What We Believe But Cannot Prove

punshhh said:
It is the same principle involved, a human makes a table out of the atoms around them. Same thing with a god they make a universe out of the energies around them.
Click to expand...

I must go to a keyboard factory to see them assembling the atoms one by one. What 'energies'? More new age woo.
 
punshhh said:
How do you know the universe doesn't?

Just because we haven't found it yet?
Click to expand...

Never seen any evidence that it does.
I doubt if it will be found,and I am quite sure that vague mysticism will not help in the search.
 
laca said:
You just don't understand anything. If the energy is already around, then the Universe is already there, only in a different form. Your god is no more a god than a human is a god.
Click to expand...

I am referring to the known universe only, there may be many others.

This is a god with a small g, an assembler. I see no reason why it would not in principle be able to assemble the known universe.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
I am referring to the known universe only, there may be many others.

This is a god with a small g, an assembler. I see no reason why it would not in principle be able to assemble the known universe.
Click to expand...

You should go in for writing science fiction stories. What is a god with a small g? Assembling a universe? This is pure fantasy. Btw,you still have to answer my questions about infinity in the other thread.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
It is the same principle involved, a human makes a table out of the atoms around them. Same thing with a god they make a universe out of the energies around them.
Click to expand...

I would disagree that it's the same principle, I think it's just an analogy that doesn't hold up to close inspection.
 
Malerin said:
If you came across a keyboard in the desert, you would not think it just happened to come about through some natural process.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the keyboard:

  • Has tool marks.
  • Was designed by a sort of tangible creator that we can point to a few billion living examples of.
  • Are produced, en masse, in a fashion that we can go and have a look at.

The universe is unlike a keyboard in all these respects, so it's not a comparable situation at all.

Yet many see the finely tuned universe we live in*, and think... it happened to come about through some natural process.
Click to expand...

Two things to this - first, you cannot extrapolate that any universe is finely tuned for life from a single data point, let alone one where life already happened. The kind of universe where anyone can marvel at the "fine tuning" is going to appear "finely tuned" to the one doing the marvelling, which is what makes Adams' puddle analogy so apt. Looking around you and going "what are the chances?" has exactly zero meaning when a) you have no other chances to compare it to, and b) the chances are 1:1 since it already happened.

Secondly, any other way of looking at it leads to the sort of unneccessary multiplications of entities and logical dead ends you can only resolve with special pleading: "A universe fit for life cannot have come about of itself (but a more complex creator god can)" / "Nothing is eternal (except for a creator god)" / "Whenever there is something, someone thought of it first (except a creator god, which thought of itself)".
 
punshhh said:
I am referring to the known universe only, there may be many others.

This is a god with a small g, an assembler. I see no reason why it would not in principle be able to assemble the known universe.
Click to expand...

Oh dear... If you're talking about an assembler, why not write "assembler"? Why mention a god? All gods have supernatural abilities. A mere assembler has none. Stop playing word games and beating around the bush.
 
ThatSoundAgain said:
Yes, because the keyboard:

  • Has tool marks.
  • Was designed by a sort of tangible creator that we can point to a few billion living examples of.
  • Are produced, en masse, in a fashion that we can go and have a look at.

The universe is unlike a keyboard in all these respects, so it's not a comparable situation at all.



Two things to this - first, you cannot extrapolate that any universe is finely tuned for life from a single data point, let alone one where life already happened. The kind of universe where anyone can marvel at the "fine tuning" is going to appear "finely tuned" to the one doing the marvelling, which is what makes Adams' puddle analogy so apt. Looking around you and going "what are the chances?" has exactly zero meaning when a) you have no other chances to compare it to, and b) the chances are 1:1 since it already happened.

Secondly, any other way of looking at it leads to the sort of unneccessary multiplications of entities and logical dead ends you can only resolve with special pleading: "A universe fit for life cannot have come about of itself (but a more complex creator god can)" / "Nothing is eternal (except for a creator god)" / "Whenever there is something, someone thought of it first (except a creator god, which thought of itself)".
Click to expand...

Yup, that pretty much sums it up. I'm just amazed how anyone can think the fine tuning argument works on anyone but the feeble-minded.
 
dafydd said:
Are you really this obtuse or only pretending? You must be trolling now.
Click to expand...

The atoms are distilled from crude oil, and converted into plastic beads through a chemical reaction. Then melted again and moulded into the keyboard.

This is how atoms are arranged into a keyboard.
 
Malerin said:
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Click to expand...

It means exactly what I think it means.

Even assuming that it's possible for the universal constants to have varied from negative to positive infinity, claiming that they are fine-tuned simply because they happened to land in an area wherein it is possible for life to exist is not an example of fine-tuning. To claim that it is is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. And pointing to the "fine-tuning" in the universe as evidence of fine-tuning is circular logic.
 
Malerin said:
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Blind Watchmaker argument?

For me, the physical constants being suitable for life is the most persuasive of the deistic/theistic arguments. I still don't think it's anything other than a good God of the gaps argument, but I've not heard many persuasive arguments against it. Multiverse and/or cyclical universes may be true, I just struggle psychologically to get my head around them as actually existing rather than being a theoretical construct.
 
laca said:
Oh dear... If you're talking about an assembler, why not write "assembler"? Why mention a god? All gods have supernatural abilities. A mere assembler has none. Stop playing word games and beating around the bush.
Click to expand...

I began the thread using "Intelligent creator", I changed to god later as its quicker to type. I defined this god at the time as an entity making the known universe through entirely natural processes, with no supernatural powers.

Have you read the whole thread?
 
punshhh said:
I began the thread using "Intelligent creator", I changed to god later as its quicker to type. I defined this god at the time as an entity making the known universe through entirely natural processes, with no supernatural powers.
Click to expand...

Then it's not a god. Stop referring to it as one. Use appropriate terms when describing things, you'll find it makes it easier to communicate with people.

punshhh said:
Have you read the whole thread?
Click to expand...

Am I insane?
 
punshhh said:
I began the thread using "Intelligent creator", I changed to god later as its quicker to type. I defined this god at the time as an entity making the known universe through entirely natural processes, with no supernatural powers.
Click to expand...


Of course an entity whose existence is wholly unevidenced, making a universe in violation of the laws of physics as we understand them, would be definitively supernatural. The entire premise is nonsense of course. An exercise in whimsy. Not even rational philosophical speculation.
 
punshhh said:
The atoms are distilled from crude oil, and converted into plastic beads through a chemical reaction. Then melted again and moulded into the keyboard.

This is how atoms are arranged into a keyboard.
Click to expand...

And this shows that the universe was created by a supernatural being?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom