• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

Tom Sawyer said:
If the point of the universe is to give us a place to live, regardless of who gave it to us, it's not a good way to go about it.
Click to expand...
But it does depend on 'who gave it to us.'

If the 'who' is a monotheistic god, it has to be internally consistent.

If the 'who' is a pantheon of gods, it may make more sense. If the universe is the product of some competitive assholes, like, say, Loki, or most of the Greeks, the original plan may have been for a small place. One world, a few lights in the sky (moon and sun for light, stars for signs and portents), a flat Earth with everything visible from Olympus...

But after someone bragged about how well his fjords came out, someone else was challenged to expand on his area and made 8 other planets. Then some other asshole created the Oort cloud... Something humans wouldn't even find for a few millennia, but looked SPIFFY to the other gods...

Then after a few rounds of competitive one-up-god-ship, we get a universe of infinite extent, wonders and marvels stretching as far as the (immortal) eye can see, with humans mostly forgotten except in the documentation for the original project... But no one besides Vulcan, The Judge, or Ptah care about the original project. They're busy wearing lamp shades as hats while they fuck around with details. "And one planet rotating BACKWARDS!"
"Hey! Look at how exentricks... Extendtric... Expendtrix... weird THIS orbit is!"



But hardly anyone seems to whip out the FTA to prove pagan gods...
 
Lion IRC said:
Scientists and philosophers and mathematicians seem to find existence and the universe in which we exist interesting enough. You agree that it's beautiful and interesting.

What more does God have to do to avoid your accusation that "it's a poor way to design" the little shoe box where we live? God gives you a gift and you're complaining that it's not good enough?
Click to expand...

I went to a newish hamburger place the other day... on the recommendation of a coworker... She said it was THE BEST hamburgers you can get ANYWHERE. They were OK.... pretty good... FAR from the BEST, though. If I just wandered in randomly, I might have thought they were excellent... but they were presented to me as THE BEST... so I walked away thinking, "Meh".

Is the Universe the BEST? Can you not imagine a better universe.. even trivially better? Like one where you found a nickle on the ground, instead of a penny? Then how can the maker be THE BEST?
 
Yes, I can imagine a better one.
A universe where evil (sin) is eventually defeated.
I'm sure we can get there eventually.
 
Lion IRC said:
Yes, I can imagine a better one.
A universe where evil (sin) is eventually defeated.
I'm sure we can get there eventually.
Click to expand...

I don’t see what that has to do with supernovae or Oort belts. How would they be helpful getting towards this if that’s the purpose of the universe?
 
Lion IRC said:
Yes, I can imagine a better one.
A universe where evil (sin) is eventually defeated.
I'm sure we can get there eventually.
Click to expand...

Defeating sin (as described by Christians) is simple - eliminate humanity. According to the Bible, god almost did it once but he fucked up and left Noah's family alive. Religions tend to be a bit brutal and callous.
 
Lion IRC said:
Yes, I can imagine a better one.
A universe where evil (sin) is eventually defeated.
I'm sure we can get there eventually.
Click to expand...

So then you are saying the universe was either not created, or created by an imperfect creator... like that hamburger joint.
 
Lion IRC said:
Yes, I can imagine a better one.
A universe where evil (sin) is eventually defeated.
I'm sure we can get there eventually.
Click to expand...

Not while we continue to believe in the superstitions of our Bronze Age ancestors.
Not while we accept the notion that an omnipotent creator has the right to treat the sentient creatures he created as callously and horrifically as Biblegod does.
Not while we continue to believe that children can be convicted of the sins their ancestors committed before they are even born.
Not while we refuse to take responsibility for our own actions, and believe that our bad behavior can be redeemed through human sacrifice of innocents.

In order to thrive and build a future worth having, we have to free our minds from the shackles of religion. Given that more than half the people on the planet still look to imaginary friends for guidance in all aspects of their lives, and many rejoice in the idea that an apocalyptic judgement day is imminent, I am not optimistic about our long term prospects as a species.
 
Lion IRC said:
Sure.
Same reason Shah Jahan built the extraordinarily massive Taj Mahal - excessively huge for just one person. But that's what love does.
Click to expand...

Shah Jahan loved his wife Mumtaz so much he built her a grand mausoleum that would last forever, and would tell the world of their love.

Biblegod loved his children so much he built a hell to torture them forever, and to teach the world to fear him.

That's what love does.
 
I guess it would mean that god uses climate change to flood us again, saving the Trumps in a barge (prefab, because that bunch won't build anything or pay anyone to do it for them.) Then he (god) can create a new race without the sin-loving nature he gave the earlier tribe. Hold on, there's still room for drama, since he saved the Trumps. Everything is now set up for a Book of Mormon-style pig rumble between prototypical sinless people and the inbreeding orange race of Trumps. That should provide all the drama necessary for a Newer Testament.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Lion IRC said:
Scientists and philosophers and mathematicians seem to find existence and the universe in which we exist interesting enough. You agree that it's beautiful and interesting.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
When I was about 12, we drove to Butte, Montana for Xmas.

Going up through the Rockies, I loved the view of the drifting snow. Soft, sparkly, cool patterns that came and went in an instant, reversing when the wind changed... I thought it was beautiful.
I started to mention how beautiful it looked when my dad started cursing. See, he was trying to drive through those snow drifts, trying to keep a family of four and a Toyota Corolla from sliding off the road, or driving off the road where the snow hid the shoulder, and all of us dying of impact on the rocks below, or drowning if we made it all the way down to the river.
Dad went off for a little bit about how we should have been packed and ready when he wanted to go, it'd still be daylight when we got to that stretch of road, between the cliffs and the river.

So, I shut the fuck up about how beautiful the snowdrifts were....

An important lesson for a developing mind. Beauty is subjective. Seeing beauty is a function of the human mind, NOT necessarily the sign of an artist. If the universe is interesting, that's also subjective. NOT proof of a creator.

And if it IS taken as evidence of a conscious effort, then bone cancer in kids must also be taken as a conscious element of design...
 
The conclusion to these kinds of arguments is that by observation it is obvious that there must be a creator of some sort.

'The unversed I see could not possibly come about without a creator, therefore there is a creator'.. All the arguments are typically bootstrapping, the conclusion drives the premise.
 
steve_bank said:
The conclusion to these kinds of arguments is that by observation it is obvious that there must be a creator of some sort. ...
Click to expand...

You must mean the kinds of arguments that start with the premise that there must be a creator or some other such reason why a particular kind of outcome would be favorable. Such as life and/or life as we know it. How can anyone expect an objective assessment when the assumptions are biased from the get-go?
 
In the beginning the universe was created by God because it was so simplistic and simple. When it was determined not to be so simple, the fine-tuning argument was born.
Lion IRC said:
STARS DIED FOR US!!!!!
It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics.
...I'm getting all choked up.
Click to expand...
This is the trolling thing people talk about.
 
Treedbear said:
steve_bank said:
The conclusion to these kinds of arguments is that by observation it is obvious that there must be a creator of some sort. ...
Click to expand...

You must mean the kinds of arguments that start with the premise that there must be a creator or some other such reason why a particular kind of outcome would be favorable. Such as life and/or life as we know it. How can anyone expect an objective assessment when the assumptions are biased from the get-go?
Click to expand...

Nope/ I mean that the type of the argument is what I call bootstrapping. The conclusion drives the premise.

The Teleological Argument? The universe can not possibly exist with god, therefore god exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom