation where "unbelievers" are talking to themselves... in other words, a strawman (of sorts).

Again, to be clear, I do agree with the general concept that those making a claim have the burden of proof.

 

[warpus]

Well, it doesn't belong to anyone, it's just an argument. Some people have taken it on as an argument they decided to use - to show that God exists. So in that sense that particular use of the argument "is theirs". But it really isn't. Nobody owns arguments. I mean, the strength or weakness of the argument isn't going to change depending on how many people think that it is a good argument. An argument just is.. and it is up to us to look at it, discuss it, and offer our opinions on how good or how crappy it is.

 

[Tigranes]

I don't think that all Christians believe in original sin, but other than that, believing that you have the inside-track on absolute morality is pretty much the defining trait of a great many religions.

I never implied anything about original sin, which deserves it's own topic. By the time person can make an informed decision to become a Christian he already knows his moral limitations and need for reconciliation.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's commonly what's meant by Original Sin, that we're all latently sinful by our nature. But it's quite important to clarify why someone thinks we're like that, I guess.

Oh come on. How many times we need to go through the same thing. Remember the ice cream and broccoli?

I do now! I remember enjoying it!

Try reverse engineering. Basically look at yourself to gain some insight about God, because no matter what you believe about Him you are still His image and likeness. You stand in front of the homeless hungry kid with broccoli in one hand and ice cream in another. Your body craves ice cream, your mind tells you brocolli is healthier choice, your heart tells you giving both to the kid and getting none could be the right thing to do. But it is still just one you outthere.

So, is it your heart that tells you to love a God that tortures people for eternity for doing something He'd know they'd do before He even created Him?

Is it your heart that tells you that this is what God is?

I mean, surely your mind tells you there's basically no evidence for whether God tortures souls for eternity, but it's your heart that forces you to choose to love the morally questionable god?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I mean, the strength or weakness of the argument isn't going to change depending on how many people think that it is a good argument.

I disagree, and I think the current argument is a good example... which brings me back to my question.

If the 'Fine-tuning' argument has been developed primarily by scholars who have a vested interest in proving God exists then they will continue to refine and improve the argument, and therefore strengthen the quality of fodder for those who are less leaned than they, but still want to espouse "their" argument... and as more people join that "side" there is a greater chance that some will be scholars with the knowledge to strengthen the argument.

On the other hand, I suspect that if the origin of the Fine-tuning argument was with non-believing scholars, with little interest in "proving" god's existence, but instead only intending to create stimulating philosophical debate, then the proponents of Fine tuning are in a sense "drawing dead" or at least drawing from a much more shallow well (ie the argument is stagnant and will not improve with time)... At least that is how it seems, which is why I asked.

I guess this might be the kind of thing Plotinus would know off the top of his head... Then again maybe it has already been answered in this thread and I just missed it...

 

[warpus]

I don't think it matters who thought up the argument initially - What matters more is what the OP wrote in the first message in the thread.

In the end the argument is bunk, and so it doesn't really matter who thought it up. It just isn't a very good argument.

Why do you disagree that the strength or weakness of an argument doesn't depend on how many people agree with it?