Can theists be rational?

[Belz...]

Okay... so the fine-tuning argument, according to you, is not that the universe is fine-tuned for life, per se, but that the universe is fine tuned for us ?

In other words, the universe is fine-tuned for precisely the result that we have here. Didn't we talk about probabilities a short while ago ? Didn't anybody mention that you can't draw conclusions from the result alone ? Sheesh, this is going nowhere.



The problem is, it's NOT as likely. Bad analogy. HHHHH is just as likely as HTHTH.

Westprog ?

 

[RevDisturba]

The question about the probability of the universe being fine tuned for life (by God) is helped nearly beyond comprehension by the universe being a one shot affair! I know some of you took prob and stats? Do I have to go into detail?

Hint; the more tries the universe had to get it right the less chance it was a guided affair. The odds were overwhelmingly for the universe being a smooth homogeneous affair with no lumps i.e. (atoms planets or stars). However (of course) we do have lumps (stars atoms etc) against all odds, nearly infinite ~ odds against it!

; {>

 

[Beth]

Even when we know we made up the entity in question ? Please, Beth. I think we both know that, no matter how sober or reliable this person may be, his claim would be rejected because we know for a fact that the easter bunny is fiction, and because he could simply be wrong about it.

That's why the easter bunny isn't a good analogy. No one is actually making that claim because we know the easter bunny is fiction. We do not know that about god.

But when it comes to god, people would like us to make an exception for it. No, I don't think I will.

Okay. You are as entitled to your opinion on the matter as everyone else is. Me, I think it's a legitimate difference between the two.

It would still be weak evidence, assuming it was evidence at all. But centuries of fruitless search for that critter pretty much put it in the same camp as the easter bunny.

While I agree that it's weak evidence, I don't think it puts it in the same camp as the easter bunny. I think they are in different camps.

 

[RevDisturba]

While I agree that it's weak evidence, I don't think it puts it in the same camp as the easter bunny. I think they are in different camps.

Agreed !

; {>

 

[Belz...]

That's why the easter bunny isn't a good analogy. No one is actually making that claim because we know the easter bunny is fiction. We do not know that about god.

That's what I said: you want "god" to be in a different camp from the easter bunny although we have plenty of evidence, from a whole bunch of religions, that the concept is man-made. You want god to be in a special category that is apart from the other ones.

Why should anyone cater to that ?

 

[Belz...]

The question about the probability of the universe being fine tuned for life (by God) is helped nearly beyond comprehension by the universe being a one shot affair!

Hey, Rev. Since you've got a history of making it up as you go along, why stop now, eh ?

How the hell do you know it was a one-shot affair or not ?

And even if you do, what the hell does it change ?

Hint; the more tries the universe had to get it right the less chance it was a guided affair. The odds were overwhelmingly for the universe being a smooth homogeneous affair with no lumps i.e. (atoms planets or stars). However (of course) we do have lumps (stars atoms etc) against all odds, nearly infinite ~ odds against it!

Well, _you_ obviously didn't "take prob and stats".

 

[Beth]

That's what I said: you want "god" to be in a different camp from the easter bunny although we have plenty of evidence, from a whole bunch of religions, that the concept is man-made. You want god to be in a special category that is apart from the other ones.

Why yes, I think god belongs in the same category as math, music, justice, and freedom rather than with the easter bunny.

Why should anyone cater to that ?

Who's asking anyone to 'cater' to anything? I've expressed my opinion and you've expressed yours. Are you asking me to cater to your opinion that they belong in the same category when I feel they don't? I think we simply hold different opinions on the subject and apparently neither of us feels the other has made a sufficiently good case to cause us to change our opinion. At least, you haven't convinced me that the god and the easter bunny deserve to be classed together.

 

[RevDisturba]

Hey, Rev. Since you've got a history of making it up as you go along, why stop now, eh ?

What makes you think I make it up as I go along? And what do you think I make up as I go along? I have been writing and posting for about ten years and saying the same thing so I think that you are either telling a lie (which you have a habit of doing) or delusional, maybe both. Please show your evdience? Well I am sure you cant

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of "Be Civil & Polite" and Rule 10 removed.

.

How the hell do you know it was a one-shot affair or not ?

Ever hear of the standard model of the big bang? No? Most children are taught that in the sixth grade now. It tells us that the universe began to exist one time.

And even if you do, what the hell does it change ?
Well, _you_ obviously didn't "take prob and stats".

I did not take prob and stats. I don't have to for my argument. Simply put the more tries the universe has the better chance it has to produce life. If the universe had an infinite amount of chances it would produce every conceivable outcome. Duh huh?

; {>

 

[westprog]

Westprog, you seem to be forgetting a very important fact about HALO: not everything in the simulated universe is being simulated. The textures are not quite as detailed as they would be in a simulation of a reality with, say, atoms. The entire universe of Halo isn't being simulated. In fact, the only portions that are even being rendered are those you actually see. So, yes, in the Halo simulation the computer needs to be at least as complex as the simulation.

But with reality, we have enormous amounts of detail, and billions of people who observe various parts of it.

That's right. Parts of it. In fact, very, very small parts of it.

Already, in some games, the detail is constructed only when looked at. We already know that the laws of physics explicitly only determine certain parameters when observed. That's almost a giveaway right there.

Now, imagine the sheer amount of computing power required to render ALL that at once. Why, it would require a computer more complex than the simulated universe.

But such a thing would be entirely unnecessary. All that's needed is to ensure that when someone looks at something, they find the information they expect.

Yes, such a simulation would be complex and not something we could achieve with present technology - but it's something we can imagine being able to achieve with future technology.

 

[RevDisturba]

Who's asking anyone to 'cater' to anything? I've expressed my opinion and you've expressed yours. Are you asking me to cater to your opinion that they belong in the same category when I feel they don't? I think we simply hold different opinions on the subject and apparently neither of us feels the other has made a sufficiently good case to cause us to change our opinion. At least, you haven't convinced me that the god and the easter bunny deserve to be classed together.

I am sure that we have different opinions of God. Actually I think that one God fits all. We humans simply attach different attributes on God and those attributes are what we call religion.

BTW good posting Beth.

; }>

 

[westprog]

Westprog ?

Sorry, did this come around again.

Yes, I would be suspicious if somebody were to roll fifty heads in a row, even though such an outcome were exactly as likely as any other outcome. I would speculate that there was some element present that biased the outcome in order to make such a thing possible.

 

[RevDisturba]

What amazes me is that a organic brain that weighs less than a normal PC, that runs on less power than a light bulb has more sheer computing power (when everything is considered) than a Cray. The coup de grâce is that its self aware. I doubt that even considering the exponential growth in computing power of the last decade computers will achieve what our brain is capable of in the next ten years.

; {>

 

[RevDisturba]

Sorry, did this come around again.

Yes, I would be suspicious if somebody were to roll fifty heads in a row, even though such an outcome were exactly as likely as any other outcome. I would speculate that there was some element present that biased the outcome in order to make such a thing possible.

Try getting heads one thousand times in a row. Still you would not have the odds that the universe beat to be as it is.

Oh I gotta roll ...later kids...

; {>

 

[PixyMisa]

Hint; the more tries the universe had to get it right the less chance it was a guided affair. The odds were overwhelmingly for the universe being a smooth homogeneous affair with no lumps i.e. (atoms planets or stars). However (of course) we do have lumps (stars atoms etc) against all odds, nearly infinite ~ odds against it!

There is one small problem: This is not true.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The question about the probability of the universe being fine tuned for life (by God) is helped nearly beyond comprehension by the universe being a one shot affair!

No. It's merely helped by the universe being a one shot affair.

But it's harmed by the fact that you have to have a god there in the first place to do it. And it doesn't help that the universe isn't known to be a one shot affair.

Have you been keeping up with the thread, RevDisturba? It's generally proper netiquette to do so.

 

[GeeMack]

That's why the easter bunny isn't a good analogy. No one is actually making that claim because we know the easter bunny is fiction. We do not know that about god.

Already mentioned by Belz..., but to reiterate: Actually, we also know that many, many gods are fiction. We have no evidence (from a scientific standpoint) that there are, or ever have been, any real gods. We have much evidence showing that gods have very often been invented by humans. If a sober and reliable adult testified to having seen (heard, communicated with, witnessed, or otherwise experienced) god, it would be rational to accept that his/her testimony had another, more mundane explanation. It would not be rational to accept it as evidence for the existence of a god. Certainly no more rational than accepting testimony of seeing the Easter Bunny as support for its existence.

Me, I think it's a legitimate difference between the two.

The amount of legitimate difference approaches zero.

 

[RevDisturba]

There is one small problem: This is not true.

Sorry It is very true. You don't specify what not's true so I suppose you mean my entire post isn't true according to your learned assessment. I will challenge you to provide evdience to verify your claims. I have noticed that many members here, most of them atheist or secular humanists don't have even a rudimentary learning of cosmology and astronomy. The days of you guys smugly blithering false information to support your secular or atheist claims are going to end or be severely challenged. I know many atheists and secular humanists here are being silent when they see an argument to help a theist etc. But they remain silent. why is that? Its nearly a lie by omission in the spirit of healthy debate!

I will say that most of you guys are knowledgeable and this forum which makes it fast and fun. But to be real, for the most part its a ********ting forum that deals more with personal flaming and such things rather than real subjects.

Anyway, actually I was being very conservative with my odds of a thousand heads in a row. Read more at;

" Somehow, the big bang was rather precisely organized. How precisely? The mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose has done the math. To appreciate the odds against the early bang being smooth enough to give rise to a universe as rich in information as ours, you have to wrap your mind around this number: one, followed by a thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zeros. (That's many more zeros than there are atoms in the universe.) In other words, for nature to be possible, the universe had to originate in a stupendously unnatural state. "

See as I said I was being conservative I was really being ultra conservative .

http://www.math.mcmaster.ca/lovric/1d6/The World - Granta - Jim Holt.pdf.

Have a nice Godly day

Remember as an open theist Christian I can say that God loves you and I am trying to.

; {>

 

[RevDisturba]

No. It's merely helped by the universe being a one shot affair.

But it's harmed by the fact that you have to have a god there in the first place to do it. And it doesn't help that the universe isn't known to be a one shot affair.

Have you been keeping up with the thread, RevDisturba? It's generally proper netiquette to do so.

Yes I have as much as possible. I was responding to a members post, I saw a gross error and challenged it. So this is evdience that points to God being there in the first place! And it certainly does help that the universe was made so that it can support life the first time. We shouldn't be here discussing this by nearly infinite odds against the universe being able to support life. Its simply logical to assume that this was not a natural occurrence. So whats left? A supernatural occurrence.

; }>

 

[RevDisturba]

Already mentioned by Belz..., but to reiterate: Actually, we also know that many, many gods are fiction. We have no evidence (from a scientific standpoint) that there are, or ever have been, any real gods. We have much evidence showing that gods have very often been invented by humans. If a sober and reliable adult testified to having seen (heard, communicated with, witnessed, or otherwise experienced) god, it would be rational to accept that his/her testimony had another, more mundane explanation. It would not be rational to accept it as evidence for the existence of a god. Certainly no more rational than accepting testimony of seeing the Easter Bunny as support for its existence.

The amount of legitimate difference approaches zero.

We theists philosophers and christian lonely monks theologians from time immortal do have loads of circumstantial evdience to support the existence of God. Even in science sometimes we have no empirical evdience to support an event or object and rely on circumstantial evdience and guess work. The higgs boson is a good example. Or string theory. Or black holes (before there was observational evdience to support them). All were assumed as near fact. We have cosmological arguments (Craig and Koons first cause arguments etc) for evdience for the existence of God as well other ontological arguments as proof for the existence of God (such as Kurt Godels ontological argument). Then there are over 20(!) more logical reasonable arguments for the existence of God. I have yet to see one logical reasonable argument on par with the KCA or Godels arguments for an hard atheist to support the way he believes the universe to be. (ie no god, impossible for God to exist).

So I do not agree that we have no evidence for the existence of God.

; {>

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry It is very true. You don't specify what not's true so I suppose you mean my entire post isn't true according to your learned assessment. I will challenge you to provide evdience to verify your claims. I have noticed that many members here, most of them atheist or secular humanists don't have even a rudimentary learning of cosmology and astronomy. The days of you guys smugly blithering false information to support your secular or atheist claims are going to end or be severely challenged. I know many atheists and secular humanists here are being silent when they see an argument to help a theist etc and that is nearly a lie by omission.

No.

Anyway, actually I was being very conservative with my odds of a thousand heads in a row. Read more at;

" Somehow, the big bang was
rather precisely organized. How precisely? The mathematical
physicist Sir Roger Penrose has done the math. To appreciate the odds against the early bang being smooth enough to give rise to a universe as rich in information as ours, you have to wrap your mind around this number: one, followed by a thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zeros. (That's many more zeros than there are atoms in the universe.) In other words, for nature to be possible, the universe had to originate in a stupendously unnatural state. "

Show your work.

See as I said I was being conservative I was really being ultra conservative.

http://www.math.mcmaster.ca/lovric/1d6/The World - Granta - Jim Holt.pdf.

Link's broken.

And it's the only page on the entire web to make that statement.

Have a nice Godly day

Old Testament or New Testament? Because I really don't have time to cause any plagues today, and I'm fresh out of loaves and fishes.

Remember as an open theist Christian I can say that God loves you and I am trying to.

And as an open rationalist I can say that your God is fiction, and poor fiction at that.