The Unreasonableness of Atheism

[_asbestosman]

Because these laws seem to work together for the same exact purpose.

And yet one might ask whether noses were created to hold up spectacles.

I think the question of universal constants cannot be dismissed so easily otherwise knowledgable minds would have already done so. I just wonder whether some other kind of intelligent life could have arison with different constants. Maybe atoms coulnd't have formed but something else could have.

[_Ren]

No, it was not an atheistic "concoction," but atheists have certainly grasped onto it for atheistic purposes ever since the anthropic principle.

Heh - of course we do ;) Just as theists have always grasped onto the cosmological constants in the first place...

You even said you don't believe it, it isn't scientifically proved and it hasn't even reached the status of "theory."

Correct. I use the term 'believe' very deliberately.
...look at what I've claimed all along. I'm not saying that what I'm proposing is 'true'. I'm saying that it's 'possible' - it's backed up by 'some' decent evidence (if it's good enough for Einstein, it's good enough for me!) and that it can 'explain' the kinds of things you are referring to...

Yet, you'll entertain this before the existence of a divine creator.

I've made a decision one way or the other - correct. That doesn't mean that I don't 'consider' the existence of a divine creator.
...the other important point is, I didn't make my 'judgment call' based on this one issue alone. It was a decision based on - for me - the 'balance of the total evidence'.

And even if there are parallel universes, their numbers would have to be astronomical before this would give any coherence or plausibility to the argument used to rebut the philosophical approach to the anthropic principle.

*shrug* True. The same is true for the anthropic principle to hold any weight in relation to abiogenesis.
...but then - we look out at the cosmos... There are quite a few stars out there...!!

And none of this really deals with the problem adequately.

...in your opinion... I don't mind having a difference of opinion - it's all good to me. I think it's boring when everybody thinks the same way...

Atheists require too much chance and coincidence that only an LDS apologist could appreciate.

If you don't like my application of the anthropic principle then - yeah - I get that you'll feel this way ;)

But my main point is atheists generally don't entertain philosophy. The only time they get riled up is when they smell a theist in the vicinity.

I think you've definitely got a point here. How much of a point? Not sure - still considering it...

When I see the multiple universe theory I see John Gee arguing for the missing 600 foot scroll.

I mean hell, technically it is possible right?

Once you have evidence from both relativity and QM pointing towards the 'missing 600 foot scroll', feel free to start the thread on it!

[_beastie]

Oh, lookie. Dart finds yet another opportunity to talk about what dreadful people atheists are!

I'm shocked, I tell you, just shocked.

[Guest]

How does this change the fact that the universe is governed by laws that would otherwise make no sense if it were not for their common value of supporting human life? If it is beyond reason to say four flushes in a row was not by design, then likewise, it is beyond reason to say all of these laws were just coincidentally geared to serve the same purpose.

Well this didn't answer my question. Is it beyond reason to say that four of any hand in a row is not intended because they are also as equally improbable as four flushes? Are all hands proof of cheating? Why is it only when the sequence is four flushes (or four aces, etc.) that we suspect cheating? It can't simply be the improbability of it occurring. While I'm quite confident I have the answer to my question, it would be helpful to hear your answer.

[_EAllusion]

Is Kevin implying that the fine-tuning argument is a commonly accepted argument in philosophy?

[_ajax18]

There are many questions that science cannot answer. But you don't ignore the answers it does give you, and you don't ignore the lessons it teaches you either...

Science certainly doesn't answer moral or existential questions, much less the purpose of life. Even it's answers to psychology are kind of soft. If science were able to do this, we wouldn't resort to things like religion.

It reminds me of a tennis match. I used to shun emotion as something that clouded my reasoning. Yet if you take all emotion away, you don't even care to reason in the first place. The best scientists are also the most passionate about what they do. Why? What drives them? Religion (not necessarily organized) is at the base of all human drive and desire in my view.

[Guest]

I'll answer my question. The reason we are right to suspect cheating in the instance of 4 straight royal flushes but not four other random hands in a row that are just as unlikely is because we know there exists beings (people to be specific) who intend royal flushes as a target and have the ability to manipulate the cards to achieve this end. In short, we know people have the means, motive, and oppurtunity to cheat. When you compare the likelihood of that occurring with how unlikely it is to happen in a random shuffle, we are then right to suspect cheating. It is our experience with humans that allows this conclusion.

Now your turn Kevin.

[_asbestosman]

It's getting to the point where this old post seems apt:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun98.html

It makes no sense to say, as is often argued, "yes, but an intelligent designer is a more likely hypothesis than a trillion-to-one chance of the parameters randomly coming out that way", since you have no way of assigning a probability to that. For all we know, the odds of an intelligent designer existing are a googol to one. (You could attempt to argue that the number of people who believe in one form of religion or another speaks of its high probability, but there is no demonstrable correlation between that number and the numerical probability of that hypothesis being true.) And even if we had reason to believe that an intelligent designer was the more likely hypothesis, that still doesn't mean that it's true, unless the probability is 1.

Most things do not have a probability of one. We all believe that the sun will continue shining tomorrow (although clouds may obscure it), but there is a nonzero chance that the sun will be destroyed before then by some aliens that zap it to bits to make way for a new hyperspatial bypass. Also, there are events with the probability = 1 which may never occurr. If you flip a coin forever, the probability that you will get two heads in a row sometime is 1, but it is possible that it will never happen.

Furthermore, current cosmological evidence suggests that the universe is infinite in spatial extent

Really? I have never heard that. I thought the universe started out smaller than a dot and then expanded quite rapidly, but I didn't think it ever expanded infinitely fast (as would seem to be the logical requirement for it to be infinite in spatial extent).

[_EAllusion]

Most things do not have a probability of one. We all believe that the sun will continue shining tomorrow (although clouds may obscure it), but there is a nonzero chance that the sun will be destroyed before then by some aliens that zap it to bits to make way for a new hyperspatial bypass. Also, there are events with the probability = 1 which may never occurr. If you flip a coin forever, the probability that you will get two heads in a row sometime is 1, but it is possible that it will never happen.

He is responding to the notion that design is a logically necessary explanation for cosmological constants being what they are. It's an inelegant wording, and I'd ask him to edit it too.

Really? I have never heard that. I thought the universe started out smaller than a dot and then expanded quite rapidly, but I didn't think it ever expanded infinitely fast (as would seem to be the logical requirement for it to be infinite in spatial extent).

I didn't follow that point as well. It isn't necessary to the larger argument he is making, so I'm not concerned with it. Normally when I post this, I just snippet what I think are the strong arguments and leave the rest.

[_Gazelam]