I don't understand your first question. What did you understand from my initial response? How belief in God affects people is subjective. Re-read my response more carefully.

In my first question I asked if belief in God can affect humans,and I added this "ur own description of God" because people define God in many ways,in ur Op u gave us a description of God that tends slightly towards deism but in ur response u started talking about religion
U say u believe in God,and I am asking how believing in what u describe as God(not what others describe but ur own specific description) can affect human beings

I hope u now understand my question

I'd describe God as possessing the following attributes:
1. Omnipotence
2. Omniscience
3. Omnipresence
4. Perfection
5. Everlasting

Others might add “Omnibenevolent” and “Love,” but I left them out. These terms require either an object or a comparison, which would be impossible, as the previous five qualities preclude creation.

How did u find out that God(ur own description) has those features,considering that u claim that God can not be proven with objective evidence

U say God is everlasting,assuming he dies or stops existing,how would u find out ?

I''m not changing goal posts. The whole point of my thread is to explain how objective evidence can't be given for the existence of a deity.

Since objective evidence can't be given,then what kind of evidence can be given,or is there no evidence at all ?

BlakKluKluxKlan:



The usual balderdash, litany of insults and display of atheistic arrogance.

Really?

LordReed:


My question is how do you acquire specific knowledge of the god when you say it is incomprehensible and cannot be investigated, that sounds like a gigantic contradiction to me.

Exactly,she said God is omnipotent,dadada,if u can't substantiate it with objective evidence how did u now come about all that,people would just be saying things they don't understand

HappyPagan:

Really?

Lol . Ignore that man. I couldn't be bothered by his dogmatic reasoning. Its just typical christians using their most cliche method of defense in these kind of arguments: the victim card .

Hermes019:

Exactly,she said God is omnipotent,dadada,if u can't substantiate it with objective evidence how did u now come about all that,people would just be saying things they don't understand

LoL, its baffling, you can't investigate the god but you know its nature and its not a guess or hypothesis, you know it for fact. SMDH.

Good morning @XxSabrinaxX, LordReed, Hermes019
I know the point you all are trying to make. How can we possibly know a God exists if science cannot prove it? Well, the fine-tuning argument convinced me. I couldn't believe the universe was an accident. The alternative, as far as I can see, is design, be it by simulation or by omnipotence (in which case a designer might make genuine omnipotence and their existence look impossible and deceive people into thinking they wouldn't/couldn't do that and can't/don't exist.). There is almost no chance that our universe would exist by accident. I understand probability theory and almost no chance means almost no chance, not 'almost no chance unless a naturalistic explanation comes up'. It literally means 'almost no chance' and if it turns out to be true, it's a miracle because there was almost no chance it would turn out to be true.

Before you debate me, first read up or have read up on probability theory and its real life applications or prepare to look bad; debating someone about something involving probability theory without them having a good understanding of probability theory is like debating a three year old about nanotechnology; they'll think they're somehow winning because they can't fault their own arguments like you can, make stupid arguments and look really clueless to you (maybe not to other people who are just as clueless).

My argument goes as follows:

P1. There is almost no chance that the universe occurred by accident.

P2. If there is almost no chance of something, that thing is false.

C1. The universe isn't an accident.

P3. If something isn't an accident, it was designed.

C2: The universe was designed.

P4: I define the designer of our universe as a god.

C3: A god exists.

NnennaG6:
Good morning @XxSabrinaxX, LordReed, Hermes019
I know the point you all are trying to make. How can we possibly know a God exists if science cannot prove it? Well, the fine-tuning argument convinced me. I couldn't believe the universe was an accident. The alternative, as far as I can see, is design, be it by simulation or by omnipotence (in which case a designer might make genuine omnipotence and their existence look impossible and deceive people into thinking they wouldn't/couldn't do that and can't/don't exist.). There is almost no chance that our universe would exist by accident. I understand probability theory and almost no chance means almost no chance, not 'almost no chance unless a naturalistic explanation comes up'. It literally means 'almost no chance' and if it turns out to be true, it's a miracle because there was almost no chance it would turn out to be true.

Before you debate me, first read up or have read up on probability theory and its real life applications or prepare to look bad; debating someone about something involving probability theory without them having a good understanding of probability theory is like debating a three year old about nanotechnology; they'll think they're somehow winning because they can't fault their own arguments like you can, make stupid arguments and look really clueless to you (maybe not to other people who are just as clueless).

My argument goes as follows:

P1. There is almost no chance that the universe occurred by accident.

P2. If there is almost no chance of something, that thing is false.

C1. The universe isn't an accident.

P3. If something isn't an accident, it was designed.

C2: The universe was designed.

P4: I define the designer of our universe as a god.

C3: A god exists.

If your definition of God ends as the first cause or designer of the universe then I don't have problems with ur idea,I would say I am agnostic in that regard
But when u go beyond that to include other features such as omnipotence and the rest of them then I would say I am an atheist,and in most cases when the term "God" is used it us often in the context of a being that is fully defined,and I don't conform to that

Let me use this car analalogy to explain what I mean

Assuming u see a an aston martin parked on the roadside ,u know from experience that a car can't get to the road by itslef hence someone must have parked it there,but is that enough information to tell u the persons height,favorite food,temperament ,state of birth,salary, and so on.
The only thing u can infer is that the person must be very rich because of cause we are talking of an Aston martin here not just any vehicle

I relate to the universe that way,now I would say that the idea of an entity being responsible for the existence of the universe is a possibility not a fact,because for me I think human beings have limited knowledge and there may be other possible non-designer explanations of how the universe was formed that is why I see it as a possibility not a fact,but in the car analogy it is a fact that the car must have been brought by someone,we can relate to that from experience, unlike the formation of the universe which scientists say took place billions of years ago
Now the idea that God created the universe is similar to saying that someone parked the Aston Martin there,and as demonstrated in the analogy,the only thing we can confidently say about the person who got the car there is that s/he must be very rich giving how sophisticated the car is,any thing besides that is just mere speculation,likewise God,the only thing we can say about the designer of the universe (if such exists) is that such entity must be complex giving how complex the universe is,anything besides that is mere speculation and guesses

Ironic that you ask people to read up on something else or they might look bad and then post this freshman-level argument.

Not a good look for you.

Your premises are all flawed. All of them.

NnennaG6:

P1. There is almost no chance that the universe occurred by accident.

Undemonstrated, and so rejected. Add to that that the terms are poorly defined: "almost no chance" can describe a massive range of probability and you need to extremely clearly define "accident" before this premise can even start to be taken seriously.

NnennaG6:
P2. If there is almost no chance of something, that thing is false.

Undemonstrated due to previously stated issues of P1. Also appears to just be defining your premise as impossible from the get go: that's called "being dishonest".

NnennaG6:
P3. If something isn't an accident, it was designed.

Categorically not true. It could be emergent behavior or logical outcome of some situation. I mean... the entire field of Chaos Theory makes this look really really silly. YOU need to read more on this topic. Dismissed as a false dichotomy.

NnennaG6:
P4: I define the designer of our universe as a god.

Good for you. You still haven't demonstrated there needs to be one.

The fine-tuning argument, of which this isn't really even a good example, has been systematically been torn apart for decades. That people find it convincing is kind of sad at this point.

NnennaG6:
Good morning @XxSabrinaxX, LordReed, Hermes019
I know the point you all are trying to make. How can we possibly know a God exists if science cannot prove it? Well, the fine-tuning argument convinced me. I couldn't believe the universe was an accident. The alternative, as far as I can see, is design, be it by simulation or by omnipotence (in which case a designer might make genuine omnipotence and their existence look impossible and deceive people into thinking they wouldn't/couldn't do that and can't/don't exist.). There is almost no chance that our universe would exist by accident. I understand probability theory and almost no chance means almost no chance, not 'almost no chance unless a naturalistic explanation comes up'. It literally means 'almost no chance' and if it turns out to be true, it's a miracle because there was almost no chance it would turn out to be true.

Before you debate me, first read up or have read up on probability theory and its real life applications or prepare to look bad; debating someone about something involving probability theory without them having a good understanding of probability theory is like debating a three year old about nanotechnology; they'll think they're somehow winning because they can't fault their own arguments like you can, make stupid arguments and look really clueless to you (maybe not to other people who are just as clueless).

My argument goes as follows:

P1. There is almost no chance that the universe occurred by accident.

P2. If there is almost no chance of something, that thing is false.

C1. The universe isn't an accident.

P3. If something isn't an accident, it was designed.

C2: The universe was designed.

P4: I define the designer of our universe as a god.

C3: A god exists.

Your argument here is not good though I commend your efforts so far. The problem is that your argument is invalid since the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Almost no chance doesn't mean no chance at all. It means 'very little as VIRTUALLY (not TOTALLY) impossible'. So almost no chance of something does not rule it out as false since there is still a tiny chance it can occur.

Furthermore, your conclusion that the universe isn't an accident doesn't follow from the premises neither is it supported by the Big Bang. As of now, scientists don't know whether the Big Bang was an accident or not though they can never accept it was designed given a materialistic bias. P3 is also fallacious.

I think your initial OP was a better argument.

johnydon22:


In a clear sense, you seem to be making an argument rather for a Spinoza concept of God and not an actual anthropomorphic theistic idea of God.

Though, sometime you tend to lean a bit to anthropomorphism which i can excuse by human description ability. We use terms like "the river wants to flow downhill" somehow anthropomorphizing water even though the context doesn't, so i'd take these descriptions as such.

Going over you argument, you refer to things like; Nature, chaos, determinism, universe, cause and effect and broadly chance as God. In that sense, yes God exists.

The universe obviously exist
cause and effect are observed universal models
everything is nature
chaos is an inherent part of existence
chance is mostly a determining factor.

Call these things God then there is God. call them with the conventional lingual connotations and they remain the same in essence. Universe, nature, cause and effect, chaos, chance or fate, they do not gain more intrinsic meaning by ascribing the word God to it.

To me, that is am ambiguous way to define God because it seems broadly an argument of language use other than definite definitions.

Correct though she may be trying to say that God as the omniscient, omnipotent & immaterial Creator is revealed in the natural order we see in the universe just as Paul did in Rom 1:20.

People frequently think that someone is saying God is Nature when what they mean is God (the Creator) exists in the natural order. To analogize, dreams are creations of the dreamer & dreamers exist in world their dreams make since all of the dream is a mental projection of the dreamer. The dreamer's body is obviously sleeping outside the dream but in the dream everything is the dreamer's mind and brain processes at work.

That's how people misunderstand Spinoza's God or his term Deus sive Natura (God or Nature). Spinoza explained in a letter to Oldenburg that he didn't write that to mean God is Nature but that Nature we see is one out of many (in fact infinite) attributes of God. Read up on panentheism in Wikipedia to further understand this concept.

XxSabrinaxX:

Your premises are all flawed. All of them.

Really? Let's take a look.

XxSabrinaxX:
Undemonstrated, and so rejected.

What do you mean? Here's the link, and there is such a thing as doing your own research:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/

XxSabrinaxX:
Add to that that the terms are poorly defined: "almost no chance" can describe a massive range of probability and you need to extremely clearly define "accident" before this premise can even start to be taken seriously.

Only a slowpoke wouldn't know what I meant by those terms. I didn't make this idiot-proof on purpose. I wanted idiots to misinterpret it. I'm kind of... funny that way.

XxSabrinaxX:
Undemonstrated due to previously stated issues of P1.

Again, OWN RESEARCH. I told you to learn probability theory. That one would be obvious if you did.

XxSabrinaxX:
Also appears to just be defining your premise as impossible from the get go: that's called "being dishonest".

In what way is pointing out the blindingly obvious 'dishonest'?

XxSabrinaxX:
Categorically not true. It could be emergent behavior or logical outcome of some situation.

Which is called an accident because it wasn't ultimately intended, obviously. It was either by accident or not by accident. If it's not by accident, it's called designed. That much is obvious.

XxSabrinaxX:
Good for you. You still haven't demonstrated there needs to be one.

How so? I just debunked your 'debunking' and the logic makes sense to me. It's incredibly likely that I'm right, according to my mathematics. Again, learn probability theory. You're blind without it.

XxSabrinaxX:
The fine-tuning argument, of which this isn't really even a good example, has been systematically been torn apart for decades. That people find it convincing is kind of sad at this point.

Do you have any OFFICIAL, peer-reviewed, documentation?

I sense confirmation bias, special pleading and denial. You seem to readily accept atheistic views, without much evidence and use those to reject theistic views. Bad form.

NnennaG6:
Good morning @XxSabrinaxX, LordReed, Hermes019
I know the point you all are trying to make. How can we possibly know a God exists if science cannot prove it? Well, the fine-tuning argument convinced me. I couldn't believe the universe was an accident. The alternative, as far as I can see, is design, be it by simulation or by omnipotence (in which case a designer might make genuine omnipotence and their existence look impossible and deceive people into thinking they wouldn't/couldn't do that and can't/don't exist.). There is almost no chance that our universe would exist by accident. I understand probability theory and almost no chance means almost no chance, not 'almost no chance unless a naturalistic explanation comes up'. It literally means 'almost no chance' and if it turns out to be true, it's a miracle because there was almost no chance it would turn out to be true.

Before you debate me, first read up or have read up on probability theory and its real life applications or prepare to look bad; debating someone about something involving probability theory without them having a good understanding of probability theory is like debating a three year old about nanotechnology; they'll think they're somehow winning because they can't fault their own arguments like you can, make stupid arguments and look really clueless to you (maybe not to other people who are just as clueless).

My argument goes as follows:

P1. There is almost no chance that the universe occurred by accident.

P2. If there is almost no chance of something, that thing is false.

C1. The universe isn't an accident.

P3. If something isn't an accident, it was designed.

C2: The universe was designed.

P4: I define the designer of our universe as a god.

C3: A god exists.

Again my question has nothing to do with proof but with epistemology, how did you acquire specific knowledge of the attributes of the god when you say it is beyond investigation. How do you even know the god is beyond investigation?

Hermes019:

If your definition of God ends as the first cause or designer of the universe then I don't have problems with ur idea,I would say I am agnostic in that regard
But when u go beyond that to include other features such as omnipotence and the rest of them then I would say I am an atheist,and in most cases when the term "God" is used it us often in the context of a being that is fully defined,and I don't conform to that

Let me use this car analalogy to explain what I mean

Assuming u see a an aston martin parked on the roadside ,u know from experience that a car can't get to the road by itslef hence someone must have parked it there,but is that enough information to tell u the persons height,favorite food,temperament ,state of birth,salary, and so on.
The only thing u can infer is that the person must be very rich because of cause we are talking of an Aston martin here not just any vehicle

I relate to the universe that way,now I would say that the idea of an entity being responsible for the existence of the universe is a possibility not a fact,because for me I think human beings have limited knowledge and there may be other possible non-designer explanations of how the universe was formed that is why I see it as a possibility not a fact,but in the car analogy it is a fact that the car must have been brought by someone,we can relate to that from experience, unlike the formation of the universe which scientists say took place billions of years ago
Now the idea that God created the universe is similar to saying that someone parked the Aston Martin there,and as demonstrated in the analogy,the only thing we can confidently say about the person who got the car there is that s/he must be very rich giving how sophisticated the car is,any thing besides that is just mere speculation,likewise God,the only thing we can say about the designer of the universe (if such exists) is that such entity must be complex giving how complex the universe is,anything besides that is mere speculation and guesses

Finished

UyiIredia:


Correct though she may be trying to say that God as the omniscient, omnipotent & immaterial Creator is revealed in the natural order we see in the universe just as Paul did in Rom 1:20.

People frequently think that someone is saying God is Nature when what they mean is God (the Creator) exists in the natural order. To analogize, dreams are creations of the dreamer & dreamers exist in world their dreams make since all of the dream is a mental projection of the dreamer. The dreamer's body is obviously sleeping outside the dream but in the dream everything is the dreamer's mind and brain processes at work.

That's how people misunderstand Spinoza's God or his term Deus sive Natura (God or Nature). Spinoza explained in a letter to Oldenburg that he didn't write that to mean God is Nature but that Nature we see is one out of many (in fact infinite) attributes of God. Read up on panentheism in Wikipedia to further understand this concept.

Could u explain Spinoza's concept of God,I still haven't grasped it fairly well

LordReed:


Again my question has nothing to do with proof but with epistemology, how did you acquire specific knowledge of the attributes of the god when you say it is beyond investigation. How do you even know the god is beyond investigation?

This isn't even a question. Any deity that presupposes all events is meant to be everlasting. Hence, attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence suffice to define said deity.

Hermes019:

Finished

Look at my response to LordReed.

NnennaG6:

This isn't even a question. Any deity that presupposes all events is meant to be everlasting. Hence, attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence suffice to define said deity.

Can God make a stone so heavy that he can not carry it ?

NnennaG6:

Look at my response to LordReed.

Yes I have and that doesn't have much to do with what I posted

NnennaG6:

This isn't even a question. Any deity that presupposes all events is meant to be everlasting. Hence, attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence suffice to define said deity.

Ok you are just assuming the deity and its attributes?

NnennaG6:

What do you mean? Here's the link, and there is such a thing as doing your own research:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/

We have a sample size of 1 universe. You cannot make ANY conclusions about probability or chance based a sample size of 1.

NnennaG6:
Only a slowpoke wouldn't know what I meant by those terms. I didn't make this idiot-proof on purpose. I wanted idiots to misinterpret it. I'm kind of... funny that way.

First of all, "almost no chance" is not the same thing as "no chance". In an infinite set of universes, one in 10^120 universes having the conditions for life is still an infinite number of life-capable universes. Secondly, you are admitting to intellectual dishonesty, and therefore, do not deserve the amount of time and effort I and others are giving you.

NnennaG6:
Again, OWN RESEARCH. I told you to learn probability theory. That one would be obvious if you did.

Again, a sample size of 1 means no conclusions based on probability. Perhaps YOU should go refresh your knowledge of probability theory.

NnennaG6:
In what way is pointing out the blindingly obvious 'dishonest'?

And I quote, "I wanted idiots to misinterpret it. I'm kind of... funny that way." And again, "almost no chance" is not the same thing as "no chance".

NnennaG6:
Which is called an accident because it wasn't ultimately intended, obviously. It was either by accident or not by accident. If it's not by accident, it's called designed. That much is obvious.

If you're going to call the universe and everything in it designed, then you're going to have to provide examples of accidents to show that your definition is valid. If everything is either an accident or designed, and everything is designed, then the distinction is entirely meaningless.

NnennaG6:
How so? I just debunked your 'debunking' and the logic makes sense to me. It's incredibly likely that I'm right, according to my mathematics. Again, learn probability theory. You're blind without it.

And I just debunked your 'debunking' of that 'debunking'. It doesn't matter if your logic makes sense to you using your mathematics; present some logic that makes sense to the objective and independently verifiable system that mathematics actually is.

NnennaG6:
Do you have any OFFICIAL, peer-reviewed, documentation?

I sense confirmation bias, special pleading and denial. You seem to readily accept atheistic views, without much evidence and use those to reject theistic views. Bad form.

As the one making the claim, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting your claim first. Atheism is not a claim, neither for nor against god. It is the neutral, default position. I would ask that someone who claims that there is definitively no god provide valid evidence just as I ask you for evidence of your claim that there is one.

Edit: The probability of drawing ANY desired hand in any combination is 1 in 649,740.

The issue is that the player thinks a royal flush has meaning and value, and the cards are just cards and don't give a shit.

This is kind of how you theists get it wrong...baselessly assuming humans are the desired outcome of the universe, just like the royal flush is a desired hand..and then start assigning significance to themselves, and then feel like they drew a royal flush, remarking how it just couldn't have been mere chance.

Cards are just cards cardboard and ink. People project meaning onto whatever hand is drawn.

Worse, with cards we know there are 52 and we know what numbers and suits it has. But the universe...we have no idea. we have a hand of cards we don't know the meaning of because we don't know this game, how many cards are in the deck, and what the deck is composed of.

That makes it even sillier to say "Royal Flush!"

Hermes019:

Could u explain Spinoza's concept of God,I still haven't grasped it fairly well

Simply put Spinoza believed un an infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnuscient and eternal Mind that is God but unlike Christians He thought it was very absurd to have a body or human characteristics like favouring people, rituals etc. His belief on perfection was that it was simply another way of maintaining a human preference otherwise it was an empty concept since nothing aside God can be described as truly perfect and God's perfection in Spinoza's view being that God cannot not exist plus everything that must exist MUST come from God plus there is no end to what God can make exist even though God constrained by His Nature cannot make things like a square circle exist.

Spinoza did not think God was Nature and that phrase God or Nature that confuses people was used at the ending of the book and just 3 times when He was talking about perfection. Otherwise, Spinoza was a deist who believed in God. Just not like Christians of his time and place since he lived in a time the Netherlands was very religious.

To learn more.

https/en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

Read it carefully and note the parts I highlight

Panentheism (meaning "all-in-God", from the Ancient Greek πᾶν pân, "all", ἐν en, "in" and Θεός Theós, "God" is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space. The term was coined by the German philosopher Karl Krause in 1828 to distinguish the ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775–1854) about the relation of God and the universe from the supposed pantheism of Baruch Spinoza. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[2] panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine and the significance of both.

In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created.
While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe.

From Spinoza's Ethics.

PROP. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.
Proof.-Besides God, no substance is granted or can be conceived (by Prop. xiv.), that is (by Def. iii.) nothing which is in itself and is conceived through itself. But modes (by Def. v.) can neither be, nor be conceived without substance ; wherefore they can only be in the divine nature, and can only through it be conceived. But substances and modes form the sum total of existence (by Ax. i.), therefore, without God nothing can be, or be conceived. Q.E.D. Note.-Some assert that God, like a man, consists of body and mind, and is susceptible of passions. How far such persons have strayed from the truth is sufficiently evident from what has been said. But these I pass over. For all who have in anywise reflected on the divine nature deny that God has a body. Of this they find excellent proof in the fact that we understand by body a definite quantity, so long, so broad, so deep, bounded by a certain shape, and it is the height of absurdity to predicate such a thing of God, a being absolutely infinite. But meanwhile by other reasons with which they try to prove their point, they show that they think corporeal or extended substance wholly apart from the divine nature, and say it was created by God. Wherefrom the divine nature can have been created, they are wholly ignorant ; thus they clearly show, that they do not know the meaning of their own words. I myself have proved sufficiently clearly, at any rate in my own judgment (Coroll. Prop. vi, and note 2, Prop. viii.),

Also from Spinoza's Ethics

On the contrary, the truth and formal essence of things is as it is, because it exists by representation as such in the intellect of God. Wherefore the intellect of God, in so far as it is conceived to constitute God's essence, is, in reality, the cause of things, both of their essence and of their existence

Hermes019:

Can God make a stone so heavy that he can not carry it ?

God, being omnipotent, space-savvy and ubiquitous, would have himself exist simultaneously on Plane (A) and Plane (B). After fashioning a rock with a weight sufficient to exceed his ability to lift, the rock is positioned on Plane (B) where we find God attempting to lift the rock. On Plane (A) we have God physically lifting Plane (B), which already holds both God and the very heavy rock …and all done so at the exact same moment.

So the answer is “Yes!” God can create a rock so heavy that he couldn’t lift it while simultaneously maintaining His omnipotence.

…But how is this possible? This is called the “Circular God Counter-Paradox.”

This video is a 9 minute illustration of my argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDTsYYGNAMY&feature=youtu.be

LordReed:


Ok you are just assuming the deity and its attributes?

There's no assumption. Common sense dictates that the creator / first cause of a universe cannot lack omnipotence, omniscience and any of the other attributes i've listed already.

XxSabrinaxX:

This is kind of how you theists get it wrong...baselessly assuming humans are the desired outcome of the universe, just like the royal flush is a desired hand..and then start assigning significance to themselves, and then feel like they drew a royal flush...

I mean, without using "outcome" language, don't you think there was a remarkably giant leap once consciousness formed in humans? Certainly seems like a progression to me. What else could the word "progress" mean if you deny that humans are a progression from inanimate matter?

You might retort "Oh wow, the one with consciousness is saying consciousness is important. You can't do that!" Why not? The fact that I have it now doesn't negate the fact that it's amazing.

You're basically shutting down the question here by saying "Don't think about it. Don't ask questions. Just accept that you're not special, no more thinking please".

NnennaG6:
You're basically shutting down the question here by saying "Don't think about it. Don't ask questions. Just accept that you're not special, no more thinking please".

No, except for the part about accepting that you are not special. Think all you want, thinking is fascinating.

NnennaG6:

don't you think there was a remarkably giant leap once consciousness formed in humans?

For us, yes. Animated matter, which includes all matter that converts energy and reproduces...all life, seems to be the result of complex chemistry. The issue is the matter of assigning significance to it, and deducing intent on the part of the universe from that.

We, and all life arose from the conditions of the universe. The fine-tuning argument does a narcissistic reversal of that, and claims that the conditions of the universe are as they are for the PURPOSE of life emerging.

It's the puddle argument.

Another problem with it is more basic...why would an all powerful god need to "fine tune" anything? Such a god could make the universe any way it saw fit, and make life any way it saw fit. It could make the universe out of cheese and us out of glitter, and make it work.

NnennaG6:

There's no assumption. Common sense dictates that the creator / first cause of a universe cannot lack omnipotence, omniscience and any of the other attributes i've listed already.

So just an appeal to intuition? That's fallacious.

XxSabrinaxX:

The fine-tuning argument, of which this isn't really even a good example, has been systematically been torn apart for decades. That people find it convincing is kind of sad at this point.

NnennaG6:

Do you have any OFFICIAL, peer-reviewed, documentation?

There actually is:
1. Mark Colyvan, Jay Garfield and Graham Priest (2005) http://www.colyvan.com/papers/finetuning.pdf
2. Michael Ikeda and William H. Jefferys, "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism," ISBN 1-59102-381-5.
3. Carrier, "Neither life nor the universe appear intelligently designed" in The End of Christianity. ISBN 978-1-61614-413-5.
4. Park, Robert L. (2009). Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science.

@NnennaG6, You should probably just admit defeat and that you know very very little about this topic. You don't even know how to construct coherent logical arguments, let alone the basics of philosophy of religion, or even how to apply probability theory correctly.

You're pretty terrible at this.

TheArranger:



There actually is:
1. Mark Colyvan, Jay Garfield and Graham Priest (2005) http://www.colyvan.com/papers/finetuning.pdf
2. Michael Ikeda and William H. Jefferys, "The Anthropic Principle Does Not Support Supernaturalism," ISBN 1-59102-381-5.
3. Carrier, "Neither life nor the universe appear intelligently designed" in The End of Christianity. ISBN 978-1-61614-413-5.
4. Park, Robert L. (2009). Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science.

@NnennaG6, You should probably just admit defeat and that you know very very little about this topic. You don't even know how to construct coherent logical arguments, let alone the basics of philosophy of religion, or even how to apply probability theory correctly.

You're pretty terrible at this.

To be fair, she's put in more effort than any theist / apologist I've ever come accross on Nairaland

XxSabrinaxX:

We, and all life arose from the conditions of the universe. The fine-tuning argument does a narcissistic reversal of that, and claims that the conditions of the universe are as they are for the PURPOSE of life emerging.

I really don't think you understand the argument...

You mentioned "conditions". Why are those conditions the way that they are?

In order to refute the argument, you need to show that the conditions of the universe are there by necessity. Because we know we can fudge the numbers and it still exist within reality. That's theoretical physics.

XxSabrinaxX:

Another problem with it is more basic...

That's not a problem. That's word salad, and using a confused definition of "omnipotence".

NnennaG6:
You mentioned "conditions". Why are those conditions the way that they are?

We don't know. That's no reason to go right to "god did it".

NnennaG6:
In order to refute the argument, you need to show that the conditions of the universe are there by necessity. Because we know we can fudge the numbers and it still exist within reality. That's theoretical physics.

And nothing in theoretical physics includes a necessary diety, or fine tuner. The conditions of the universe...which we don't fully know...have allowed animate matter to emerge. And that's all we can say. There is no justification for assigning great significance or teleological "intent" to it.

NnennaG6:
That's not a problem. That's word salad, and using a confused definition of "omnipotence".

Omnipotence is by definition unlimited and unrestricted. Unless you have another definition? Do you believe God can make 2+2=5?

NnennaG6:
If we want to investigate the world scientifically, we don't just look around and form our own opinion, and take that as the truth. We gather objective data in as many ways as possible, to minimise human error, bias, superstition, etc. In this way we have formed valid theories about how the physical world works.


There is no scientific evidence that God exists. The mistake atheists make, is assuming that science has no blind spots.


Science has one natural, huge, critical blind spot; the personal nature of existence. Your whole life is lived from one perspective. All we really know in the end, is what our senses tell us in our personal lives. We may have amazing, valid, objective, peer reviewed and tested scientific theories, but you personally will never know about them until you read about them with your own two eyes. All knowledge you have ultimately only comes into your brain through the filter of your own personal perception. Your perception is your whole and only reality.


So the question is, is there knowledge that can ONLY be attained personally, that can't exist in scientific consensus? The answer is yes, and here is the simple proof; we cannot prove our own consciousness to others. Only YOU know if you are conscious and real. Ever joke with friends about "how do I know you're all not just figments of my imagination"? It's that principle; personal consciousness is simply impossible to prove scientifically. It is categorically personal; only ever known by YOU. Of course we infer and assume that others are conscious just like us. We see with our perceptions that the world around us looks and works as if everyone else is conscious. But it is an assumption; there is no actual evidence. For all you know, you could be the only conscious being in a dream world, or the matrix, or whatever else this strange reality could be.


So your own consciousness is something which is self-evident to you alone, and impossible to prove. You alone know it to be true, through your senses. Believing that others are conscious and see the world like you, is actually faith, because there is no evidence. But this faith makes us treat others fairly.


I have to tell you that knowing God is the same. You will never see a proof. I can't offer one, nobody can. You either see it for yourself in the world around you, and in your life, or you don't. I can't scientifically prove my consciousness to you, but I can describe it, and, if you know it too, you will 'get' it. So, I can only describe God to you, and maybe you won't get it, and maybe one day you will, through your own life experience.


God is the name for how everything is connected. I was actually an atheist for many years, and then my personal experience started to make me believe in fate. Fate is another name for God. Another is Nature; another is the Universe. The All, the Prime mover, Chaos, Determinism, and Cause and Effect are also synonyms for God. God cannot be proven in writing, He must be seen first hand, and you will see Him (or 'it') if you are observant and thoughtful about everything you see in your life.


Faith in God means something like; "well, in the vast expanse of possible realities I could be living, my life isn't so bad. I am unbelievably lucky to be here. Humans could have been abducted by carnivorous aliens 10,000 years ago, and I could be living in a factory farm on planet Lizard right now. The world could just be 20% more boring, or dangerous. There's no law of physics that says we have to be able to experience beauty or joy. Nuclear armageddon still hasn't happened; I don't have to live in a post apocalyptic cancerous wasteland." Faith in God is looking at the world and realising somehow, the Universe seems to like me overall. And, from this, we can have faith that it will be good to us in the future, if we are careful. Again, this can never be proved scientifically. It's down to your perception and your own relationship with reality.


God is cause and effect, or nature, so observing it and recognising patterns can give us rules for how to succeed in life (morals). It's impossible to prove rules of life scientifically, because the matrices of causes and effects are very complex, and isolating them changes them. Take a deadly sin; Greed. How would we go about testing the hypothesis that personal greed leads to bad personal consequences? It is outside science, unless we can observe thousands of people at all times for their whole lives. You can only know if that hypothesis is true or false by either observing it yourself, or faithfully believing the words of a person you deem wiser than you. Again, it is completely a case of personal perception and experience of reality.


There is much more that could be written, but basically approaching God from this perspective can explain what concepts like faith, sin (evolutionarily maladaptive action), and morality (adaptive action) actually mean. There is a good reason for calling 'it', "Him", which could fill another post this long. I wasn't raised as any faith and I was an atheist for a long while, so discovering this stuff on my own, kind of from first principles, took some time. But lo and behold, every teaching of every faith makes logical sense from this perspective, even if you don't understand why a teaching is professed, you can understand that maybe thousands of years of passed down life experience knows something about causes and effects that you don't yet.


I thank God that He found me, and now I feel awake to the patterns and cycles of reality. Again, it's outside of science. I'm not asking you believe me without evidence, I'm just showing you how to look at it and you can take it or leave it. Maybe you'll scoff at this now and in 5 years time, come to realise I was right. It's your personal life, it's your personal journey of learning, it's your reality, after all.


Note I am not making the argument from personal experience. I am not saying "I saw the light so I know God is real, that's the proof"- we all know that's a stupid argument. There is no proof or argument. I would call this the problem of personal consciousness- the scientific blind spot. All I can say is if you are thoughtful and observant of your reality, one day you will come to see God, and know Him, just like you know you are here, wherever here is.


My eyes tell me the mountains are beautiful, though I cannot prove it to the blind.

My nose tells me the smell of flowers, though I cannot tell it in words.

My ears tell me music is sweet, although I cannot see it.

My skin tells me when it is cold, though cold is relative.

My tongue tells me I love strawberries; though others may hate them.

My heart tells me there is a God, and my mind tells me there is a me.

Our perception is our whole reality. What can we trust but our senses?

I am a believer in Christ but honestly, I find your arguments for the existence of God rather excruciatingly weak.

Our belief in God is purely subjective (faith-based), and that is exactly how God wants it. Our experiences of God are purely personal and that underlines our limited understanding of Him.

The death of our Lord was to make proper our relationship with God but religion is what has destroyed the essence of that relationship and made believers a laughing stock rather than people worthy of emulation to the people of the world (atheists, and other nonbelievers).

BluntBoy:


I am a believer in Christ but honestly, I find your arguments for the existence of God rather excruciatingly weak.

Our belief in God is purely subjective (faith-based), and that is exactly how God wants it. Our experiences of God are purely personal and that underlines our limited understanding of Him.

The death of our Lord was to make proper our relationship with God but religion is what has destroyed the essence of that relationship and made believers a laughing stock rather than people worthy of emulation to the people of the world (atheists, and other nonbelievers).

I don't see any contradictions. The statement I bolded in your quote is a recurring fact that I've been trying to establish through all my posts in this thread. How no one is seeing this is beyond me

NnennaG6:

I don't see any contradictions. The statement I bolded in your quote is a recurring fact that I've been trying to establish through all my posts in this thread. How no one is seeing this is beyond me

In that case, you don't have any argument.

You can't convince any nonbeliever.