Since not one person can demonstrate any objective evidence for a deity, how about we open it up to the best arguments?
Off you go, don't be shy....
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Israel!! Israels rebirth as a nation in 1948 is pretty important because these are two ingredients you need for it to be plausible for jesus to be able to return to earth. Zacheriah 14-I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to fight it, Half of city will go into captivity, lords feet will touch mount of olives. The two ingredients you need is 1.Israel 2.Tons of enemies of Israel that unite and bring a war into the land. That's set up pretty good if you go look at the middle east. Israel surrounded b y all Islamic nations that despise them it's sorta set up like Daniel and the lions den. Israel(Daniel) lions den(islam/world) only difference are these lions are gonna attack.
No, jazzyj7, that isn't proof of anything.
1) In 1948 the nations that set up Israel as a nation were all by people that were basically christian and conformed to a bible. Therefore they were conforming to biblical prophecy. It isn't a natural occurrence.
2) It still doesn't prove a god.
3) The bible isn't proof of anything. It is just a collection of old folklore derived from many cultures and made to fit a christian narrative.
When Sheldon asked for proof of the existence of a deity he asked for REAL proof, not some biblical reference that has no basis in fact.
Is there a foot of a god on Mount Olive? Can you prove there is? Can you even prove that foot is of a god? Predictions are not predictions. People make predictions all the time and none of them are true. The outcome of every prediction is a modified version of the original prediction. The original prediction is ALWAYS vague purposely. You are still left with proving a god and you haven't done that. Use the criteria for a court of law to determine if your proof is valid. Hearsay, testimony, false attribution, folklore and old stories, vague predictions that seem to come true but really don't, aren't valid proof.
jazzyj7, that rambling incoherent post is not an argument for the existence of a deity.
@Jazzy
I've noticed it is obvious all these other assholes on here are not even trying to give you a fair chance and understand what you are trying to say. Hope you don't mind if I try to clear things up for them a bit....
So, you said.... Uh... Let's seeeeee....
Oh, yeah... Israel's rebirth bla-blah-yadda-blah.... two ingredients (Flour and eggs, I'm guessing?).... Ummm....Soooo... yakkitty-yakkitty-yak-blah.... city..... captivity.... smelly olive feet.... yadda-blah-belch-fart-yadda..... OH! The two ingredients! Israel and a shitload of enemies (Damn, I should have gotten that one.).... Hmmm.... Uh, yeah, war.... something-something-yadda-yadda-yak....Aaaaaand the lions attack. BINGO!!!
So, yeah, seems pretty damn simple and self-explanatory to ME. I have no idea why some of these other geniuses on here are having so much trouble with it.
The universe must have come from somewhere. Anything powerful enough to make a universe has to be a god that I happen to believe in. That's good news for me since I am a big proponent and fan of Universe Farting Unicorns (UFUs). So this seems pretty compelling to me. UFUs are now god candidates. Otherwise, how else can you explain the trees, the clouds and everything ???
@MCD Re: Universe Farting Unicorns
Hey, is that why the universe smells like an odd combination Sweet Tarts and cotton candy?
@ jazzyj7 .....
FYI ..... "Daniel is a legendary figure.
The book of which he is the hero comprises two parts, a set of tales in chapters 1–6, and the series of visions in chapters 7–12:
the tales are no earlier than the Hellenistic period,
and the visions date from the Maccabean era (the mid-2nd century BC).
The stories were probably originally independent, but were collected in the mid-2nd century by the author of chapter 7 and expanded again shortly afterwards with the visions in chapters 8-12 to produce the modern book."
"It is generally accepted that the Book of Daniel originated as a collection of folktales among the Babylonian diaspora, the Jewish community living in Babylon and Mesopotamia in the Persian and Hellenistic periods (5th to 2nd centuries BC)".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_in_the_lions'_den
So sorry...... this is mythology.......folk tales ...... not prophecy...... and certainly NOT history...... if you have doubts...try looking up the king...Darius the Mede ..... the Babylonian King lists are quite extensive.... see below..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_Babylon
Zombies exist so God exists.
Zombie jesus was the first of them! Or was he.....? DUN DUN DUN! *scary music*
Everything is god. The newspaper. The flowers. The murderers. The cooks. The Peacemakers. The rocks. The butterflies. The apple. The poison, chains, cars, starvation, gluttony.
I learned this from a yogi in the '70's.
Makes sense if you want to admit that your god is part of a grinding wheel of churning pain, life, death, birth, rebirth, love, hate, lies, truth, kidnappers, freedom, slavery, joy, despair.
The best argument I have heard is the teleological argument, but its also awful!
It is the fine tuning argument which appears to at least be cogent and well thought out in some respects.
However, there is no true evidence for it, and just changing parameters would not mean life could not exist.
Teleological argument/fine tuning argument. Truly a god of the gaps argument(s).
You know it is a lousy argument when any god, including flying spaghetti monster, or some old greek god, or universe farting unicorn god can all take full credit. Even the much maligned used toilet paper god can use the same argument for its existence.
There are many non-theists who have the same sentiment as you that the Teleological Argument has some "force" and "cogency" in its argumentation. I believe that might be the trend because many non-theist have a lean towards scientism philosophically but that is another discussion.
Here is the Teleological Argument:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
When evaluating this argument, one must realize there are multiple layers of fine-tuning: laws of nature, constants of nature, and initial conditions of the universe. Also, the argument is not why does a universe exist, but why does this specific universe we are in exists the way that it does.
Physical Necessity - The claim is the universe MUST be life-permitting. Probability demonstrates that universes that are not life-permitting are more probable. The constants and quantities of the universe are not determined by the laws of nature either. This suggestion requires one to believe that universe without life is (almost) impossible. This suggestion does not seem very plausible.
Chance - The claim is the universe "just happened" to be the way that it is. We just got luckily. This suggestion has the same problem as physical necessity in the sense that a life-permitting universe like ours is astronomically improbable. On top of this, it still lacks explanatory power. Chance is a term that describes mathematical probability. "Chance" itself does not cause something to be so. This suggestion seems to be highly implausible.
Design - At this point, if one just looks at the implausibility of the other two suggestions and assumes "therefore design" then that would be an argument from ignorance or a gap argument in which is a logical fallacy. In regards to the design suggestion, what independent evidence do we have of design? The argument is built upon what do know about design in the real world. We have designed things. We have seen others designed things. Our experiences are full of features in which we intuitively judge things as designed. Here is an example: A parent takes their kid to the kids doctor. They are the only two in the waiting room. The kid starts to play with some Legos on the table for a minute before the doctor calls the kid in. The mother is waiting in the room by herself and sees the table full of Legos scattered all together in pieces. The mother decides to go the restroom to freshen up. The mother comes back 5 minutes later in the waiting room to see that there is a Lego castle on the table but sees no one in the room. What should the mother believe? Should she believe that while she left the Legos assembled themselves? Should she believe that her going the restroom caused the castle to appear? Most of us (if not all of us) would come to the conclusion that someone was in the waiting room while she was freshening up built the castle. The point of the design suggestion is that if we see and know of things that are designed because it has some levels of complexity, then the universe is utterly and astronomically more complex than things we know are designed, then it is reasonable to believe that the universe is designed. The design suggestion is way more plausible than the other two suggestions.
Are physical necessity and chance logically possible? Yes, of course. As long as something does not violate the law of non-contradiction it is logically possible. Are physical necessity and chance metaphysically possible? Not sure about that one. Not just this argument but any argument, one should believe in the option that is more plausible/probable. Mere possibility does not refute the argument...ever. These arguments are trying to provide the answer to the question: What is the "best explanation" for [insert topic]? So what is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe? It seems that design is more plausible than the alternatives.
Here are some questions I want to ask because maybe I am missing something.
1. Why is this argument "awful?" What is your justification for this claim?
2. What do you mean by "no true evidence?"
3. If design is not the best explanation, then what is your explanation?
Your response would be greatly appreciated for understanding on where you are coming from. Thank you.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@Paul Porter: If design is not the best explanation, then what is your explanation?
If the universe was not configured to support the evolution of life, including intelligent life, we would not be here talking about it. That's all.
What do you mean by "was not configured?" It seems like you are using the word "configured" instead of the word "design." Configure means to arrange or organize. So from your perspective what is the difference from configure and design?
@Paul Porter: What do you mean by "was not configured?"
Not what you're trying to make it look like I meant.
I simply meant that if the values of the various physical forces in the universe were not as they are, we wouldn't be here observing, thinking, and talking.
You screwed up right off the bat Paul Porter. You committed a classic mistake (on purpose) that ALL christians make...you make a fucking ASSUMPTION that is simply not true!
You said:
"Here is the Teleological Argument:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design."
It is an assumption that
1) The universe is fine-tuned. You'll have to prove that statement and there is NOTHING to gauge it against so that is purely an assumption and not a very good one!
2) How do you know that it isn't due to physical necessity or chance? Again a wild stab with NO fucking basis in fact or truth!
3) You ASSUME that "design" is the only option and you don't fucking know!
So your argument, this argument is a fallacy it isn't logical, it's filled with assumptions that aren't based on ANYTHING!
1. You are right that in the first premise it starts off with the claim that the universe is fine-tuned. If the universe is in reality not fine-tuned, then the argument fails. However, it goes both ways. One cannot just randomly say "it's not fine-tuned." You have defend your claim that the universe is not fine-tuned and not just assume it. The majority of cosmologists and astrophysics do believe that the universe appears to be fine-tuned. Obviously, the appearance of fine-tuning does not necessitate that it is actually fine-tuned. The notion that the universe is actually fine-tuned is more plausible than the universe is not fine-tuned. If you can demonstrate that the claim, "the universe is fine-tuned tuned" is less plausible than it's opposite then it is a weak argument. So how do come to the conclusion that the universe is not fine-tuned?
2. Actually, I did not take a wild stab. I explained why design is more plausible than the other two suggestions. I did not ignore the other two suggestions. Furthermore, I provided independent evidence for the design suggestion. It could be by physical necessity or chance, but they are less plausible than design. If it is by physical necessity, what is the evidence to defend this claim? If it is by chance, what is the evidence to defend this claim?
3. I guess that you do not know how to read this argument. The argument does not assume that design is the only option. READ premise 1 again: "The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, OR design." In premise one, there is a total of 3 (one, two, three) options. If you want to postulate more options than the three suggested, then I would love to take a look at it.
Also, look at the language that I use. I never say that I know with absolute certainty that is by design. I demonstrate that design is more plausible than the other options. Really, the only beef here is with the notion if the universe is finely tuned or not. What is your rationale to why the universe is not fine-tuned?
"One cannot just randomly say "it's not fine-tuned." You have defend your claim that the universe is not fine-tuned and not just assume it."
Or I can reject your claim for fine tuning as evidence and then your teleological argument fails. I don't need a counter argument to a failed argument. Anymore than I need to prove there are no unicorns hiding in the forest in order to disbelieve a claim there are.
Occam's razor applies to all supernatural additions to what we know about the natural physical universe. Hitchens's razor applies to all unevidenced claims.
@Paul Porter: What is your rationale to why the universe is not fine-tuned?
We are the result of a certain set of conditions that happen to exist in this universe. Our existence is important to us, so some of us assume that those conditions were purposely set for our benefit.From there it's a short step to creating a deity to explain why those conditions exist.
It's like a puddle thinking that the hole it's sitting in was perfectly designed for it.
Really?
Please tell us what these probabilities are (for a non life permitting universe, and for a life permitting universe).
Please tell us how to you calculated these values.
"Also, the argument is not why does a universe exist, but why does this specific universe we are in exists the way that it does."
That's not an argument it's speculation.
"when evaluating this argument, one must realize there are multiple layers of fine-tuning"
How many universes did you test against this assertion? For all we know this is the only kind of universe that can exist. Besides this is like saying that a pond is fine tuned for the water in it because they match so perfectly. The universe isn't fine tuned for us, we have evolved to match a very small part of it.
"Probability demonstrates that universes that are not life-permitting are more probable. "
I'm not sure it does, how many universes did you test this assertion against? If we only have one then how can you possibly claim to know the probability of different universes emerging?
"a life-permitting universe like ours is astronomically improbable."
petitio principii, you keep using the fallacy of begging the question, Simply asserting something is not a valid argument. Again, how many universes did you test this assertion against?
""Chance" itself does not cause something to be so. This suggestion seems to be highly implausible."
You seem to be implying things can't occur without a sentient cause , say through random events, again how many universes did you test this assertion against? Again you're fallaciously begging the question.
Design is not determined by complexity either as you have implied with your Lego scenario. A lot of theists and creationists make this simple error, the watchmaker fallacy is based on it. We determine design as we do all else with evidence. If the universe is designed then complexity would be irrelevant as everything would be designed, no matter how simple. We can also determine something is designed if we can find no examples of it occurring naturally.
"The point of the design suggestion is that if we see and know of things that are designed because it has some levels of complexity,"
No, complexity does not indicate design. Do chop sticks occur naturally? Do we have evidence, (designs, plans and examples of them being manufactured) that humans design and make them? Now those are the criteria that satisfy us they are designed, and note no one would try to claim chop sticks are complex.
" then the universe is utterly and astronomically more complex than things we know are designed, "
It doesn't matter as complexity is not how we determine things are designed, what do you think a non-designed universe would look like?
"then it is reasonable to believe that the universe is designed. The design suggestion is way more plausible than the other two suggestions."
No it's not, and again how many universes did you test your assertion against?
"What is the "best explanation" for [insert topic]? So what is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe? "
You're begging the question.
---------------------------------------
1. Why is this argument "awful?" What is your justification for this claim?
2. What do you mean by "no true evidence?"
3. If design is not the best explanation, then what is your explanation?
------------------------------------------
1. Mainly because it asserts fine tuning based on one example, we have only one universe, secondly it piles assumptions on top, only a deity could fine tune a universe, only my deity can design and make universes etc etc. Also it hinges on the fallacious claim that complexity denotes design, this simply isn't true. Besides if everything were designed then what difference does complexity make?
2. No objective evidence of design I assume.
3. This is argumentum ad ignorantiam, a common logical fallacy. It's intellectual integrity to say we don't know when in fact we don't know, and nothing can be asserted from not having an explanation. What's more we have countless explanations of natural physical causes, yet we don't have objective evidence for even one supernatural cause of anything. So if we apply Occam's razor here it would suggest adding an unexplained supernatural event from an unevidenced deity is fallacious. Asserting a supernatural cause, just because we don't yet have an explanation is a 'god of the gaps' approach, it has been shown to be wrong time and again as we have discovered explanations for what turned out to be entirely natural phenomena that were asserted must have a supernatural cause, lightning, earthquakes, tsunamis etc etc etc.
The same or a similar error is made by apologists in the first premise of the Kalam cosmological argument.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
this is not true, everything that begins to exist WITHIN THE TEMPORAL confines of the physical universe has a NATURAL PHYSICAL cause.
This assertion of course would make it too obvious that the argument is about to pull a rabbit out of a hat by making a claim for a supernatural cause outside of time and space, which simply can't be inferred from only have natural explanations of causes inside time and space. Also the universe didn't BEGIN to exist in that sense the other caused phenomena did, as time itself didn't exist prior to the origin of the universe.
First thing might be to clarify what one means by "fine-tuning." If one means means it to mean "designed" or "deliberately adjusted to high specification" then it is begging the question. However, "fine-tuning" is a neutral expression referring to the constants and quantities being just right for the existence of intelligent life. I would go further than just intelligent life, but embodied intelligent life that can observe the universe and that the universe is observable. The reason I make the clarification about the teleological argument being about this universe is because some think that it is an argument for "any" universe. This belief is incorrect. The teleological argument is about this universe and its specific values and seeking the best explanation for why this is the case. Maybe this example would maybe show you the nuance of what I am referring to. It is possible to have a universe that has intelligent life. It is possible to have a universe that has intelligent life AND that the universe is observable. There could be a universe that has intelligent life but the universe is not observable (or at least to the extent that we can observe it).
"The universe isn't fine tuned for us, we have evolved to match a very small part of it." Seems to be an assertion. Is this "matching" by physical necessity, chance, or design?
Of course if something is complex it does not necessitate that it must be designed. Things with higher complexity are more likely to be designed. Also, just because some items may not seem complex does not mean that it does not have complexity at all. Items have various amounts of complexity. Just because an item has few parts or a low complexity does not mean that it is not complex.
Also, you sort of add words into my mouth that I did not make. I arrive to the conclusion that the fine-tuning is by design. Yes, if design is the conclusion it seems that the implication is that there is designer. You sort of jump ahead and say my argument is weak because I insert a deity in the equation. Now, I am not going to argue for design without a designer, but the point is that you jumped ahead of what I actually said. Argue the argument made and not the implication from the argument. Also, just understand that "gap arguments" can go both ways. It seems that you fall into the "nature in the gaps" fallacy. 'It cannot be by design therefore it must by chance or necessity.' It seems that you dismiss the design option without providing independent evidence for physical necessity or chance. Finally, the biggest problem with the refutation is actually ignoring the evidence we do have about our universe with its constants and quantities. Yes, it would be great to have other universes to have a side-by-side comparison to evaluate, but to say that it is necessary for this argument is not true. How does the absence of evidence (other universes) refute the evidence we do have (constants and quantities of our universe)? This is the fallacy of ad ignorantiam...Fine-tuning is false because you cannot prove that fine-tuning is true (via not having other universes). We do have a universe that has certain values. If we change the value of X in our universe, then what universe would we have? Because of the knowledge of what we have, one can predict what kind of universe would occur if certain variables are changed. Because of our understanding of our universe, scientists understand the cause and effect relationships if certain values were indeed different. Furthermore, there is no evidence that indicates that if minor variations did occur that the universe would still exist as is. Objections to the Teleological Argument like the Weak Anthropic Principle, Random Pointless High Probabilities, and No Probability Distribution do not explain anything but merely try to get people to not discover an answer for the high improbability of our universe existing. Ignoring the reality the of something that needs to be explained is not a good counter-argument.
On a final note, just because something appears to be designed does not mean it is designed. I grant that. However, just because something appears to be random does not mean that it is random. At 5 years old, I had my appendix removed. Throughout all my schooling years through elementary, middle, and high school it was always taught from the scientific community that the appendix had no purpose or function in the human body and is just there "randomly and pointless." By the time I got to college, scientists concluded that the appendix does indeed have a function and not random. The more and more science we do, things that are viewed as simple are actually complex, the things views as pointless are actually not pointless, and more and more constants and values are being discovered to bolster this argument.
Essentially, what you are saying is... "Because A = A, A must have been designed to be A, otherwise, it wouldn't be A".
That is not accurate. At a minimum, what you would need to do this is called a GUT model. There is no widely accepted GUT model. This is why I asked you for your calculations before. And I suspect that is why you have not posted them.
Restated: The relationship between the these values is unknown. So no one has any idea what would happen to the others if somehow one of them was changed. Without that information, you ain't calculating shit.
@ Nyar
Bloody hell, I understood that!
Yay for me! Nah nah de nah nah TM...
Nice. And there are other problems too. For example: many of these "constants" they talk about being finely tuned, are NOT constant! When they were first discovered it was assumed they were constants so that is what they were called and the name has stuck.
Even worse, some of these "constants" appear they might converge; suggesting they are different aspects of the same thing. This is a big problem for the "fine tuners" since in every case I have ever seen, they argue that these "constants" are independent of each other.
The following graph might help, keep in mind only a small portion of this graph (on the left) is empirical, and most of it (the right hand side especially) is an extrapolation:
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Oh and bonus material:
At the 50 second mark: you can see William Lane Craig say the parameters are constant and independant! But surely Mr. Craig must know they are not constant or independant; but that does not stop him from making the argument to people who don't know better. And I speculate that is why we see people make the same argument here: they are copying an argument from a professional liar.
@Old Man
Help! Somebody throw me a lifeline! I forgot my arm floaties!
Hey TM, keep up...I understood this as well!. Cool stuff Nyar.
And also wow.
Pages