The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by dastardly stem »

¥akaSteelhead wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:45 am


It is more than that, MG is misrepresenting the smart people. There are really smart physicists and cosmologists who state that the universe "appears to be tuned" they then go on to posit the multiverse theory as the explanation. I have yet to see one of these guys argue - thus god. MG is deliberately obfuscating their position. They don't believe the fine tuning argument for god has merit, they believe that their might be a multiverse. What they discuss categorically is not "the fine tuning argument for god".
Thanks YakaSteelhead for the comment. I actually want to walk back my comments a little here. Its so easy to be imprecise and overstate things and I should really be more careful about that. But on this point, there are actual cosmologists and physicists who say the fine tuning argument works against naturalism and at least opens the door to theism. Some even go so far as saying it is good evidence for God. Luke Barnes is a prominent cosmologist who argues for that position, for instance. I read what he says and I honestly can't see why anyone takes it all that seriously. And when I say that I wouldn't want anyone to get me wrong and think I'm saying Luke Barnes has nothing at all worth saying on the topic or that he's not a scientist, not smart or anything like that. I very much appreciate that he's putting it out there. I just don't buy his ultimate conclusions and am not sure why anyone else should either.

Here's a logical argument he's offered:
• Naturalism is non-informative with respect to the ultimate laws of nature.
• Theism prefers ultimate laws of nature that permit the existence of moral
agents, such as intelligent life forms.
• The laws and constants of nature as we know them are fine-tuned—vanishingly
few will produce intelligent life.
• Thus, the probability of this (kind of) universe is much greater on theism
than naturalism.
Found here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/do ... format=pdf

The paper is worth reading and digging into. I certainly have more to figure out if ever I'm going to try and get there. But, ultimately I don't think his argument works out well, or I can't see how it does. What he gets into, since his is a "probabilistic argument, not a logical demonstration", is positing the hypothesis of Theism vs naturalism.

After presenting his logic her says:
a problem with this argument is that we
don’t know the ultimate laws of nature, as referred to by the first two premises.
Why should we care that the laws as we know them (third premise) are fine-tuned?
This paper aims to answer this question.
I don't think he does a good job answering the question and it appears to me at every step he's leaning on the unknown to posit God. He's arguing from ignorance. Just being very subtle and very clever in doing so.

On Naturalism he concludes:
Combining our estimates, the likelihood of a life-permitting universe on naturalism is less than 10−136. This, I contend, is vanishingly small.
Then he posits on theism:
Given God’s omnipotence, if God intends to create a life-permitting universe,
then a life-permitting universe will exist: p(U|G1LB) = 1.
So he's comparing the probability that a life permitting universe exists on naturalism, without possibly knowing whether any constants could have been different, with the probability that an omnipotent God magically did things? If we posit a magical omnipotent God who did things, and we're sitting here reviewing it, trying to figure it out, then there is no other way to escape the conclusion that a magical omnipotent God did things. And any comparison anyone attempts to make can't possibly refute that.

I think al the objections apply, although I realize he thinks they've all been answered. He begs the question it seems to me. Did God create the universe? We don't know. He doesn't know. But, on his take, it's more likely that God created it than it just happened because we don't know how it happened. And since we'd have to posit God is all-knowing and powerful then that it happened is better explained by God magically doing things than it having happened on the basis of the natural. Therefore God exists.

He takes an enormous leap, but a common one, to prove God by positing God. And since God is unknown he can simply say God is everything and nothing at the same time therefore its more likely he magically did stuff than it is that things happened as they did all because we can dig to some degree into how things work, on naturalism, and see they possibly might have been different. But with God we can't do that. He's everything and nothing at the same time. He magically did stuff then hid himself so neatly we couldn't possibly find him, but he did it.

Barnes concludes:
What physical universe would we expect to exist, if naturalism were true? To
systematically and tractably explore other ways that the universe could have
been, we vary the free parameters of the standard models of particle physics and
cosmology. This exercise could have discovered that our universe is typical and
unexceptional. It did not. This search for other ways that the universe could
have been has overwhelmingly found lifelessness.

In short, the answer to the Little Question is no. And so, plausibly and as best
we can tell, the answer to the Big Question is no. The fine-tuning of the universe
for life shows that, according to the best physical theories we have, naturalism
overwhelmingly expects a dead universe.
And in that space of not probable he injects a magical unknowable something, supernatural, that could possibly have done it and concludes God wins.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
¥akaSteelhead
Deacon
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:33 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by ¥akaSteelhead »

dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:33 pm
¥akaSteelhead wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:45 am


It is more than that, MG is misrepresenting the smart people. There are really smart physicists and cosmologists who state that the universe "appears to be tuned" they then go on to posit the multiverse theory as the explanation. I have yet to see one of these guys argue - thus god. MG is deliberately obfuscating their position. They don't believe the fine tuning argument for god has merit, they believe that their might be a multiverse. What they discuss categorically is not "the fine tuning argument for god".
Thanks YakaSteelhead for the comment. I actually want to walk back my comments a little here. Its so easy to be imprecise and overstate things and I should really be more careful about that. But on this point, there are actual cosmologists and physicists who say the fine tuning argument works against naturalism and at least opens the door to theism. Some even go so far as saying it is good evidence for God. Luke Barnes is a prominent cosmologist who argues for that position, for instance. I read what he says and I honestly can't see why anyone takes it all that seriously. And when I say that I wouldn't want anyone to get me wrong and think I'm saying Luke Barnes has nothing at all worth saying on the topic or that he's not a scientist, not smart or anything like that. I very much appreciate that he's putting it out there. I just don't buy his ultimate conclusions and am not sure why anyone else should either.

Here's a logical argument he's offered:
• Naturalism is non-informative with respect to the ultimate laws of nature.
• Theism prefers ultimate laws of nature that permit the existence of moral
agents, such as intelligent life forms.
• The laws and constants of nature as we know them are fine-tuned—vanishingly
few will produce intelligent life.
• Thus, the probability of this (kind of) universe is much greater on theism
than naturalism.
Found here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/do ... format=pdf

The paper is worth reading and digging into. I certainly have more to figure out if ever I'm going to try and get there. But, ultimately I don't think his argument works out well, or I can't see how it does. What he gets into, since his is a "probabilistic argument, not a logical demonstration", is positing the hypothesis of Theism vs naturalism.

After presenting his logic her says:
a problem with this argument is that we
don’t know the ultimate laws of nature, as referred to by the first two premises.
Why should we care that the laws as we know them (third premise) are fine-tuned?
This paper aims to answer this question.
I don't think he does a good job answering the question and it appears to me at every step he's leaning on the unknown to posit God. He's arguing from ignorance. Just being very subtle and very clever in doing so.

On Naturalism he concludes:
Combining our estimates, the likelihood of a life-permitting universe on naturalism is less than 10−136. This, I contend, is vanishingly small.
Then he posits on theism:
Given God’s omnipotence, if God intends to create a life-permitting universe,
then a life-permitting universe will exist: p(U|G1LB) = 1.
So he's comparing the probability that a life permitting universe exists on naturalism, without possibly knowing whether any constants could have been different, with the probability that an omnipotent God magically did things? If we posit a magical omnipotent God who did things, and we're sitting here reviewing it, trying to figure it out, then there is no other way to escape the conclusion that a magical omnipotent God did things. And any comparison anyone attempts to make can't possibly refute that.

I think al the objections apply, although I realize he thinks they've all been answered. He begs the question it seems to me. Did God create the universe? We don't know. He doesn't know. But, on his take, it's more likely that God created it than it just happened because we don't know how it happened. And since we'd have to posit God is all-knowing and powerful then that it happened is better explained by God magically doing things than it having happened on the basis of the natural. Therefore God exists.

He takes an enormous leap, but a common one, to prove God by positing God. And since God is unknown he can simply say God is everything and nothing at the same time therefore its more likely he magically did stuff than it is that things happened as they did all because we can dig to some degree into how things work, on naturalism, and see they possibly might have been different. But with God we can't do that. He's everything and nothing at the same time. He magically did stuff then hid himself so neatly we couldn't possibly find him, but he did it.

Barnes concludes:
What physical universe would we expect to exist, if naturalism were true? To
systematically and tractably explore other ways that the universe could have
been, we vary the free parameters of the standard models of particle physics and
cosmology. This exercise could have discovered that our universe is typical and
unexceptional. It did not. This search for other ways that the universe could
have been has overwhelmingly found lifelessness.

In short, the answer to the Little Question is no. And so, plausibly and as best
we can tell, the answer to the Big Question is no. The fine-tuning of the universe
for life shows that, according to the best physical theories we have, naturalism
overwhelmingly expects a dead universe.
And in that space of not probable he injects a magical unknowable something, supernatural, that could possibly have done it and concludes God wins.
Agreed, that is a good example of a smart guy arguing things appeal to authority. Problem he has gone from physics to metaphysics. Wheee. Easy refute about his statement: naturalism overwhelmingly expects a dead universe.

Naturalisms show probability 1 for a universe with life. Any other conclusion is unwarranted and contrary to the available data.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by MG 2.0 »

dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:33 pm
¥akaSteelhead wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:45 am


It is more than that, MG is misrepresenting the smart people. There are really smart physicists and cosmologists who state that the universe "appears to be tuned" they then go on to posit the multiverse theory as the explanation. I have yet to see one of these guys argue - thus god. MG is deliberately obfuscating their position. They don't believe the fine tuning argument for god has merit, they believe that their might be a multiverse. What they discuss categorically is not "the fine tuning argument for god".
Thanks YakaSteelhead for the comment. I actually want to walk back my comments a little here. Its so easy to be imprecise and overstate things and I should really be more careful about that. But on this point, there are actual cosmologists and physicists who say the fine tuning argument works against naturalism and at least opens the door to theism. Some even go so far as saying it is good evidence for God. Luke Barnes is a prominent cosmologist who argues for that position, for instance. I read what he says and I honestly can't see why anyone takes it all that seriously. And when I say that I wouldn't want anyone to get me wrong and think I'm saying Luke Barnes has nothing at all worth saying on the topic or that he's not a scientist, not smart or anything like that. I very much appreciate that he's putting it out there. I just don't buy his ultimate conclusions and am not sure why anyone else should either.

Here's a logical argument he's offered:
• Naturalism is non-informative with respect to the ultimate laws of nature.
• Theism prefers ultimate laws of nature that permit the existence of moral
agents, such as intelligent life forms.
• The laws and constants of nature as we know them are fine-tuned—vanishingly
few will produce intelligent life.
• Thus, the probability of this (kind of) universe is much greater on theism
than naturalism.
Found here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/do ... format=pdf

The paper is worth reading and digging into. I certainly have more to figure out if ever I'm going to try and get there. But, ultimately I don't think his argument works out well, or I can't see how it does. What he gets into, since his is a "probabilistic argument, not a logical demonstration", is positing the hypothesis of Theism vs naturalism.

After presenting his logic her says:
a problem with this argument is that we
don’t know the ultimate laws of nature, as referred to by the first two premises.
Why should we care that the laws as we know them (third premise) are fine-tuned?
This paper aims to answer this question.
I don't think he does a good job answering the question and it appears to me at every step he's leaning on the unknown to posit God. He's arguing from ignorance. Just being very subtle and very clever in doing so.

On Naturalism he concludes:
Combining our estimates, the likelihood of a life-permitting universe on naturalism is less than 10−136. This, I contend, is vanishingly small.
Then he posits on theism:
Given God’s omnipotence, if God intends to create a life-permitting universe,
then a life-permitting universe will exist: p(U|G1LB) = 1.
So he's comparing the probability that a life permitting universe exists on naturalism, without possibly knowing whether any constants could have been different, with the probability that an omnipotent God magically did things? If we posit a magical omnipotent God who did things, and we're sitting here reviewing it, trying to figure it out, then there is no other way to escape the conclusion that a magical omnipotent God did things. And any comparison anyone attempts to make can't possibly refute that.

I think al the objections apply, although I realize he thinks they've all been answered. He begs the question it seems to me. Did God create the universe? We don't know. He doesn't know. But, on his take, it's more likely that God created it than it just happened because we don't know how it happened. And since we'd have to posit God is all-knowing and powerful then that it happened is better explained by God magically doing things than it having happened on the basis of the natural. Therefore God exists.

He takes an enormous leap, but a common one, to prove God by positing God. And since God is unknown he can simply say God is everything and nothing at the same time therefore its more likely he magically did stuff than it is that things happened as they did all because we can dig to some degree into how things work, on naturalism, and see they possibly might have been different. But with God we can't do that. He's everything and nothing at the same time. He magically did stuff then hid himself so neatly we couldn't possibly find him, but he did it.

Barnes concludes:
What physical universe would we expect to exist, if naturalism were true? To
systematically and tractably explore other ways that the universe could have
been, we vary the free parameters of the standard models of particle physics and
cosmology. This exercise could have discovered that our universe is typical and
unexceptional. It did not. This search for other ways that the universe could
have been has overwhelmingly found lifelessness.

In short, the answer to the Little Question is no. And so, plausibly and as best
we can tell, the answer to the Big Question is no. The fine-tuning of the universe
for life shows that, according to the best physical theories we have, naturalism
overwhelmingly expects a dead universe.
And in that space of not probable he injects a magical unknowable something, supernatural, that could possibly have done it and concludes God wins.
If you used the word ‘scientist’ or ‘scientific’, or a word like unto it, each time you use the words magic or magical I think your prejudices wouldn’t show through. Laws based on math and formulaic outcomes aren’t magical. It seems as though you think God might create the universe in a similar fashion to a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. 🙂

Regards,
MG
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Marcus »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:09 pm
If you used the word ‘scientist’ or ‘scientific’, or a word like unto it, each time you use the words magic or magical I think your prejudices wouldn’t show through. Laws based on math and formulaic outcomes aren’t magical. It seems as though you think God might create the universe in a similar fashion to a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. 🙂
Are you suggesting that your proposition of 'god did it' is just a supernatural being following natural laws?

Are you suggesting otherwise? If so, there is no difference between a universe evolving according to scientific processes, and a god who oversees a universe evolving according to scientific processes. You invoked occam's razor earlier on, and by your own definition of that, an evolving natural process requires fewer assumptions than a god plus an evolving natural process.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by honorentheos »

dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:33 pm
¥akaSteelhead wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:45 am


It is more than that, MG is misrepresenting the smart people. There are really smart physicists and cosmologists who state that the universe "appears to be tuned" they then go on to posit the multiverse theory as the explanation. I have yet to see one of these guys argue - thus god. MG is deliberately obfuscating their position. They don't believe the fine tuning argument for god has merit, they believe that their might be a multiverse. What they discuss categorically is not "the fine tuning argument for god".
Thanks YakaSteelhead for the comment. I actually want to walk back my comments a little here. Its so easy to be imprecise and overstate things and I should really be more careful about that. But on this point, there are actual cosmologists and physicists who say the fine tuning argument works against naturalism and at least opens the door to theism. Some even go so far as saying it is good evidence for God. Luke Barnes is a prominent cosmologist who argues for that position, for instance. I read what he says and I honestly can't see why anyone takes it all that seriously. And when I say that I wouldn't want anyone to get me wrong and think I'm saying Luke Barnes has nothing at all worth saying on the topic or that he's not a scientist, not smart or anything like that. I very much appreciate that he's putting it out there. I just don't buy his ultimate conclusions and am not sure why anyone else should either.

Here's a logical argument he's offered:
• Naturalism is non-informative with respect to the ultimate laws of nature.
• Theism prefers ultimate laws of nature that permit the existence of moral
agents, such as intelligent life forms.
• The laws and constants of nature as we know them are fine-tuned—vanishingly
few will produce intelligent life.
• Thus, the probability of this (kind of) universe is much greater on theism
than naturalism.
Found here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/do ... format=pdf

The paper is worth reading and digging into. I certainly have more to figure out if ever I'm going to try and get there. But, ultimately I don't think his argument works out well, or I can't see how it does. What he gets into, since his is a "probabilistic argument, not a logical demonstration", is positing the hypothesis of Theism vs naturalism.

After presenting his logic her says:
a problem with this argument is that we
don’t know the ultimate laws of nature, as referred to by the first two premises.
Why should we care that the laws as we know them (third premise) are fine-tuned?
This paper aims to answer this question.
I don't think he does a good job answering the question and it appears to me at every step he's leaning on the unknown to posit God. He's arguing from ignorance. Just being very subtle and very clever in doing so.

On Naturalism he concludes:
Combining our estimates, the likelihood of a life-permitting universe on naturalism is less than 10−136. This, I contend, is vanishingly small.
Then he posits on theism:
Given God’s omnipotence, if God intends to create a life-permitting universe,
then a life-permitting universe will exist: p(U|G1LB) = 1.
So he's comparing the probability that a life permitting universe exists on naturalism, without possibly knowing whether any constants could have been different, with the probability that an omnipotent God magically did things? If we posit a magical omnipotent God who did things, and we're sitting here reviewing it, trying to figure it out, then there is no other way to escape the conclusion that a magical omnipotent God did things. And any comparison anyone attempts to make can't possibly refute that.

I think al the objections apply, although I realize he thinks they've all been answered. He begs the question it seems to me. Did God create the universe? We don't know. He doesn't know. But, on his take, it's more likely that God created it than it just happened because we don't know how it happened. And since we'd have to posit God is all-knowing and powerful then that it happened is better explained by God magically doing things than it having happened on the basis of the natural. Therefore God exists.

He takes an enormous leap, but a common one, to prove God by positing God. And since God is unknown he can simply say God is everything and nothing at the same time therefore its more likely he magically did stuff than it is that things happened as they did all because we can dig to some degree into how things work, on naturalism, and see they possibly might have been different. But with God we can't do that. He's everything and nothing at the same time. He magically did stuff then hid himself so neatly we couldn't possibly find him, but he did it.

Barnes concludes:
What physical universe would we expect to exist, if naturalism were true? To
systematically and tractably explore other ways that the universe could have
been, we vary the free parameters of the standard models of particle physics and
cosmology. This exercise could have discovered that our universe is typical and
unexceptional. It did not. This search for other ways that the universe could
have been has overwhelmingly found lifelessness.

In short, the answer to the Little Question is no. And so, plausibly and as best
we can tell, the answer to the Big Question is no. The fine-tuning of the universe
for life shows that, according to the best physical theories we have, naturalism
overwhelmingly expects a dead universe.
And in that space of not probable he injects a magical unknowable something, supernatural, that could possibly have done it and concludes God wins.
The flaw in the argument is this:

• Thus, the probability of this (kind of) universe is much greater on theism than naturalism.

That's true, but it then fails to ask what other attributes should one expect to be more or less probable with naturalism vs. theism. Invariably everything we observe about the nature of our universe suggests it is more probably the result of naturalism than theism. A god who created our universe is an incredibly amateurish one.

I am a bit surprised to see this being discussed still. Fine tuning isn't an argument for intention. It just points out that the universe could have been otherwise and we wouldn't have evolved to know we failed to live in such a universe.

That we exists is a function of the universe having the attributes required for that to be possible. And for us to be able to realize this requires that, whatever the odds, ours has the attributes. Nothing more, nothing less.

The odds of being born into royalty are quite small. Yet for some people that's the life they are born into. For such a person to then argue that it proves something of their value or the necessity of their holding station would be quite arrogant.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by Marcus »

dastardly stem wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:33 pm
¥akaSteelhead wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 3:45 am


It is more than that, MG is misrepresenting the smart people. There are really smart physicists and cosmologists who state that the universe "appears to be tuned" they then go on to posit the multiverse theory as the explanation. I have yet to see one of these guys argue - thus god. MG is deliberately obfuscating their position. They don't believe the fine tuning argument for god has merit, they believe that their might be a multiverse. What they discuss categorically is not "the fine tuning argument for god".
Thanks YakaSteelhead for the comment. I actually want to walk back my comments a little here. Its so easy to be imprecise and overstate things and I should really be more careful about that. But on this point, there are actual cosmologists and physicists who say the fine tuning argument works against naturalism and at least opens the door to theism. Some even go so far as saying it is good evidence for God. Luke Barnes is a prominent cosmologist who argues for that position, for instance. I read what he says and I honestly can't see why anyone takes it all that seriously. And when I say that I wouldn't want anyone to get me wrong and think I'm saying Luke Barnes has nothing at all worth saying on the topic or that he's not a scientist, not smart or anything like that. I very much appreciate that he's putting it out there. I just don't buy his ultimate conclusions and am not sure why anyone else should either.

Here's a logical argument he's offered:
• Naturalism is non-informative with respect to the ultimate laws of nature.
• Theism prefers ultimate laws of nature that permit the existence of moral
agents, such as intelligent life forms.
• The laws and constants of nature as we know them are fine-tuned—vanishingly
few will produce intelligent life.
• Thus, the probability of this (kind of) universe is much greater on theism
than naturalism.
Found here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/do ... format=pdf

The paper is worth reading and digging into. I certainly have more to figure out if ever I'm going to try and get there. But, ultimately I don't think his argument works out well, or I can't see how it does. What he gets into, since his is a "probabilistic argument, not a logical demonstration", is positing the hypothesis of Theism vs naturalism.

After presenting his logic her says:
a problem with this argument is that we
don’t know the ultimate laws of nature, as referred to by the first two premises.
Why should we care that the laws as we know them (third premise) are fine-tuned?
This paper aims to answer this question.
I don't think he does a good job answering the question and it appears to me at every step he's leaning on the unknown to posit God. He's arguing from ignorance. Just being very subtle and very clever in doing so.

On Naturalism he concludes:
Combining our estimates, the likelihood of a life-permitting universe on naturalism is less than 10−136. This, I contend, is vanishingly small.
Then he posits on theism:
Given God’s omnipotence, if God intends to create a life-permitting universe,
then a life-permitting universe will exist: p(U|G1LB) = 1.
So he's comparing the probability that a life permitting universe exists on naturalism, without possibly knowing whether any constants could have been different, with the probability that an omnipotent God magically did things? If we posit a magical omnipotent God who did things, and we're sitting here reviewing it, trying to figure it out, then there is no other way to escape the conclusion that a magical omnipotent God did things. And any comparison anyone attempts to make can't possibly refute that.

I think al the objections apply, although I realize he thinks they've all been answered. He begs the question it seems to me. Did God create the universe? We don't know. He doesn't know. But, on his take, it's more likely that God created it than it just happened because we don't know how it happened. And since we'd have to posit God is all-knowing and powerful then that it happened is better explained by God magically doing things than it having happened on the basis of the natural. Therefore God exists.

He takes an enormous leap, but a common one, to prove God by positing God. And since God is unknown he can simply say God is everything and nothing at the same time therefore its more likely he magically did stuff than it is that things happened as they did all because we can dig to some degree into how things work, on naturalism, and see they possibly might have been different. But with God we can't do that. He's everything and nothing at the same time. He magically did stuff then hid himself so neatly we couldn't possibly find him, but he did it.

Barnes concludes:
What physical universe would we expect to exist, if naturalism were true? To
systematically and tractably explore other ways that the universe could have
been, we vary the free parameters of the standard models of particle physics and
cosmology. This exercise could have discovered that our universe is typical and
unexceptional. It did not. This search for other ways that the universe could
have been has overwhelmingly found lifelessness.

In short, the answer to the Little Question is no. And so, plausibly and as best
we can tell, the answer to the Big Question is no. The fine-tuning of the universe
for life shows that, according to the best physical theories we have, naturalism
overwhelmingly expects a dead universe.
And in that space of not probable he injects a magical unknowable something, supernatural, that could possibly have done it and concludes God wins.
This was very interesting, stem, thank you for laying out Barnes' argument. As a probability argument, he never seems to admit that positing a supernatural god should have a probability far less than the low probability of our universe, which because it actually does exist and is observable has a greater than zero probability. An observable event like that should always be assigned a greater probability than the idea of a god, which is given with no comparable observable evidence.

Eta it seems honorenthos is making a similar argument, but from the standpoint of the low probability of the evolving universe still not excluding an actual event; my argument is that comparing a probability between an observed event and a postulated event (god) the observed event by definition always should be assigned the higher probability, and therefore considered more likely.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by honorentheos »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:19 pm
Eta it seems honorenthos is making a similar argument, but from the standpoint of the low probability of the evolving universe still not excluding an actual event.
Yep. With the add that even if a finely tuned universe existing favors theism over naturalism, which it does in sofar as Barnes presents that point, that is just one of many attributes of the universe that need compared to what one should expect from a universe created according to theism and one emergent from prior conditions according to naturalism.

Someone could probably throw some Bayes at that or something and prove Joe Smith was Willy Wonka's grandfather twice removed. Or, being more careful, that with all evidence taken into account, a universe explained by naturalism is simply much more probably the one that best aligns with the one we observe ourselves to be in than one created according to theism.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by huckelberry »

honorentheos wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:05 am


Yep. With the add that even if a finely tuned universe existing favors theism over naturalism, which it does in sofar as Barnes presents that point, that is just one of many attributes of the universe that need compared to what one should expect from a universe created according to theism and one emergent from prior conditions according to naturalism.

Someone could probably throw some Bayes at that or something and prove Joe Smith was Willy Wonka's grandfather twice removed. Or, being more careful, that with all evidence taken into account, a universe explained by naturalism is simply much more probably the one that best aligns with the one we observe ourselves to be in than one created according to theism.
Honorentheos, I am not sure how Willy Wonka got involved but outside of that I think your comment here is one of the clearer statements of the problem in the thread. Another observation that the likelihood of life on earth is one while the likelihood of god is something less is obvious but not directly connected to the argument. I think the process of deciding likelihood of fine tuning with no divine source is impossible to determined with much precision. This weakens the fine tuning argument. (I have previously admitted on this thread that the presence of life to me is evidence of God. Though it is hardly proof it can cause people to take the possibility of God seriously)

I would presume that by other considerations you mean that the amount of suffering in the world is an indicator that we are dealing with pure naturalism.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by honorentheos »

huckelberry wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:22 pm
I would presume that by other considerations you mean that the amount of suffering in the world is an indicator that we are dealing with pure naturalism.
In part.

Let's ask the question, In a universe created in accordance to theism, what would we expect biological life to look like? We might assume it would have attributes showing craftsmanship in the design of the organism, their systems, and their forms. Like a modern building designed and built for it's current function. Past arguments against evolution often assumed this by declaring evolution could not explain the eye, for example.

If we ask the same question assuming naturalism, we might assume vestigial organs, bizarrely arranged internal systems that evidence emergent adjustments not unlike what one might find in a building that has been around for centuries and had infrastructure added, abandoned, squeezed in places no designer would prefer to place it. Like what we know now of the function of the eye and it's flaws that only make sense when it is understood as an evolved sense organ.

A created universe with a preference for human beings intended in the design seems more likely to have greater amounts of resources committed to supporting human life. One from naturalism with no special regard for human beings but only emergent from the continued application of the laws of physics could be largely empty with no concern about how much of it is hostile to human life. Human life could be a mere blip in the timeline of existence of such a universe.

A theistic created world would be one where God seems to be pretty consistent in communication compared to naturalism where each cultures religious belief is derived from their environments and social order.

There are numerous questions that needs asked in the same way Barnes posits a universe created is more likely to have the characteristics needed for life than is one that arises emergent from prior conditions. His comment is true. But it's not the whole picture, selectively focusing on the one question favoring theism over the numerous ones favoring naturalism. And it ignores this fact: 100% of all universes being observed by evolved organisms within those universes must have the conditions that allow said life to evolve. It doesn't matter what the odds were that such a universe might be the one that formed. The one we occupy is one out of necessity for us to be able to observe it.

Fine tuning doesn't matter as an argument for God. The person putting this claim forward as well as the person disputing it are obligated to seek for evidence for or against intention within the universe. Fine tuning is a trap argument that sucks you in and serves the agenda of folks who want to declare a drawing the debate because the evidence for intention is abysmal.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

Post by huckelberry »

honorentheos wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:27 pm
huckelberry wrote:
Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:22 pm
I would presume that by other considerations you mean that the amount of suffering in the world is an indicator that we are dealing with pure naturalism.
In part.

Let's ask the question, In a universe created in accordance to theism, what would we expect biological life to look like? We might assume it would have attributes showing craftsmanship in the design of the organism, their systems, and their forms. Like a modern building designed and built for it's current function. Past arguments against evolution often assumed this by declaring evolution could not explain the eye, for example.

If we ask the same question assuming naturalism, we might assume vestigial organs, bizarrely arranged internal systems that evidence emergent adjustments not unlike what one might find in a building that has been around for centuries and had infrastructure added, abandoned, squeezed in places no designer would prefer to place it. Like what we know now of the function of the eye and it's flaws that only make sense when it is understood as an evolved sense organ.

A created universe with a preference for human beings intended in the design seems more likely to have greater amounts of resources committed to supporting human life. One from naturalism with no special regard for human beings but only emergent from the continued application of the laws of physics could be largely empty with no concern about how much of it is hostile to human life. Human life could be a mere blip in the timeline of existence of such a universe.

A theistic created world would be one where God seems to be pretty consistent in communication compared to naturalism where each cultures religious belief is derived from their environments and social order.

There are numerous questions that needs asked in the same way Barnes posits a universe created is more likely to have the characteristics needed for life than is one that arises emergent from prior conditions. His comment is true. But it's not the whole picture, selectively focusing on the one question favoring theism over the numerous ones favoring naturalism. And it ignores this fact: 100% of all universes being observed by evolved organisms within those universes must have the conditions that allow said life to evolve. It doesn't matter what the odds were that such a universe might be the one that formed. The one we occupy is one out of necessity for us to be able to observe it.

Fine tuning doesn't matter as an argument for God. The person putting this claim forward as well as the person disputing it are obligated to seek for evidence for or against intention within the universe. Fine tuning is a trap argument that sucks you in and serves the agenda of folks who want to declare a drawing the debate because the evidence for intention is abysmal.
Hi Honorentheos, I suppose I could have added that the universe is absurdly large, well even much larger. Sometimes that seems a strong evidence against god and sometimes to me it questions what kind of understanding of God might that indicate. I find myself thinking that the observations you made here question what sort of god could reasonably exist and what sort of ideas about god do not fit.

I have no question that evolution is the process of life population of the planet. It fits mountains of evidence and makes sense.

I do not see a reason from my theistic point of view to assume that people are preferred or at least that they are the only thing of concern in this universe. I do not even think they are the only life that matters here. In fact I feel strongly that they variety of life is family and matters.

About Gods communication I think God limits communication to very little. Logically it is possible the God communicates nothing to us. I believe that people sometimes have a sense of Gods presence and that sense makes us ask questions about values and how we relate to the world and other people.
Post Reply