The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Plotinus]

The point is that rationalists claim they cannot find God, or lack evidence of proof of God (which is what this topic is about), and I'm saying that they're using the wrong part of their being to be found by God. All relationships come through the heart. Only some really cold person sets up a relationship based upon logic, "Come dear, be my spouse because it is logical. Love isn't important."

This is a caricature of the sceptic's position. Certainly a loving relationship is based on more than cold logic and evidence, but it's not contradictory to logic and evidence either. For example, if my wife spent her time bitterly denouncing me, beating me up, and cheating on me, I'd probably conclude that she doesn't love me. This would be a conclusion based on the evidence. That's rather a clinical way of describing it, but that's what it would be. If, on the other hand, my wife spent her time giving me presents, saying that she loves me, and putting up with me spending all my spare moments bickering with people on the Internet, I might think that she does love me. That too is a conclusion based on evidence. And yes, I'll agree that there's more to it than that; but it doesn't contradict that. No-one will believe that someone loves them/doesn't love them if the person's behaviour is inconsistent with this belief. And if they do believe it, they're deluded, like Crysania's belief that Raistlin loves her really even though he treats her callously.

Now it sounds like you're saying that religious belief has nothing to do with evidence or how the situation seems. In that case you're saying that religious belief isn't really like a loving relationship at all. A person who believes that their spouse loves them even though they never perceive any behaviour from their spouse to indicate this, and indeed never even see their spouse at all or have any good reason to think they even have a spouse, is not a person with a "healthy heart", as you call it. But this seems to be more closely analogous to the picture you're painting of religious belief.

You're basically denying that religious belief has any cognitive element at all. But that's just as unrealistic as the opposite mistake that it's purely cognitive and has no affective element. It's got both. Your loving response to God has to be based, or at least presuppose, some kind of intellectual assent to God's existence, or it's simply irrational - and, worse, arbitrary. Because why make a loving response to God, and not to Allah, or Brahma, or for that matter Satan, or indeed Manwë?

A lot of skeptics will want to believe in God by evidence, but rather it's a relationship based upon faith. But the secret is that we cannot find God and approach the Light and so be called because of FEAR of their deeds being disclosed. If we freely admit that we sinned, not to be condemned by our actions, but rather that we "missed the target", and ask to approach the Light, not fearing our deeds that cannot earn our way into Heaven, then we can be be called. Some people hate the Light and so cannot approach it.

Here again, the problem is that I can't "ask to approach the Light" if I don't think it's there. It's a serious error to think that people refuse to do this purely because they "hate the Light". I don't hate the Light at all, I just don't think it exists. If I did think it existed I'd certainly want to approach it. But given that I don't, I can't rationally ask to approach it - indeed I don't think I can ask this at all in any meaningful way.

 

[Crackerbox]

And so you're lost in Darkness. Skeptics would rather dwell there than with God. That's your choice. If you can't consider that God might be real, submit yourself to God and ask for the forgiveness of your sins, but want logical proof of God without you forsaking the darkness, then why would you ever encounter God?

It's like trying to take a boat ride into the sky. The mind is not the vehicle to find God, it's the heart. This is the beginning of the journey. Jesus stands at the door. God will open that door if you but submit to this tiny thing.

I find it intriguing that someone who studies theology professionally then can't do this small thing as it's so basic and small.

Jesus calls upon us to love the Lord with all our mind, body, and soul...but you can't do that unless you first begin with the heart. It's not that we only use our hearts in faith. It's not faith alone. Faith is the beginning to allow the call, not the sum total of being a Christian. All along I've said that you need to apply the sum totality of your being to love God who is BEING and this is demonstrated by altruistic love of other's being. That's done with heart, mind, and soul...not just the heart.

Spoiler :

7“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

Matthew 7
9“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

God is not denying you this privildge. God does not ask you to be perfect or enlightened. God demands though that you humble yourself and forsake the Darkess.

 

[PhroX]

This is a caricature of the sceptic's position. Certainly a loving relationship is based on more than cold logic and evidence, but it's not contradictory to logic and evidence either. For example, if my wife spent her time bitterly denouncing me, beating me up, and cheating on me, I'd probably conclude that she doesn't love me. This would be a conclusion based on the evidence. That's rather a clinical way of describing it, but that's what it would be. If, on the other hand, my wife spent her time giving me presents, saying that she loves me, and putting up with me spending all my spare moments bickering with people on the Internet, I might think that she does love me. That too is a conclusion based on evidence. And yes, I'll agree that there's more to it than that; but it doesn't contradict that. No-one will believe that someone loves them/doesn't love them if the person's behaviour is inconsistent with this belief. And if they do believe it, they're deluded, like Crysania's belief that Raistlin loves her really even though he treats her callously.

it's interesting you use a fictional example of believing someone loves you even if their behaviour is inconsistent with that premise, as it happens a lot in reality. Have a look at the testimonies of victims of domestic abuse. Believing that the perpetrator truly loves them despite the verbal, physical and sexual abuse. Believing that they, not the abuser is ultimately responsible. These are common beliefs amongst people (usually, thought not by any means exclusively, women) who have been in long term abusive relationships.

And having written that, I've realised that it has some rather....unpleasant implications for those that believe God loves them even if there is no evidence from his behaviour that he does, particularly the point about the victim believing it's their fault. That certainly wasn't the intention when I wrote that, I simply wanted point out that it happens in reality, not just fiction.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

@ Crackerbox Christianity isnt my cup of tea but you are good. Have you considered to do this profesionaly?

 

[Perfection]

For my relationships, love and logic compliment and inform each other. There's no conflict between the two. Whereas for me to believe in a personal God I would have to lose my greater awe in the systems of nature. I refuse to lose that beauty in my life for a shallow illusion.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

For my relationships, love and logic compliment and inform each other. There's no conflict between the two. Whereas for me to believe in a personal God I would have to lose my greater awe in the systems of nature. I refuse to lose that beauty in my life for a shallow illusion.

Well if God is the originator of what you already admire maybe He is worthy to be known as well....

 

[Perfection]

But He isn't, nature isn't so quaint to have a person at the helm.

 

[Crackerbox]

@ Crackerbox Christianity isnt my cup of tea but you are good. Have you considered to do this profesionaly?

I submitted myself to God's Will, and did every volunteer activity for even from the earliest age I saw in scripture that it was altruism over and over again that we were called to show to account for our beliefs. Then I finally sacrificed everything to work for God for a time. I no longer professionally work for God but still love God with all my being.

Anyone can encounter God. It's simple. You don't need theology. You don't need logical arguments and evidence. You need the Gospels, a sincere commitment to submission to God, seek the Light, and then every day try to help Humanity in a personal way. It's formulaic but valid.

You will find Jesus in every suffering child, in every drunk, in every homeless person, in any broken person in prison. Jesus is there within them, beside them, before them, behind them.

For my relationships, love and logic compliment and inform each other. There's no conflict between the two. Whereas for me to believe in a personal God I would have to lose my greater awe in the systems of nature. I refuse to lose that beauty in my life for a shallow illusion.

No, for Nature is the manifestation of Being as the Universe, and so Nature over and over, in all of it's interconnectedness, in the Golden Mean especially points to the very fingerprint of Yahweh. But it's leaping up of our heart when encountering Nature and then freely admitting a Grand Designer who made it that we can both appreciate Nature to the Fullest but also that which made Nature.

You're an aspect of that Nature, as integrally linked as the Spring Peeper singing, as lovely as Purple Larkspur, as vital as the fungus of the forest floor, as magnificent as spiral galaxies, etc.

Yahweh, Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit are real. You won't find proof of them. They're there if you want to meet them if you forsake Darkness.

Think of the Cave. You're in the Darkness and don't know Reality (BEING), but only have some faint glimmer of Reality. Remain in the Darkness, even when comfortable, and it won't help you. You can justify being in the Cave all you want. Why do so? Yeshua is the Light of the World.

"12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” John 8:12

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But He isn't, nature isn't so quaint to have a person at the helm.

No not openly but secretly yes. And than still whatever beauty or perfection you admire really belongs to God. It can be Einsteins God though thats your choice...

 

[Perfection]

I plainly love and admire the beauty and interconnectedness of all nature. Its transcendence is not lost on me, but to attribute that to God as if it was Geppeto crafting Pinocchio is to deny its true awesomeness.

 

[Perfection]

No not openly but secretly yes. And than still whatever beauty or perfection you admire really belongs to God. It can be Einsteins God though thats your choice...

I choose not to call it by the same name as one calls some archaic fertile crescent deity. I don't talk to it I don't pray to it I don't think it cares about me and I don't worry about what it thinks (because it doesn' think). I merely admire it with incredible awe and hope to know it more each day.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

-

I choose not to call it by the same name as one calls some archaic fertile crescent deity. I don't talk to it I don't pray to it I don't think it cares about me and I don't worry about what it thinks (because it doesn' think). I merely admire it with incredible awe and hope to know it more each day.

There are many paths to the goal the only important thing is to enlarge ones capacity & keep moving...

 

[Sommerswerd]

Only some really cold person sets up a relationship based upon logic, "Come dear, be my spouse because it is logical. Love isn't important."

I can't help but be reminded of Sarek telling Spock, teaching him logic(when questioned about why he married a human)... "I was ambassador to Earth... Marrying your Mother was...Logical" but later teaching him about love telling him "You once asked me why I married your mother... I married her because I loved her."

I liked this scene because as a parent you must do this constantly. You tell your children what they need to know, when they need to know it, to learn the lesson you are teaching them, which in your judgment they need, at that particular time.

I mention this, because you seem to embrace the idea of God being a loving parent, and it occurs to me, that like a loving parent, God would only reveal to you what you needed to know, when you needed to know it, to direct you in whatever direction was appropriate at the time. What God reveals to you then, is not truth, but is only your lesson for the day/month/lifetime, to prepare you to meet whatever challenge ahead in the way you are supposed to.

And like any parent with multiple children, the message is rarely the exact same for each child, or even compatible between children. God's revelation to you is for you, and applicable only to you. Sharing it with others or attempting to make it applicable to others is futile. God tells you what you need to know, and will tell others what they need to know. Your message, your understanding does not apply to them.

 

[Crackerbox]

I plainly love and admire the beauty and interconnectedness of all nature. Its transcendence is not lost on me, but to attribute that to God as if it was Geppeto crafting Pinocchio is to deny its true awesomeness.

Why? Prove it.

I choose not to call it by the same name as one calls some archaic fertile crescent deity. I don't talk to it I don't pray to it I don't think it cares about me and I don't worry about what it thinks (because it doesn' think). I merely admire it with incredible awe and hope to know it more each day.

Why not? If we are conscious, then why can't something have created the Universe and why wouldn't it have consciousness?

I can't help but be reminded of Sarek telling Spock, teaching him logic(when questioned about why he married a human)... "I was ambassador to Earth... Marrying your Mother was...Logical" but later teaching him about love telling him "You once asked me why I married your mother... I married her because I loved her."

I liked this scene because as a parent you must do this constantly. You tell your children what they need to know, when they need to know it, to learn the lesson you are teaching them, which in your judgment they need, at that particular time.

I mention this, because you seem to embrace the idea of God being a loving parent, and it occurs to me, that like a loving parent, God would only reveal to you what you needed to know, when you needed to know it, to direct you in whatever direction was appropriate at the time. What God reveals to you then, is not truth, but is only your lesson for the day/month/lifetime, to prepare you to meet whatever challenge ahead in the way you are supposed to.

And like any parent with multiple children, the message is rarely the exact same for each child, or even compatible between children. God's revelation to you is for you, and applicable only to you. Sharing it with others or attempting to make it applicable to others is futile. God tells you what you need to know, and will tell others what they need to know. Your message, your understanding does not apply to them.

It's not important what I think. My message is not important. Only Jesus is important. Look to Jesus' words. They're practical and not only this but every day reading them, you will get something fresh from them because we are dynamic creatures as you allude to.

We can't convert anyone on the Internet. There are no instructions on witnessing in this manner. We can't make anyone an atheist either. People have Free Will and choose to believe this or that.

We can debate this night and day, but it won't matter. What makes it matter is inward reflection on what is Truth, not the petty truths of others, and so concentrate on THAT, not this. That's the path of an enlightened being.

There is more than that path however, it's an eternal one though.

 

[Perfection]

Why? Prove it.

Prove God!

There are processes like evolution that are so remarkably powerful that to deny them in favor of God or to make them subservient to God is to not understand their awesome beauty.

Why not? If we are conscious, then why can't something have created the Universe and why wouldn't it have consciousness?

If we are mammals, then why can't something have created the Universe and why wouldn't it have nipples?

Trying to explain the mystery of consciousness with a bigger more mysterious consciousness sounds like the wrong direction.

 

[Crackerbox]

Prove God!

There are processes like evolution that are so remarkably powerful that to deny them in favor of God or to make them subservient to God is to not understand their awesome beauty.

If we are mammals, then why can't something have created the Universe and why wouldn't it have nipples?

Trying to explain the mystery of consciousness with a bigger more mysterious consciousness sounds like the wrong direction.

Nope, prove that it Nature (on Earth) came about by itself. Such random chance is infintesimally remote. It could have happened that way as a happy accident, but all of the Universe came about by a happy accident isn't likely.

Did you know the most likely path to conversion to Christianity in the young from age 16-25 is by their admiration for Nature. It's fairly typical for some young person to tell me, "You know when I visit the forest, and see how each little aspect is tied together, in all of that order, I cannot but help to think there is a purpose in this. When I consider that I am part of Nature too, then I feel compelled to believe in God." It's arguably the most common beginning to discussions I've had with people of this age group for as long as I've been that age myself.

Observation of Nature, rather than dissuading people of God, tends to confirm their suspicions in their heart. It's a basic yearning and probably instinctual for much of their education in school denies this, and yet the more those kinds of young observers study it, the more they would comment upon something about Astronomy or Biology or Chemistry learned in class, then encountered in the fields and streams, that made them immediately feel the presence of Yahweh.

Evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. When we start imposing spirituality on science and vice versa, well that's a huge mistake. Who knows the precise ways God made the World? Not me. I know an order in the two creation stories of Genesis (for there were traditions of two main types told around campfires far before being written down) but does that mean that some extremely complex biological processes aren't part of God's handiwork? It's both/and, not either/or.

Does the fact that the elements arise from stars then dissuade me of God's creative hands? Nope. Not at all, but rather the magnificence of these processes make me admire God more.

If you can't imagine God as some personal entity, I think most people could imagine (but not necessarily believe) that God is Ultimate Reality. It's a way to start the process of the call. It's seeking the Light of God versus the Darkness by acknowledging that God might just be Ultimate Reality. And then admitting that your life has been full of error, and asking for forgiveness, to ask to know Jesus more fully if He was really Ultimate Reality's only begotten Son. You don't have to believe with the power of a believer of many decades. Believe with the fragment of faith as a child of Ultimate Reality. Begin the process.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's not important what I think. My message is not important. Only Jesus is important. Look to Jesus' words. They're practical and not only this but every day reading them, you will get something fresh from them because we are dynamic creatures as you allude to.

We can't convert anyone on the Internet. There are no instructions on witnessing in this manner. We can't make anyone an atheist either. People have Free Will and choose to believe this or that.

We can debate this night and day, but it won't matter. What makes it matter is inward reflection on what is Truth, not the petty truths of others, and so concentrate on THAT, not this. That's the path of an enlightened being.

There is more than that path however, it's an eternal one though.

The Jehovah's witness studies and memorizes individual scripture in Spartan surroundings, for them it seems the message is that God needs no decorations or embellishments, only the text of the Bible is important... The Catholic, on the other hand needs to see the glory and magnificence of God visually in grand cathedrals in high vaulted ceilings with soaring choral music. They are inspired to see and feel the presence of God's glory.

No one can say, "focus on Jesus words" because that is only what works for you, or "you can't convert over the internet" because that is only the message God gave you. God gives a different message to others and they convert millions over the internet, and reach people with the message of God without saying a single word from Jesus mouth. There are prophets who knew God thousands of years before Jesus. No one knows the path, you can only know your path.

Each man looks at each other and sees another man. But to God one man is like a bird and another is like a fish. When the bird asks "How do I get there?" God answers "Fly through the air." But when the fish asks God says "swim through the water." When you say "what matters is inward reflection" you are like the bird saying to the fish "all that matter is to fly." That is not his message. That is your message. Inward reflection is all that matters to you. Your advice is a reflection of your own unique message.

 

[Flying Pig]

Nope, prove that it Nature (on Earth) came about by itself. Such random chance is infintesimally remote. It could have happened that way as a happy accident, but all of the Universe came about by a happy accident isn't likely.

We've spent a whole thread proving that that's simply not the case.

CORRECTION: A whole thread proving that such a position is untenable. The proof has largely been that there's no way to know how likely it is that nature came about as it is.

 

[Perfection]

Nope, prove that it Nature (on Earth) came about by itself. Such random chance is infintesimally remote. It could have happened that way as a happy accident, but all of the Universe came about by a happy accident isn't likely.

Did you know the most likely path to conversion to Christianity in the young from age 16-25 is by their admiration for Nature. It's fairly typical for some young person to tell me, "You know when I visit the forest, and see how each little aspect is tied together, in all of that order, I cannot but help to think there is a purpose in this. When I consider that I am part of Nature too, then I feel compelled to believe in God." It's arguably the most common beginning to discussions I've had with people of this age group for as long as I've been that age myself.

Observation of Nature, rather than dissuading people of God, tends to confirm their suspicions in their heart. It's a basic yearning and probably instinctual for much of their education in school denies this, and yet the more those kinds of young observers study it, the more they would comment upon something about Astronomy or Biology or Chemistry learned in class, then encountered in the fields and streams, that made them immediately feel the presence of Yahweh.

Evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. When we start imposing sprituality on science and vice versa, well that's a huge mistake. Who knows the precise ways God made the World? Not me. I know an order in the two creation stories of Genesis (for there were traditions of two main types told around campfires far before being written down) but does that mean that some extremely complex biological processes aren't part of God's handiwork. It's both/and, not either/or.

Does the fact that the elements arise from stars then dissuade me of God's creative hands? Nope. Not at all, but rather the magnificence of these processes make me admire God more.

You look at (us three prong) a power outlet, you see a face. Two slots and a hole in injection molded plastic makes us see the visage of a person. We have evolved to see things in terms of beings doing things for purposes. Just as one can be tricked by an optical illusion one can similarly be tricked by a cognitive bias. We will imagine agents that don't actually exist.

To release yourself from those biases you need to think very carefully and monitor your own thoughts. This is of course very difficult for religious folk because of their intense emotional connection. Who wants to have that connection lost, even if it's only within oneself?

As for the evidence? That's something if you want to understand will take dedicated effort. I can suggest some books if you're actually interested.

 

[Crackerbox]

You look at (us three prong) a power outlet, you see a face. Two slots and a hole in injection molded plastic makes us see the visage of a person. We have evolved to see things in terms of beings doing things for purposes. Just as one can be tricked by an optical illusion one can similarly be tricked by a cognitive bias. We will imagine agents that don't actually exist.

To release yourself from those biases you need to think very carefully and monitor your own thoughts. This is of course very difficult for religious folk because of their intense emotional connection. Who wants to have that connection lost, even if it's only within oneself?

As for the evidence? That's something if you want to understand will take dedicated effort. I can suggest some books if you're actually interested.

How do you know that there isn't an Ultimate Reality that ushers in the Universe? You cannot. You take it on faith that no deity is necessary. I take it on faith that the nature of Being must arive from some root cause. Nothingness cannot create Being. My first post though points out to an eternal collapse and expansion (not one Big Bang) and so it's an illusion that nothingness creates reality.

It really doesn't matter that you don't believe except for your Life (both moral and eternal). It's your choice due to Free Will. If you consider that a lifetime spent in manifesting altruism to honor BEING could be a noble task, then this alone makes Christianity worthwhile. It's the basis for missionary work to build hospitals and schools, and not to simply make churches everywhere. It's a practical faith, a rather undemanding one as well.