Can theists be rational?

[westprog]

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. I've never said that the "supernatural" exists. In fact, I've said that there is little or no evidence of it. You're the one making the claim that it's theoretically impossible. It's not.

The fallacy is to claim that because science has nothing to do with the natural, the claim that there is absolutely no supernatural is a scientific claim. It isn't. Science describes the natural world. As to the existence of anything beyond that, science has nothing to say.

 

[Malerin]

Let me help you. Argument from ignorance^WP

And you're saying:

In other words, your words are that because the odds can't be known, it's a viable hypothesis. In other words, we should entertain the theory because we can't prove that it's not true.

And we see why, in this post...

If I'm arguing from ignorance, how come I'm the only one providing scientific support?

How come you exclude multiverses and oscillating universes?

I don't. I've said repeatedly someone could believe in a multiverse and not find E compelling. My point is that someone could rationally NOT believe in a multiverse and find E compelling.

You sling out the strangest accusations. I've discussed this before. I'm not confusing being with knowledge. You're confusing belief with knowledge. Funny you should mention epistemology... epistemology is the study of knowledge and how we come about to know things. As I've stated before, it's easy for us to fool ourselves, and the only sure way to prevent this from happening is to make sure your knowledge derives from being, rather than from fancy.

Another argument from ignorance. FT evidence has been around for 20 years and do you think the cosmologists/physicists I sources are an exhaustive list? So you object to Hoyle and Penrose. Address Linde and Hawking. I'm sure you'll reach a point where they're all wrong and you're right.

This is a doubt based approach, as opposed to your answers based approach.

An answer's based approach based on evidence. How dare I!

No. I'm presenting you an alternate model, where 0 parameters vary, and the same universe comes into being.

If the constants are set at some precise life-permitting value, the evidence becomes even stronger. I've gone over this.

Your fine-tuning argument requires more than a recognition of parameters of life being in small ranges. You rely on specific models, whereby life is improbable. What you're leaving out are alternate models, where life is certain, and others where it's more certain (and still others where it's less probable... and so on).

An alternate model where life would be impossible wouldn't exactly help you...

Ironically, you're attempting to justify not adding that into consideration, by accusing my demanding it be considered with all other hypothesis, as being an argument from ignorance. Only I'm trying to get you to take everything into account.

I'm taking into account three things:
1. God is possible
2. The physical constants have to be at precise values for life to exist (supported by quotes from physicists)
3. There is no evidence for an oscillating universe or multiverse

From those, a theist could rationally believe that God is the best explanation for life existing in the universe.

Only problem is, we are pretty sure that there's no oscillating universe, and you're stealing all of the evidence for multiverses for use with that God hypothesis.

What evidence do you have that there is more than one universe?

Uhm, no, I think you have no clue what you're talking about. Hoyle (who I see you brought up again... must have a short term memory) aside, who was sort of wacky when he delved outside his field (and you're welcome to plug in that biochemist any time)... Penrose was the only one you mentioned that actually gave you a probability.

Deustch, Hawking, Davies and Linde don't give probabilities, but their statements are enough: "It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life." - Hawking

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly" - Davies

"If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."- Deustch

"We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” - Linde

Let me know when you've "demolished" these guys, especially Hawking.



edit: Penrose's full quote:

"the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, "namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros!" That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros. Penrose continues, "Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment."

A further quote from Hawking:

Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125).

And another quote from another physicist: Nobel laureate, high energy physicist (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), Professor Steven Weinberg, in the journal Scientific American, reflects on "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." Although Weinberg is a self described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well tuned universe. He continues: "One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning... The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places."

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm

 

[Paulhoff]

I'm taking into account three things:
1. God is possible
2. The physical constants have to be at precise values for life to exist (supported by quotes from physicists)
3. There is no evidence for an oscillating universe or multiverse

What evidence do you have that there is more than one universe?

1. So is Peter Pan
2. Only for our type of life, there can be many other types of life with other values.
3. There is no evidence for a so-called god.

What evidence do you have that there is a need for a so-called god, and/or a need for a universe to have life, outside of your need for it to have life.

Paul

 

[yy2bggggs]

If I'm arguing from ignorance, how come I'm the only one providing scientific support?

First, this is your argument, not mine. Second, you need to include all possibilities, because that's what you do when you use Bayes Theorem. Third, you're not providing scientific support--you're using factoids. You're not even attempting to understand.

And finally... for your prior???

I don't. I've said repeatedly someone could believe in a multiverse and not find E compelling.

Don't care. You should have a term for multiverse in your formulation for Bayes Theorem, with a probability attached to it, if you honestly think it's viable. This isn't about my arguing atheism, it's about your using your one and only Bayesian inference to at least gain some semblance of sensible meaning.

Another argument from ignorance. FT evidence has been around for 20 years and do you think the cosmologists/physicists I sources are an exhaustive list?

No, I don't need an exhaustive list. I need everything that comes from you to actually support your argument somehow. And frankly, it's not me that needs it. It's you. Remember... the point is to determine if theists are rational. In particular, your rationality is on trial in this discussion.

You have complete free reign for formulating new arguments. But you must back them.

So you object to Hoyle and Penrose.

Only Hoyle. Penrose is fine. But he's not saying what you think he is. In fact, Penrose himself seems to agree with me.

Address Linde and Hawking. I'm sure you'll reach a point where they're all wrong and you're right.

You address them. It's your argument. I picked Penrose out, and spent a full night on him, because he was the only sensible one that actually had a probability--something you need in order to put into Bayes Theorem.

The point of this exercise is for you to build a more reliable theorem. After all, you're using Bayes Theorem in the first place, aren't you?

An answer's based approach based on evidence.

No, an answers based approach based on the answer you have.

How else can you possibly conclude that the low probability of life, explained by two theories, A and B, is evidence for A, while B is not to be considered because there's no evidence for it? I mean, rationally? How does this work, Malerin?

No, I'm not talking about whether you think someone who believes B, you would consider rational. I'm talking about whether or not you are rational.

If the constants are set at some precise life-permitting value, the evidence becomes even stronger. I've gone over this.

How is it rational that both the improbability of life and the necessity of it are taken as evidence for theory A? Is this any different from my belief that a slot machine is lucky because it is hot, and another because it is due?

Malerin: The question is, are you rational?

An alternate model where life would be impossible wouldn't exactly help you...

Wouldn't help you either. So don't add it into the equation. But I want to see that 0-parameters-can-vary option in your list.

I'm taking into account three things:
1. God is possible
2. The physical constants have to be at precise values for life to exist (supported by quotes from physicists)
3. There is no evidence for an oscillating universe or multiverse

Your "no evidence for a multiverse" is special pleading, in light of the fact that both the multiverse and God share the property that you hold provides evidence for God. Are you rational?

Deustch, Hawking, Davies and Linde don't give probabilities, but their statements are enough:

Only if you hand wave.

Figure out what their statements actually imply. Derive a good, fair, representative set of possible universes from it, and assign them probabilities using some form of rational argument (not mere hand waving). Put them all into a Bayesian inference.

Let me know when you've "demolished" these guys, especially Hawking.

Let me know when you have a form of Bayesian inference that you can actually back.

 

[Malerin]

First, this is your argument, not mine. Second, you need to include all possibilities, because that's what you do when you use Bayes Theorem. Third, you're not providing scientific support--you're using factoids. You're not even attempting to understand.

And finally... for your prior???

Don't care. You should have a term for multiverse in your formulation for Bayes Theorem, with a probability attached to it, if you honestly think it's viable. This isn't about my arguing atheism, it's about your using your one and only Bayesian inference to at least gain some semblance of sensible meaning.

No, I don't need an exhaustive list. I need everything that comes from you to actually support your argument somehow. And frankly, it's not me that needs it. It's you. Remember... the point is to determine if theists are rational. In particular, your rationality is on trial in this discussion.

You have complete free reign for formulating new arguments. But you must back them.
Only Hoyle. Penrose is fine. But he's not saying what you think he is. In fact, Penrose himself seems to agree with me.
You address them. It's your argument. I picked Penrose out, and spent a full night on him, because he was the only sensible one that actually had a probability--something you need in order to put into Bayes Theorem.

The point of this exercise is for you to build a more reliable theorem. After all, you're using Bayes Theorem in the first place, aren't you?
No, an answers based approach based on the answer you have.

How else can you possibly conclude that the low probability of life, explained by two theories, A and B, is evidence for A, while B is not to be considered because there's no evidence for it? I mean, rationally? How does this work, Malerin?

No, I'm not talking about whether you think someone who believes B, you would consider rational. I'm talking about whether or not you are rational.

How is it rational that both the improbability of life and the necessity of it are taken as evidence for theory A? Is this any different from my belief that a slot machine is lucky because it is hot, and another because it is due?

Malerin: The question is, are you rational?

Wouldn't help you either. So don't add it into the equation. But I want to see that 0-parameters-can-vary option in your list.

Your "no evidence for a multiverse" is special pleading, in light of the fact that both the multiverse and God share the property that you hold provides evidence for God. Are you rational?

Only if you hand wave.

Figure out what their statements actually imply. Derive a good, fair, representative set of possible universes from it, and assign them probabilities using some form of rational argument (not mere hand waving). Put them all into a Bayesian inference.

Let me know when you have a form of Bayesian inference that you can actually back.

Ah, so when in doubt, dismiss it all as "hand waving". Hawking says: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life...
For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded... It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

Quotes by Hawking, Linde, Davies, all the others. Hand waving. Sure. Since you seem allergic to actually posting rebuttal sources, I think the argument is going to end here.

 

[Paulhoff]

Let’s see if this works for you.

We have this big wind sailing ship, and with this ship we find is this very big ocean, and in this ocean there are thousands and thousands of islands, some that are many miles around, some so small that you can hardly stand on them. Some with no good water source for drinking, some with so much rain that everything grows with fungus and is not good for human life. There are islands that have many trees that are good for building houses and some islands without any good building materials at all. Some islands with lots of good sources of food and many islands without any food at all. So has we sail this ocean we find islands with all types of variables of size, water, building materials, and food.

Now I’m sure you can think of other things, like too hot, to cold, too many active volcanoes, bad weather patterns etc.

We also have learned that this ocean has people who make boat and sail this ocean. So knowing all this, would anyone find it strange to think that those islands with the right combinations will have humans on them?

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded...

Oh please get this right, it is Fusion and not Burning.

It has also been worked out by others that with other values for the four know forces there still would be stars. Also depending on the forces there also could also be other partials, and the universe would be completely different and who knows what that would be like.

Also once again, what makes you think that there must be life in a universe?

And, what is strange about finding life like ours in a universe like this?

Paul

 

[westprog]

2. Only for our type of life, there can be many other types of life with other values.

How could there be life in a universe consisting of clouds of hydrogen and helium? If such life could exist, it would exist in our universe. There's plenty of hydrogen and helium around.

It takes a remarkable degree of faith to suppose life could exist when everything it requires is absent, on the most basic level.

 

[RandFan]

It fits within any known theory.

WHAT THEORY?

I many times can I ask and you play dumb?

The theory is that there is a god is outside of the natural universe that has the power to adjust the constants of the natural universe so that it can support life.

That's NOT a scientific theory. That's conjecture. Oh for crying in the ****ing dark. Are you going to sit there and tell me you don't even know what scientific theory is? Really? Are you one of those creationsist that spout "evolution is just a theory".

Bri, theory ISN'T conjecture.

I'm sorry to be rude but this is really difficult to believe that having been on this forum for this many years you don't know what a theory is. Let me repeat.

Theory ISN'T conjecture.

You asked me for a definition a day or two ago and I gave it to you. This discussion isn't going to get anywhere if you don't pay attention.

I don't mean to be patronizing but this is really ridiculous that you should have been on this forum for this long and now act as if you don't even know what a theory is. Ok, I'm going to accept that you are ignorant of the scientific method and what a theory is. Please, pay close attention.

Theory: A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

Got it now? It's not conjecture. It's not speculation. It's not simply an idea. Look, all I ask is for you to provide me these facts that form a theory for the possibility of god.

I've given you the facts that explain why ET inteligent life is theoretically possible. Please to provide the same for god OR admit that there is a difference between ET inteligent life and god?

You're the one claiming that a god is theoretically impossible...

This is false Bri. I'm giving you the benifit of the doubt and not calling it a lie. I'm not going to claim that you are being obtuse. But I will say that you are really going out of your way to not listen to me.

I NEVER ever claimed that god is theoreically impossible. Please, provide the quote if I did? I beg you, show me wrong?

...so please provide a theory that a god is impossible.

How long have you been a member of this skeptics forum? Bri, that ISN'T how it works.

1. My claim: God is not *theoretical (there does not exist a sceintific theory for god).
2. NOT my claim: God is theoretically impossible.

Please to focus on #1. Not on #2. I can't prove a negative. I can only state that I'm confident that there is no theoretical basis for god as I can't produce one and I've never, ever heard of one. It is up to you to provide a theory (not conjecture).

 

[RandFan]

Science describes the natural world. As to the existence of anything beyond that, science has nothing to say.

Which says a lot. It's amazing how people can be so ignorant of something so profound.

What DOES say something about what can't be measured or observed?

Here's a hint: Nothing.

N - O - T - H - I - N - G


Oh, there are people who will tell you they can turn straw into gold using supernatural powers but for some odd reason they only take your money.

• Leprechauns
• Faeries
• Ghosts & goblins
• Magical horse shoes and 4 leaf clover
• Unicorns
• Mermaids
• Superman
• Winged angels

Science can disprove none of them. So, see, I have the magical power to fill your savings or checking account (you chose) with a million dollars. I only ask for $1,000.00., up front and for you to believe in me.

Why wouldn't you believe in me? You can't prove me wrong.

 

[westprog]

Oh please get this right, it is Fusion and not Burning.

Well, that's Hawking told. No Nobel for you, Steven.

 

[RandFan]

You're the one making the claim that it's theoretically impossible. It's not.

{sigh}

No, no I am NOT! I've never made that claim. If I did, you could quote it. I didn't so you can't. I am saying that I know of no theoretical basis for god and given that you haven't taken the time to provide one you don't know either. So let's skip with all of the pretense and admit that after two thousand years of trying to formulate one no theist or Deist has ever provided a valid theoretical framework for the existence of the supernatural. Never ever.

There are many irrational beliefs, particularly those that are incoherent or inconsistent with reality.

Supernatural is not consistent with reality. This is your get out of jail free card. One only needs to appeal to the supernatural.

I can fly to the moon because I'm supernatural. Prove that it is impossible?

 

[Paulhoff]

How could there be life in a universe consisting of clouds of hydrogen and helium? If such life could exist, it would exist in our universe. There's plenty of hydrogen and helium around.

Well, that's Hawking told. No Nobel for you, Steven.

How do you get that, change gravity, change the electric charge, change the strong and weak force, there will be other combinations that will still have life, not us, but life. And why does life have to been an end product anyway.

That is not a field that Hawking would get a Nobel in anyway.

He told that for people that haven't a clue about how the sun works to begin with.

Paul

 

[fls]

May I make a suggestion?

Too bad, I'm going to do it anyway.

'Theoretically possible' are those things that could be changed and the theory remains unchanged. For example, one could change the mechanism by which variation of hereditable characteristics are introduced into a population and still leave Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection unchanged. On the other hand, changing the composition of the moon to green cheese would necessitate a change in the theory of the formation of planetary systems.

I find that it helps to clarify the discussion if it is asked what theory makes some idea "theoretically impossible". On the other hand, any discussion that involves a reference to a 'theory of a god' is probably doomed.

Linda

 

[blobru]

Sorry I'm so behind the times... been trying to post this for two damn days! Anyway --

neither, as far as I can tell, has any relation to any plausible estimate of objective fact or subjective belief.

The values assumed in the premise of the argument are:

P(H) = 0.000001 (1 in a million)
P(~H) = 0.999999
P(E|H) = 0.000001 (1 in a million)
P(E|~H) = 0.0...{a bajillion zeros}...1

I think some might surmise a higher probability of a god existing P(H) and of fine-tuning if a god exists P(E|H). I'm sure the argument assumes a much wider range of possible values of the universal constants to arrive at P(E|~H) than you did. But it might also be noted that these values yield a near-100% probability of the existence of a god, whereas you probably really only need to yield a 50% or higher probability of existence.

Your math skills are probably better than mine, so if you assume P(H) = 0.000001, P(~H) = 0.999999, and P(E|H) = 0.000001 you would need P(E|~H) to be 10^-12 or so to get 0.5 for P(H|E) wouldn't you?

Right. In this equivalent form it's still P(H) or P(E|H) or both < square_root(P(E)) -- (here both values are very slightly less than the square root of P(E)).

P(H|E) = P(E|H)P(H)/P(E) = P(E|H)P(H)/P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H)

which we can rewrite as (1+P(E|~H)P(~H)/P(E|H)P(H))^-1
Since the reciprocal pivots around 1, if we want to maximize P(H|E), we want the term we add to 1 to approach 0: we'll want to minimize P(E|~H)P(~H)/P(E|H)P(H), thus we'll want to minimize P(E|~H)P(~H)... by setting P(E|~H) at virtually nothing, we ensure that P(H|E) will be virtually certain (as P(E|~H) doesn't depend on them, the rest of the numbers are red herrings: swap the values for P(H) and P(~H), give P(E|H) any value short of the absurd bajillion, doesn't matter); with the notable exception that the one thing we can't do is make P(H) necessary (for that would be question-begging: reducing P(~H) to zero and the b_calculus to 1=1). So two facts emerge: [1] we can't get to the necessary god of traditional theology this way; we can attempt to demonstrate the likelihood of a contingent god only; [2] P(E|~H) is the crucial number! What is the probability of fine-tuning without a fine-tuner ("god", bracketed because even if we argue successfully for a fine-tuner there's no way to know whether it's conscious or mechanistic/natural -- is there a process that "fine-tunes" universe(s) like evolution "fines-tunes" an organism for its environment)?

On the one hand, just as God easily explained biological fitness before the theory of evolution, God is the current no-brainer explanation for cosmic fine-tuning. Of course, god isn't empirical. What do we have empirical evidence of relevant to the creation of the universe? Well, we've observed quantum events that create something from nothing, and we've observed the echo of an event that may have created the universe from nothing. A quantum event is then the obvious empirical candidate (just a matter of scale); knowing that it happened once, and with a natural event the obvious candidate, there's no reason to suppose it didn't happen again and again and... so empirically, one could argue P(E|~H) should be very high, the inverse of the bajillion zeros figure. Which would make god virtually impossible.

But even if we accept the values as given, what do we prove? We prove it is a virtual certainty that "god" is contingent (since his prior probability of existing was one in a million, there are almost a million contingencies where he doesn't exist; god is thus dependent on whatever law determines these million contingencies); thus, we prove it is impossible for the necessary god that most traditional theology assumes to exist. We have a god subject to a law, so existing within the realm of law (nature), who may be destroyed by those laws. A fine-tuner exists, but not God (one could argue that a fine-tuner subject to this many contingencies most likely isn't conscious at all, but a mechanism: quantum fluctuation again? -- e.g.: let's say the enormous quantum event that produced the big bang is a macro of a bajillion micro-events that have to mesh so precisely that the resultant macro is capable of producing only those universes in a range which tends toward the most stability and complexity, and life is simply evidence of that prerequisite favoring stability and complexity) Thus, the fine-tuning calculation in either case, whether it purports to show a fine-tuner probably does or doesn't exist, must be interpreted as an argument against the capital 'G' necessary God of traditional theology.

It simply cannot demonstrate what its theistic supporters believe, and in fact may demonstrate the opposite. A theist may argue otherwise, of course, but upon my criticism I don't see how to make bayesian fine-tuning a strong, rational argument for god (though it appears to be a fairly good argument against).

I haven't been following the Drake debate too closely, but it seems to me the only thing either Drake or Bayesian fine-tuning can ever show is what values, based on what assumptions, are required for alien life or [a fine-tuning] God to likely exist. One still has to argue for the "rationality" (beyond the trivial point of deductive validity) of the logic's assumptions.

Yes, I completely agree. That has been my point all along.

I don't think there is a good argument to be made for the rationality of any set of assumptions and values that make Bayesian fine-tuning "probabilistically consistent" (even using posterior probability < 1 as the sole criterion).

I don't know if that's true or not, but the same could be said for an argument for aliens based on Drake's equation. Too many of the variables are mere speculation. We simply don't know enough about the conditions (and possibly unlikely events) by which intelligent life emerged on this planet to justify any set of values that will result in a probability of extra terrestrial intelligent life greater than 0.5.

-Bri

Maybe less speculative for Drake's since we're extrapolating from some empirical data rather than a theological blank, but overall I'd agree: Drake's equation is a way to clarify assumptions about, not to 'prove' the likelihood of, alien life.

 

[cj.23]

Oh please get this right, it is Fusion and not Burning.

Fusion, I assume you here refer to stellar nucleosynthesis, is burning. See definition from dictionary.com

burn 1 (bûrn)v. burned or burnt (bûrnt), burn·ing, burns
v.tr.1. a. To cause to undergo combustion.
b. To destroy with fire: burned the trash; burn a house down.
c. To consume (fuel or energy, for example): burned all the wood that winter.

2. Physics To cause to undergo nuclear fission or fusion.3. To damage or injure by fire, heat, radiation, electricity, or a caustic agent: burned the toast; burned my skin with the acid.

And name a single contemporary cosmologist who denies that the existence of stars is dependent upon a remarkable case of "Cosmological Fine Tuning". I'm just thinking through those I know of who have stressed the point - Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawkings, Lord Martin Rees, Paul Davies, Bernard Carr, look I can't think of any cosmologist who denies this issue exists? Can you find me one?

cj x

 

[Belz...]

So? The universality of the laws of physics is a working assumption of science.

Right back at you: so ? The existence of a being that exists outside the known laws of physics violates the known laws of physics by definition. I don't see how one could claim otherwise.

If it's a belief, it's a non-scientific belief.

It's quite scientific, because so far all of our observations have indicated that the laws of physics are constant and we've never observed any of the alleged violations of said laws under controlled conditions.

It's not a metaphysical assertion.

It might be because metaphysics aren't particularily useful.

That is why it doesn't mean very much to say that God is "theoretically impossible". According to what theory?

Any conceivable theory that doesn't make up new laws of physics.

 

[Belz...]

Ah, so it's an opinion, then.



I think you're making my point for me, here. The ability to imagine patterns doesn't make those patterns true. Or significant, for that matter.



All else being equal, yes. I keep repeating those words and you seem to miss them.



No, really ? Who's been cheating about the physical laws ?



Okay. Touché.



Why ? Why wouldn't you find it suspicious if I won playing 12-19-47-30-31-22 ? You're making 1-2-3-4-5-6 more significant than it should.

In short, what you're seemingly doing is expecting that, since there is, say 1 in 14 billion chances of us getting that sequence, it would take 14 million tries to get it. But that's quite a ridiculous opinion.



That makes even less sense.

Come on, westprog. You can answer those, I'm sure.

 

[Paulhoff]

"Cosmological Fine Tuning"

Tell me where that does not imply that something had to do it.

Paul

 

[RandFan]

The existence of a being that exists outside the known laws of physics violates the known laws of physics by definition.

Ever play a game with someone who changes the rules whenever it suits them? Need to explain god? Just change the rules (laws of physics).