The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Sommerswerd]

If you assume that the Bible is correct, well then.. of course.

However, I was under the impression you were only assuming that God exists. If you only assume that, there are a lot more possibilities.

I was assuming points 1, 2 and 3 of this and wanting to discuss point 4

Spoiler :

The point of the Fine-Tuning Argument is:

1. People have incorrectly interpreted scientific discovery to mean that there is no morality or purpose to life. The reality is that scientific discovery has actually proven that there is a God who put all of the scientific processes in place.

2. God's creation is perfectly, finely-tuned for his beloved human creation. It is the beings that God has created, Humans and Angels, who have through their free will, made imperfect decisions and thereby corrupted God's perfect design. If humans lived in accordance with God's perfect will, we would be in accordance with God's perfect design, and the universe would function perfectly, exactly as God has designed it to.

3. Therefore, everyone must pick a religion. A religion in favor of a God or a religion against God. There is no such thing as non-faith. Everyone believes in something. It is a matter of choosing the correct belief rather than choosing what can be so-called "proven."

4. The correct religion is Christianity, which is the belief in God and his only begotten son Jesus Christ who was sent by God to give his blood for all man's sins as described in the Bible book of John chapter 3 verse 16.

Remember that I (unlike you and Plotinus) see no inherrent value in the existence of God. To me the existence of God is only meaningful if God has some purpose for humanity. If we are just a byproduct of God's Big Bang labortatory/experiment/machine then I don't see any reason to be concerned with God or any reason God would be concerned with us.

So assuming the above (in the spoiler) means that Christianity (and the Bible) must be consistent with Fine Tuning. If God exists and Christianity is not consistent with Fine Tuning, then you have to either reject Fine-tuning or you have to reject Christianity.

If you accept Fine Tuning, then you have to accept the Big Bang, and evolution at a minimum right? So then the Bible has to be consistent with that, or Christianity is wrong.

Now if you reject Fine Tuning you can also, if you choose, reject evolution, the Big bang, all of it. But then the discussion ends, because that is the point of the thread.

 

[Plotinus]

There's ample evidence which demonstrates conclusively that the New Testament scriptures were severely altered by the Church of Rome.

There really, really isn't.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, presumably there had to be some sort of selection process, deciding which books to include in the Bible and which not, and there was almost certainly some politics to that selection.

atheists removing prayer from schools (since 1963 violent crime has increased 544% in USA)

You're not even trying to be impartial now, are you?

 

[El_Machinae]

Remember that I (unlike you and Plotinus) see no inherrent value in the existence of God. To me the existence of God is only meaningful if God has some purpose for humanity. If we are just a byproduct of God's Big Bang labortatory/experiment/machine then I don't see any reason to be concerned with God or any reason God would be concerned with us.

Well, the interesting bit kicks in once you assume additional attributes. I think Plot clarifies that here.

I would have thought that if we could establish that there exists an immaterial, immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect Creator of the universe, then that would be a pretty interesting result irrespective of whether it conforms to any particular religion. It would surely be more interesting and important, and tell us more about the nature of the universe, than discovering the Higgs boson.

I think we all recognize that there's still an enormous leap from 'humans were created intentionally' and 'God is benign'. For all intents and purposes, the mice in my cages were called into existence to fulfill my whims, but the grander purpose of their suffering is not for their benefit. And I barely care about their moral behaviour.

I have seen this reproach many times, which simply reasserts a simple Biblical fact -- paradise has been lost as a garden and has to be reclaimed as a new city. We are born into the world which God gave to humans and humans gave to their spiritual enemy. That's why stakes are so high. That's why even this debate is not a waste of time. That's why we pray -- may your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Your father gave you a shiny new car, but you gave the keys to your whacked enemy, who is posing like your buddy, and you both crashed the good car into a good tree.

You should surely know that this does not resonate. There never was a paradise. The Rabbi warns about building on a house of sand! But the next bit is interesting.

You are called to join guerilla anti-death spiritual fight under the banner of the Cross, weapon of curse and painful death, which became symbol of everlasting life. If there is faith -- there will be real hope and real love which you can feel right here, in the midst of the battle, like billions of you older comrades who have joined the fight before you and lived purpose driven life, making this earth so much a better place. Behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Claim it, before it is too late. For all we know we might not get tomorrow.

There's a subset of people's instincts that likes to fight an enemy (I certainly have that instinct when I ask people to help me fight death, and treat it like an enemy). The Norse bump it up a notch, since our souls are used to fight at Ragnarok. I'm more exposed to the Evangelical Christian of their spiritual fight, where they think that praying is an active way of hindering demons, but that it's an ongoing process.

 

[bhavv]

If God was real, why would he create homosexuals?

 

[El_Machinae]

To test, a la the Milgram Experiment, if people would mistreat them based on some book.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, presumably there had to be some sort of selection process, deciding which books to include in the Bible and which not, and there was almost certainly some politics to that selection.

There was nothing nearly as formal as that. It was a largely organic process that took place over a long time. Churches basically used the books they had, and the canon formed out of that. The only real criterion, to the extent that there was one, was whether a book was apostolic or not.

Still, it's one thing to talk about the "selection process", quite another to say that the texts themselves were "severely altered", as Unicorny did.

 

[bhavv]

In general there are some 20%+ non religious people in the USA. Yet in prison demographics less than 1% of prisoners identify themselves as atheists.

So checkmate Tigranes.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If God was real, why would he create homosexuals?

We see flaws in nature but how do you determine it doesnt serve some purpose? One could say if God was real why we wouldnt just know it? But then again it can just be a purpose that we arrive at this knowledge through a process quite similar to that of a conscious evolution.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

In general there are some 20%+ non religious people in the USA. Yet in prison demographics less than 1% of prisoners identify themselves as atheists.

So checkmate Tigranes.

Just like when ones life is under threat so also in prison one tends to look for higher force to save and guide him...I think you just lost a piece.

 

[warpus]

2. God's creation is perfectly, finely-tuned for his beloved human creation. It is the beings that God has created, Humans and Angels, who have through their free will, made imperfect decisions and thereby corrupted God's perfect design. If humans lived in accordance with God's perfect will, we would be in accordance with God's perfect design, and the universe would function perfectly, exactly as God has designed it to.

..

So assuming the above (in the spoiler) means that Christianity (and the Bible) must be consistent with Fine Tuning. If God exists and Christianity is not consistent with Fine Tuning, then you have to either reject Fine-tuning or you have to reject Christianity.

Yeah, if you're assuming that Christianity is true, which is what you're pretty much doing in point #2, then Christianity is true.

A fine tuned universe in no way implies Christianity though, even if it implied God. Could have been a completely different God. I mean, it doesn't, but let's say it did - the God could have been Zorg, Steve, Allah, an Incan God, a Hindu God, some sort of God we have never heard of, or whoever.

It in no way implies the Christian God unless you first assume that Christianity is true - which is sort of cheating. I mean, I can assume Hinduism to be true, and then proudly proclaim that Hinduism is true, due to my assumptions. But that doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

[Borachio]

If God was real, why would he create homosexuals?

Even more poignantly, why would she create atheists?

 

[warpus]

Even more poignantly, why would she create atheists?

Not even that, why would he create people who create thousands of different religions and then punish the followers of all religions but 1 - for all eternity?

I've got news for you "God" - this ain't a game or a joke.

 

[Borachio]

But that's the thing: which religion, or even anti-religion, is the right one?

Could it be that none of them is? Perish the thought!

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I've got news for you "God" - this ain't a game or a joke.

I wouldnt be so sure...

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah, if you're assuming that Christianity is true, which is what you're pretty much doing in point #2, then Christianity is true.

A fine tuned universe in no way implies Christianity though, even if it implied God. Could have been a completely different God. I mean, it doesn't, but let's say it did - the God could have been Zorg, Steve, Allah, an Incan God, a Hindu God, some sort of God we have never heard of, or whoever.

It in no way implies the Christian God unless you first assume that Christianity is true - which is sort of cheating. I mean, I can assume Hinduism to be true, and then proudly proclaim that Hinduism is true, due to my assumptions. But that doesn't really get us anywhere.

I think you misread point #2. Nothing about point #2 assumes Christianity is true. Point 2 assumes that the purpose of creation is mankind, creation is perfect, and it is human beings that have screwed up creation by following the wrong beliefs.

So that brings us back to my point. If we assume God, and Fine Tuning, then Christianity has to be consistent with Fine tuning to be correct. If it is not then it is the wrong religion.

Well, the interesting bit kicks in once you assume additional attributes. I think Plot clarifies that here.

Originally Posted by Plotinus
I would have thought that if we could establish that there exists an immaterial, immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect Creator of the universe, then that would be a pretty interesting result irrespective of whether it conforms to any particular religion. It would surely be more interesting and important, and tell us more about the nature of the universe, than discovering the Higgs boson.

I have tremendous respect for Plotinus, but that particular quote is just an unqualified assertion. So in this rare case I find the statement unpersuasive. I dont find the existence of an "immaterial, immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect Creator of the universe" interesting at all, unless said creator "wants" something. If God is just "watching" or worse ... just turned on the machine and left to do something else... then my attitude about the existence of God is summed up as ...

 

[Sommerswerd]

sry doub post

 

[warpus]

I think you misread point #2. Nothing about point #2 assumes Christianity is true. Point 2 assumes that the purpose of creation is mankind, creation is perfect, and it is human beings that have screwed up creation by following the wrong beliefs.

Your assumptions mirror Christianity very closely.

It's no surprise then that these assumptions then lead you to conclude that Christianity must be true - you pretty much assumed it to begin with.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I dont find the existence of an "immaterial, immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect Creator of the universe" interesting at all, unless said creator "wants" something. If God is just "watching" or worse ... just turned on the machine and left to do something else... then my attitude about the existence of God is summed up as ...

I dont know where you get the idea that God doesnt want something. Literally everyone wants something W hats wrong with God?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Your assumptions mirror Christianity very closely.

It's no surprise then that these assumptions then lead you to conclude that Christianity must be true - you pretty much assumed it to begin with.

First of all, I think that you are completely missing and mis-reading my intent. From your comments it seems like you have somehow gotten it into your mind that I am convinced of and/or am trying to convince people of the rightness of Christianity. If that is what you think then maybe a re-reading of my posts would be in order.

I enjoy talking to you Warpus, so I think I need to clarify my approach. I do not think that Fine Tuning proves God. I am skeptical about God in general, moreover if there was proof of God, which there is not in my opinion, there is still no proof that God cares a hoot about humanity. I reject religion wholesale as a sham and a farce designed to control humanity, although I do recognize religion does do some good in the world for various reasons. I am certain that you and I agree 100% or at least 95% on all of this.

Now, that being said, I am open and willing to being persuaded that my beliefs are wrong/flawed etc. The conversation about the existence of God is becoming redundant as Plotinus has pretty much addresed all the points and nobody is going to be "convinced" of anything else right now, including me.

So now I want to move on. That is why I introduced the "points" that I was willing to just assume were "proved" for the sake of argument so I can stop arguing about whether God exists. I now want to discuss whether Christianity is consistent with Fine-Tuning and therefore the correct religion. Care to join me?

Point #4 mirrors Christianity, not point #2. Point 2 is consistent with many religions, Christianity included, which is why I follow up with points #3 and #4. Point 4 is the very foundation of Christianity. Can you not see this? How familiar are you with Christianity versus other religions? Have you always been a skeptic or did you start out Christian, etc? That might be a quick explanation of why you think point 2 is identical to Christianity...maybe you just arent that familiar with Christianity?

I dont know where you get the idea that God doesnt want something. Literally everyone wants something W hats wrong with God?

Huh I already said that for the purposes of this argument I agree with you, why are you asking me? I already said that for God's existence to matter God must have some purpose for humanity. Care to explain how the Bible proves Fine-Tuning? That is what I am asking about.