The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[bhavv]

I like to step in to say that there are definitely things to be felt and seen beyond the ordinary human experience which perhaps most of humans are only dimly aware or perhaps not at all. The fact that its not mainstream human experience doesnt make it less true. But also its important to be aware that although one can come across unusal phenomena its impossible to do proper evaluation of it unless one studies it properly to its full extent. Until then it can be missunderstood or rejected on false grounds.

Yes you mean dreams and hallucinations.

 

[Tigranes]

So, Mr Tigranes, you have chosen to be on the Inside - by your own lights - and everyone who you deem disagrees with you has chosen to be on the Outside?

There is absolutely no need to place a tongue in cheek. It's not me, it's you who left the church.

 

[warpus]

Can you not see this?

Well yes, you are right to a degree, having looked your points over again. However, they closely point towards Christianity. What is also flawed is the argument you use to point towards Christianity after having looked at your assumptions.

In essence I don't think it doesn't make sense to to introduce Christianity into this conversation at all. I responded to you initially because you seemed to have been saying that "a fine-tuning" argument could be used to point to Christianity itself and not just a vague concept of "God".

I disagree that the fine-tuning argument can be in any way used (right now) to point to the idea of God.. so I find it being used to point to Christianity as a couple levels more erroneous.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Yes you mean dreams and hallucinations.

Dreams are something common although there are some kinds out of ordinary too. I am talking rather about experiences of expanded consciousness brought about without use of chemical substances and mainly effectuated by psychological dynamics of inner consciousness.

 

[Borachio]

There is absolutely no need to place a tongue in cheek. It's not me, it's you who left the church.

Are you sure? Are you really sure that it's you in the church and me outside it?

As for the tongue in cheek, I don't know what you mean. I'm being very serious here.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well yes, you are right to a degree, having looked your points over again. However, they closely point towards Christianity. What is also flawed is the argument you use to point towards Christianity after having looked at your assumptions.

In essence I don't think it doesn't make sense to to introduce Christianity into this conversation at all. I responded to you initially because you seemed to have been saying that "a fine-tuning" argument could be used to point to Christianity itself and not just a vague concept of "God".

I disagree that the fine-tuning argument can be in any way used (right now) to point to the idea of God.. so I find it being used to point to Christianity as a couple levels more erroneous.

Again we agree, however let me use another illustration.

If I want to talk to you about "which is more powerful... Thor's Hammer, Iron Man's hand blasters, or Captain America's shield?", and you respond by saying "Well, all those guys are some made up, BS so I don't see how we can discuss which is more powerful, the assumption that they exist is erroneous in-and-of-itself"... Then I would say "Sure Warpus, of course I agree with you, however, can't you suspend your disbelief, so we can discuss the physics of Iron-Man's blasters or the hypothetical metalurgical composition of Cap America's shield? For fun?"

Don't you ever do that? Suspend disbelief to discuss imaginary things like Star Trek or Videogames? Or are you one of those guys who says "How fast ships move in Civ is irrelevant, cause they're not real ships!! Assuming they are real is erroneous!!"

 

[warpus]

I mean, we can assume that the Mayan model of the universe is correct, and discuss what that means for the validity of the fine-tuning argument, and that might be interesting to talk about. But when someone who actually believes that the Mayan model of the universe is correct brings up the point, it makes you wonder about the intentions a bit. I mean, they could have very well used Thor as an example instead to make their point.

Since the fine-tuning argument is too weak to even support the idea of a vague God.. it seems odd to focus on one particular example of God - which would require a stronger argument. If your argument is too weak to support a statement, you usually make your conclusions more vague - not more specific. You seemed to do the opposite, and that stood out for me, which is why I said something.

 

[Tigranes]

I'd point out that the belief that you can tell whether you have the Holy Spirit or not by whether you can feel it is the Messalian heresy - but hasn't this got unhelpfully off-topic enough as it is?

The sect's teaching asserted that:

The essence (ousia) of the Trinity could be perceived by the carnal senses.

The word "feel" I used referred to intimate inner realization, not any evidence produced by 5 carnal senses.

 

[bhavv]

Dreams are something common although there are some kinds out of ordinary too. I am talking rather about experiences of expanded consciousness brought about without use of chemical substances and mainly effectuated by psychological dynamics of inner consciousness.

So you mean vivid dreams and hallucinations without drugs that lead you to believe what you saw was real.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So you mean vivid dreams and hallucinations without drugs that lead you to believe what you saw was real.

What are you trying to argue? That human consciousness is a stagnant pool of set and totally limited experiences? That would go against evolution as well as ordinary common observation.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I mean, we can assume that the Mayan model of the universe is correct, and discuss what that means for the validity of the fine-tuning argument, and that might be interesting to talk about. But when someone who actually believes that the Mayan model of the universe is correct brings up the point, it makes you wonder about the intentions a bit. I mean, they could have very well used Thor as an example instead to make their point.

Since the fine-tuning argument is too weak to even support the idea of a vague God.. it seems odd to focus on one particular example of God - which would require a stronger argument. If your argument is too weak to support a statement, you usually make your conclusions more vague - not more specific. You seemed to do the opposite, and that stood out for me, which is why I said something.

Believe me, I don't want to stop at Christianity. After Christianity we can move on to Islam, Hinduism, Mayans, whatever... Christianity just seemed like the best place to start since there are actually people in the discussion defending Christianity, and also its the religion I know the most about.

You can probably tell by now that I am speculating that none of the religions are compatible with Fine Tuning. How can they be? Aside from people engaging in pure philisophy for its own sake, Fine Tuning is argued by two types:

1. Skeptics and/orScientifically minded who are trying to acheive common ground with theists. Its works almost like an olive branch... that based on some higher math/physics theory they can entertain that God exists in some abstract sense.

2. Religious people trying to justify their own religion to the scientifically minded, who reject purely scriptural/faith based arguments and insist on more scientific ones.

But since Fine Tuning is not compatible with any religion, the people in that latter group just invalidate their own religion when they make the Fine Tuning argument.

 

[Crackerbox]

The original post is such an old chestnut. First, if something is made before there is any reference to Time through the orbits of planets around stars (suns), then to any limited lifeform such as ourselves who define time into segements becomes meaningless.

Regardless, there is the thought that the Universe is likened to two balloons connected to one another. The first is full of expanding material which then collapses and fills the other balloon. This cycles endlessly and there's no reason to believe that it's only two "balloons".

Such Universe contructs could be thought of as perpetual and eternal, and none of these takes into account the multiverse theory of infinite Universes that also could be eternally coming into being.

As a devout Christian, I rather laugh at people who debate God's existence as a mechanism for conversion. Prostheltizing is an active means of persuasion and is about caring about the individual. The means to recognize God is through faith and love, not an intellectual process any more than one's love for one's Beloved is an intellectual process. The result of that kind of debate is about poking holes in the sentence of others, something that is never about love, but about tearing down the logical fallacies of another.

Let's presume that it could be definitely proven that God exists because the mechanism for the creation of the Universe meant that only a Deity could create something from nothing. Then this would evaporate the notion of choosing to believe in God. If we cannot freely choose to believe in God, then our relationship is as meaningless as one who is forced by circumstances to be married to another. That's a form of Rape, or at least subjugation, and hence by definition such intellectual arguments persuade not one single soul in the final analysis.

No amount of intellectual effort, mild or monumental, will persuade you to believe that someone loves you. You take it on faith that they love you. As such, to try to prove the existence of Being itself, which is the Hebrew origins of Yahweh (I am), by Yahweh's lifeforms who are not All-Knowing by definition means we cannot EVER have the all of the facts either to prove God's love for us or even God's existence. That's faith, just as we have faith that our Beloved loves us by defintion. It's a leap of faith into Love.

On any given day, because we are fallible weak inconstant creatures, we can doubt that the Beloved loves us. That's especially true because they too are fallible weak inconstant creatures. But with God, whether you believe in God or think of only a god (a multicultural concept defined loosely throughout the history of fallible weak inconstant creatures), if you accept the possibility that God could exist in theory, then there remains the chance that such Being (the very definition of EXISTENCE) could love you and know the number of hairs on your head.

If you deny it's possible, then that's faith just as you deny that someone loves you. You can prove neither but especially by philosophical definition you cannot prove the existence of God without having explored every possible part of the Multiverse. And even that presumes that God exists within the Universe (and not the theory that God is the Universe i.e. Pantheism).

Say it was such that Humanity had All Knowledge and knew every dark corner of the Multiverse. We possessed a complete exploration of it ALL. Say we had incontravertible evidence that God existed. Well, if that were so, then how then could we ever truly say we loved God? We would believe because we had to in order to preserve an eternal life. What kind of love would that be but insipid?

My apologies in advance to my extremely Orthodox Jewish readers, for whom each instance of the Hebrew word for God is blasphemy. Substitute Adonai in my sentences if so offended.

 

[El_Machinae]

What do you mean by 'incompatible' Sommerswerd? How so?

 

[Plotinus]

TLet's presume that it could be definitely proven that God exists because the mechanism for the creation of the Universe meant that only a Deity could create something from nothing. Then this would evaporate the notion of choosing to believe in God. If we cannot freely choose to believe in God, then our relationship is as meaningless as one who is forced by circumstances to be married to another.

I don't think anyone does "choose" to believe (or not to believe) in God. I don't believe in God, but not because I choose not to - I don't believe in him because it seems to me very unlikely that he exists. I have no control over the fact that it seems to me unlikely that God exists. I couldn't "choose" to start believing in God any more than I could "choose" to start believing in Father Christmas, no matter how much I might wish to. And similarly, I don't think that a person who does believe in God could just "choose" to stop believing in him.

One might choose to put faith and trust in God - or not to do so - just as one might choose to put faith and trust in another person. But that assumes that one already thinks that God exists, just as I can't choose whether to trust (say) a friend unless I think that that person exists. But whether or not I think that someone exists isn't a matter of my choice.

 

[Crackerbox]

I don't think anyone does "choose" to believe (or not to believe) in God. I don't believe in God, but not because I choose not to - I don't believe in him because it seems to me very unlikely that he exists. I have no control over the fact that it seems to me unlikely that God exists. I couldn't "choose" to start believing in God any more than I could "choose" to start believing in Father Christmas, no matter how much I might wish to. And similarly, I don't think that a person who does believe in God could just "choose" to stop believing in him.

One might choose to put faith and trust in God - or not to do so - just as one might choose to put faith and trust in another person. But that assumes that one already thinks that God exists, just as I can't choose whether to trust (say) a friend unless I think that that person exists. But whether or not I think that someone exists isn't a matter of my choice.

Do you choose to love another or it just happens? So you have no autonomy? The issue I see perpetually is people debate about God, fully knowing it's a concept that cannot be proven, so it's a pointless exercise.

The only valid way to elevate the discussion respecfully is to consider that since it's not a proveable concept, to consider that the logical quandry is a failure of definition. To me, this is about respect of belief systems: the belief system of the atheist and the belief system of the believer. The atheist is using faith but won't admit to it. The believer vainly thinks holy phrases from sacred texts are logical arguments when those texts are disputed by the nonbeliever. Both simply have faith or lack of faith.

We chose to believe all manner of things for we have affinity for them. That's for ideas and for relationships.

There's no juice in engaging in a pointless unprovable exercise on an Internet forum, but to engage with someone, contend as Jacob wrestles with the angel, that's a noble human endeavor to hone our intellect. It's a mistake to transform that into something like belief, which is really a relational and not logical process. You don't love your wife out of logic. It's a choice to relationally enter into a covenant, just as friendship is a similar model. Belief in God, or deciding the god doesn't exist is precisely the same thing. It's about afinity and what the heart says, not the mind.

If enlightened, and not merely justifying our relationships, then we don't blindly profess a belief in say liberal Democratic ideas but instead integrate our mind, heart, and spirit such that belief (heart) and mind (brain) are integrated into soul (spirit).

One can say, "I didn't choose to believe in God, it was self-evident..." or something like that, but that's not really true of relationships, is it? For a believer, an idea takes on a life, and whether you agree or disagree with that, whether this idea is a political, spritual, or romantic one, it's the same.

Enlightened debate is not about proving or disproving ideas. That's a misnomer. These great ideas can't be proven. It's a futile endeavor. The joy is in understanding the Other and in honing our own beliefs in that process.

And the capitalization of God/decapitalization of god is rather unimaginitive monotonous droning chant to dispel the other without any effort. It's an impotent action. We're not debating about god. If God is only a god, then it doesn't matter. If all power itself is nothing more than a human construct, why bother discussing it? It has no importance anymore or power.

No the debate is about God as a valid idea that exists in reality as well as the history of that idea of BEING.

Say you take the tack that you're powerless to enter into a relationship with God, for to you it's nothing more than the Easter Bunny or flying spagetti monster. That's actually nonsensical and an abuse of the rule of debate by invoking the Appeal to Ridicule. It's a sign of a defeat to make such appeals. It's also ignoring the topic by converting it from a discussion of God to a discussion of god. It's rather like instead of discussing Ethics you switch the topic to a reality tv show. In addition, you're violating the argumentum ad lapidem, the appeal to the stone, by assuming an idea is absurd without proving it's absurd. Honestly, why can't atheists do more in a debate than make a whole series of fallacies?

 

[Sommerswerd]

That's actually nonsensical and an abuse of the rule of debate by invoking the Appeal to Ridicule. It's a sign of a defeat to make such appeals. It's also ignoring the topic by converting it from a discussion of God to a discussion of god. It's rather like instead of discussing Ethics you switch the topic to a reality tv show. In addition, you're violating the argumentum ad lapidem, the appeal to the stone, by assuming an idea is absurd without proving it's absurd. Honestly, why can't atheists do more in a debate than make a whole series of fallacies?

Well I did repeatedly offer to advance the discussion by accepting the premise of the existence of God for the sake of discussion, and instead debating whether the Bible/Christianity was consistent with the tenets of fine tuning...But no believers took me up on it so...

 

[warpus]

I didn't choose to believe that my parents exist, I just do. Clearly they either exist or someone's playing a crazy trick on me. Same with all the other stuff I believe.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I didn't choose to believe that my parents exist, I just do. Clearly they either exist or someone's playing a crazy trick on me. Same with all the other stuff I believe.

But since you weren't there when your parents were born there is no way you can say you know that they caused you to come into existence. Clearly you just accept that they birthed you on faith in what they or others tell you. It's basically the same as religious faith. I think that is what Cracker box is trying to get you to understand... .. .. .

Or as Unicorny (or was it Tigranes?) might say, its an "uncaused cause"... or a "known unknown" to borrow a phrase from a former Presidential cabinet member...

 

[warpus]

But since you weren't there when your parents were born there is no way you can say you know that they caused you to come into existence. Clearly you just accept that they birthed you on faith in what they or others tell you. It's basically the same as religious faith. I think that is what Cracker box is trying to get you to understand... .. .. .

Well, no, not really in any way I can imagine.

I have pictures of my parents holding me in the hospital, my grandmother's testimony, my relatives all agree that my parents are indeed my parents, and so on.

A reasonable claim - and reasonable evidence backing it up with.

I don't know how what you're saying, even if it were true, would in any way suggest that I chose to believe that my parents are my parents. It would suggest a conspiracy against me by my entire family, but that's about it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Because as you have already been told...There is no "evidence" but revelation

Spoiler :