Fine-tuning and Design vs. Omnipotence

[Trent Wray]

Bingo!
Let's see if Randman can get it.

Perhaps every now and again something actually does get accomplished in the R/P part of the forum .

However I've agreed with that summary (the understood one) this whole time lol ....

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Again ... we do not communicate well apparently. When I am talking about myself (even using the word "I") or "generic others" (and use the word "others") ... you think I'm talking about you specifically. If I was talking about you specifically I would most likely say "you" and clarify it.

I would say that, reagardless of whether you're talking about me specifically or some group of people you're arguing against, it's still a straw man if there's no evidence that nobody actually holds the views that you're ascribing to that generic group of people.

Enough said. Then we both ultimately agree on this ..... dare I say it? .... so long as you don't claim a subjective argument is direct evidence. Would you (I'm directly asking you specifically) claim this?

Yup, I'd agree with that.

 

[tsig]

Flatulence is a major design fault,if there was a designer.

How can we know that god didn't design flatulence as the highest form of worship. This would make beans the veggie of god.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Out of all conceivable universes we might find ourselves in, one in which we can arise naturally least requires a God as an explanation for our existence.

It strikes me that a 'fine-tuner' God strongly implies a lack of omnipotence.

It doesn't make sense if the designer has no limit in creativity or resources and can make things so with a thought and no effort. So intelligent design also winds up being an argument against an omnipotent God.

Any argument against ID/god will fail if we presuppose that we can understand the workings or intentions of an omniscient mind.

For example, a strong rebuttal:
If ID/god created a billion worlds, all very different from each other, this would certainly imply omnipotence and omnimagination. It makes perfect sense that we would see our world as running on natural processes, such as evolution, if ours is the world ID/god created to implement his theory of evolution.

A comment on Intelligent Design:
When theology is mixed with science the result is not science.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I think the best, most succinct comment here was by the poster that stated "perfection" and "imperfection" are subjective judgements. That's where the logic is saying there is no God of the Bible or Designer because the world is imperfect breaks down.

That's where the logic of saying the God of the Bible is perfect breaks down, too.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Any argument against ID/god will fail if we presuppose that we can understand the workings or intentions of an omniscient mind.

For example, a strong rebuttal:
If ID/god created a billion worlds, all very different from each other, this would certainly imply omnipotence and omnimagination. It makes perfect sense that we would see our world as running on natural processes, such as evolution, if ours is the world ID/god created to implement his theory of evolution.

A comment on Intelligent Design:
When theology is mixed with science the result is not science.

This argument isn't against ID/God. I'm not presupposing anything about the workings of an omniscient mind (except that it's impossible to determine if an unfathomable being is good or evil). I'm pointing out that theology and science don't mix. Many people point to fine-tuning as evidence for their version of God. It isn't.

In your 'strong rebuttal' you create an imaginary scenario where the actions of your conception of God make perfect sense to you. What is it about this point that makes people think that their imaginations constitute a rebuttal to the observation that the only conceivable universe in which life as we know it could exist without supernatural intervention is one just like or very, very close to the one we find ourselves in?

 

[Nihilianth]

None of this addresses the points I made.

Uh, yes it does. You had mentioned something about a lack of imagination, which you repeated here:

Yes he can. And if he chose to do so in the way that ends up with the world in which we find ourselves, then the best you can say about him is that he's lazy and suffers from a lack of imagination.

Pure speculation. Especially in light of how much in "awe" you are of the universe. (Don't say you are not. Even the greatest minds are in awe of the universe.)

And you also mentioned that if God exists, then there should be mammals walking around with mouths in their stomachs, as this was directed towards that one particular comment:

How do you know there aren't mammal-like animals somewhere in the universe that has a mouth inside of it's stomach?

So, I ask again: How do you know that there aren't mammals somewhere in existence that have mouths inside of their stomachs?

 

[Mister Agenda]

There it is again: imaginary and unevidenced creatures are brought up to counter actual arguments. Nihilianth, how do you know God isn't actually a mammal with a mouth in its stomach?

 

[Nihilianth]

There it is again: imaginary and unevidenced creatures are brought up to counter actual arguments. Nihilianth, how do you know God isn't actually a mammal with a mouth in its stomach?

I'm not the one that imagined the creature! Someone else did! They made the claim that "God would have made a mammal with a mouth in it's stomach." Well, with trillions of stars in existence, how does he know there isn't one?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Uh, yes it does.

No, it really doesn't.

Especially in light of how much in "awe" you are of the universe. (Don't say you are not. Even the greatest minds are in awe of the universe.)

I wouldn't dream of denying it. Why do you suppose I would?

 

[Nihilianth]

No, it really doesn't.

I am not goin gto get into a back-and-forth of no it doesn't and yes it does. That's just dumb.

I wouldn't dream of denying it. Why do you suppose I would?

I forget whether it was you or someone else who made the argument that if God exists, there would be mammals with mouths in their stomachs. Which points to a less than omnipotent God.

I just merely asked: "How do you know they don't exist?"

 

[ehcks]

Any argument against ID/god will fail if we presuppose that we can understand the workings or intentions of an omniscient mind.

That's exactly the problem

Any argument for or against a god fails because you can't presuppose anything about that god. That makes any argument related to a god entirely pointless.

 

[Nihilianth]

That's exactly the problem

Any argument for or against a god fails because you can't presuppose anything about that god. That makes any argument related to a god entirely pointless.

So, does this mean this thread is dead then?

 

[Trent Wray]

Any argument against ID/god will fail if we presuppose that we can understand the workings or intentions of an omniscient mind.

That's exactly the problem

Any argument for or against a god fails because you can't presuppose anything about that god. That makes any argument related to a god entirely pointless.

@ both: Yes and no.

I could say that trying to understand the intentions of an omniscient mind is pointless, unless an omniscient mind is rightfully anthropomorphized.

And I could redefine what constitutes a "god", thus making discussion about that "god" relevant.

For example, if I wanted to claim that space-time, life, and death were gods because they are aspects of the universe which I am unable to escape the causality of ultimately, I could list attributes of my "god". They utilize concepts of natural selection, evolution, entropy, classical and quantum physics. They seemingly have no "mind" that I can identify. They do not communicate apart from action or mathematics. They are not a "they" ... they have no "will" as I would identify it. Etc and so forth.

If I move the goalposts, and change the "rules of what it takes to be a god" then I could label something as god and make it relevant. How relevant, and how practical it is in regards to all humanity is debatable. However, in the examples I just listed .... all humanity that we know of, is "subject to" space-time, life, death, electromagnetism, etc and so forth. If controlling our lives and making us subjects is an aspect we all agree a "god" has ... then those things have god like attributes, etc and so forth.

But, as you both essentially point out ... the problem (imho) of pointing out what an omnisicient mind would think/do ... or for that matter what an omnipotent entity should or should not do, is pointless. Regardless of whether or not the entity is similar to us, or wildly different in completely unrelatable ways.

If the God of the Bible, for example, appeared to all of us instantaneously ... and said, "all the stories are true, here are some miracles to prove it to you all finally .... you just needed to trust me, and that's that ... I am God, the only God, there are no others, I am your Lord," etc and so forth .... how could we know this for 100% certainty? How could we ever know, intellectually, that this being was an "apex entity" of which no other entity could claim "god"? Just because the entity is more powerful than us, or capable of transcending certain physical laws we cannot, doesn't mean they are "god".

It's still a matter of faith in that entity that it is "telling the truth". It's a trust of intentions, and an acknowledgement of a role that entity will play in your life. An "allegiance" as it were. You cannot know 100% that the entity is being truthful. Not by any measure of communication and understanding we currently have, imo. And i think it's due to the nature of how we understand sentient creatures/entities to be, obviously.

So, arguably, if God were able to prove his existence ... how would any of our opinions of that god change? Would a previous "lazy" "bastard" for example all of a sudden be "Holy Almighty we will love you?" simply because we acknowledge his/her/it's existence?

And which is more important .... acknowledging the god exists, or our response and relationship to the god?

So, does this mean this thread part of the forum is dead then?

I tried to fix that for you

 

[Roger Ramjets]

If the God of the Bible, for example, appeared to all of us instantaneously ... and said, "all the stories are true, here are some miracles to prove it to you all finally .... you just needed to trust me, and that's that ... I am God, the only God, there are no others, I am your Lord," etc and so forth .... how could we know this for 100% certainty? How could we ever know, intellectually, that this being was an "apex entity" of which no other entity could claim "god"?

If this "God of the Bible" was able to demonstrate to me such powers as creating a global cataclysms, stopping the sun in the sky, resurrecting dead people and reading my mind, I think* that I would get the point ('do as I say Or Else') and not be too worried about whether or not it was the "apex entity".

It wouldn't matter to me if this God was less than omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent etc., or even if He was just a very powerful Alien. If He could convince me that He was able to do all the things attributed to Him in The Bible, then I would be treating Him with great deal of respect.

OTOH, if 'God' is indistinguishable from a mindless universe which obeys natural laws, then He might as well not exist. Because if this is true then we can gain all the enlightenment we need through science, and all religious faiths are bogus.



*or I might just become convinced that it's a very realistic lucid dream, and end up killing myself trying to wake up!

 

[Nihilianth]

I tried to fix that for you

You have a point there!

 

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not the one that imagined the creature! Someone else did! They made the claim that "God would have made a mammal with a mouth in it's stomach." Well, with trillions of stars in existence, how does he know there isn't one?

And by requiring the standard be omniscient knowledge from the opposition when they make claims based on there not being any evidence of something; you open yourself up to being held to the same standard.

It's a given that none of us are omniscient. I strongly doubt omniscience is even a coherent concept. If we're going to bring up lack of omniscience as a valid counter to claims, it's not an argument, it's an admission we've given up having a discussion based on what we do know and moved on to 'who would win in a fight, Superman or Thor?' land.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Pure speculation. Especially in light of how much in "awe" you are of the universe. (Don't say you are not. Even the greatest minds are in awe of the universe.)

There's awe, and then there's awe. 'Isn't it awesome how intricate, amazing, and fascinating the universe is; and humbling to think that out of all the trillions of possible human beings, I get to exist to experience it?!' 'Well, that's because it was made by a perfect omnimax God who has infinite love for each and every one of us!' 'You don't say? Not to be ungrateful, but in that light, you'd think a being like that could have done a bit better, right? I mean my nephew has severe autism, my mother died young, and the Japanese have been getting crushed and drowned a lot lately. Before I knew about this perfect and loving creator, I thought those were the breaks, you can't expect the universe to run for our benefit, but now...'

And you also mentioned that if God exists, then there should be mammals walking around with mouths in their stomachs, as this was directed towards that one particular comment:

It sounds like a little clarification is needed here. The stomach-mouthed mammals are just a specific example of the class 'life forms inexplicable in terms of natural processes' whose absence is consistent with all life being the result of natural processes, but which makes you wonder why people think a supernatural being who can do anything is invoked as necessary to explain life forms that fit their environments and lineages. A stomach-mouthed mammal on another planet where having a mouth in its stomach made sense in terms of its environment and lineage could conceivably exist, but in those circumstances it would no longer be a member of the class 'life forms inexplicable in terms of natural processes', and thus no longer a counter point to the observation that a supposedly omnipotent deity creates life forms in a fashion that suggests a limited budget and tight deadlines.

 

[Nihilianth]

And by requiring the standard be omniscient knowledge from the opposition when they make claims based on there not being any evidence of something; you open yourself up to being held to the same standard.

It's a given that none of us are omniscient. I strongly doubt omniscience is even a coherent concept. If we're going to bring up lack of omniscience as a valid counter to claims, it's not an argument, it's an admission we've given up having a discussion based on what we do know and moved on to 'who would win in a fight, Superman or Thor?' land.

ok. But that wasn't even my point first off.

I was merely pointing out the flaw in making such a claim. That doesn't mean I have made the same flawed argument.

 

[Nihilianth]

There's awe, and then there's awe. 'Isn't it awesome how intricate, amazing, and fascinating the universe is; and humbling to think that out of all the trillions of possible human beings, I get to exist to experience it?!' 'Well, that's because it was made by a perfect omnimax God who has infinite love for each and every one of us!' 'You don't say? Not to be ungrateful, but in that light, you'd think a being like that could have done a bit better, right? I mean my nephew has severe autism, my mother died young, and the Japanese have been getting crushed and drowned a lot lately. Before I knew about this perfect and loving creator, I thought those were the breaks, you can't expect the universe to run for our benefit, but now...'

Yeah, and you don;t see how that can be contradictory? In one sense, you want to be all in wonder about the universe, and not give God*** any credit. But in the very next breath, you want to lay the blame for suffering on a God that you are trying to convince someone doesn't exist.

Listen, I respect your opinion that God does not exist. I am not trying to convince you otherwise. I know it can be quite offensive if I tried.

But at the same time, I find it a little funny that atheists, who generally makes the claim that they are open-minded enough not to make wild conclusions, are the very same people who deny the existence of God. Or some derivative thereof.

*** Note: I use the word "God" to mean some sort of omniscient supernatural being. You may substitute "God," "god," "ID," or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" everytime I use the word "God." I just have personal faith in the Christian God of the Bible, and that not everything is necessarily literally true. Like 7 days is not 7 literal days.

It sounds like a little clarification is needed here. The stomach-mouthed mammals are just a specific example of the class 'life forms inexplicable in terms of natural processes' whose absence is consistent with all life being the result of natural processes, but which makes you wonder why people think a supernatural being who can do anything is invoked as necessary to explain life forms that fit their environments and lineages. A stomach-mouthed mammal on another planet where having a mouth in its stomach made sense in terms of its environment and lineage could conceivably exist, but in those circumstances it would no longer be a member of the class 'life forms inexplicable in terms of natural processes', and thus no longer a counter point to the observation that a supposedly omnipotent deity creates life forms in a fashion that suggests a limited budget and tight deadlines.

Ok. I see your point. Thanks for making it clearer.

In that case, it still doesn't mean it can't be a part of God's master plan, whatever it may be. Let's say, for a minute, that God does exists, and it is a fact, and that he is as omniscient and omnipotent as the religious folks claim he is.

Does that mean you should be able to comprehend why there is suffering in the world? That it is a legitimate argument to make? God's mind is so far above and beyond our own, that it will be impossible for anyone to ever understand Him, and what He does.

Take this example:

Let's say you have a dog who loves to go on car rides and stick his head out the window. Let's say that on one particular occasion, you need to take the dog to the vet to have....I dunno....some kind of wicked shot that will keep the animal healthy.

The dog does understand why you are hopping in the car. He doesn't understand what you are doing, and he may not understand that he is even traveling somewhere. What he does understand, is the moment of pure glory of having the wind in his face, and how great it feels.

But then the car stops, and you enter into a building with your dog. You place your dog up on the table to receive the shot. The dog just feels an excruciating pain in his backside, yelps, and tries to run away. The dog has no idea WHY you placed him in a position to be hurt. He'll never understand what that pain was, what it was for. The dog's mind is so far inferior to your own, and the doctor's, that he will never understand why that pain was necessary, and may even be angry with you for putting him through that. He doesn't know it was actually good for him. Would it be right of him to speculate in his own mind that you must not be a good owner, because you put him in pain that one time? Perhaps from his perspective it is. But from the perspective of society and the doctor, you were a great owner for taking good care of him. Because you love him so much, that you are willing to spend a lot of money to see his continued health and happiness for the rest of his short life.