Poll: Atheists only: Do you believe no god(s) exists?
Yes, I believe no god(s) exists
No, I do not believe no god(s) exists
[Show Results]
 
For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2017, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 05:55 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 04:54 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 04:28 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Not speaking about fine tuning for life here. You must have joined in late.

My bad.

(05-02-2017 04:28 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We are discussing fine tuning as an alternative to random causation based on statistical data at the start of the Universe.

Carry on. Thumbsup
If we are to believe that the cause of the universe prior to inflation is that of natural causation then something must have happened to cause the 6 universal constants to take on the properties they got after inflation.
These laws of physics went from being none existent to existent during inflation.

What caused the change in the universe at this early stage?

1. Natural Causation. Otherwise known as randomness.
Or
2. Causation by design. Which requires a designer.

If it is random then the universe should have remained in a state closer to disorder than order. However this is not the case.
The universe after inflation is more in a state of order than disorder when compared to it's older state.

It can now be inferred that state of the universe is more likely to have been caused by a designer.

I'll add this in for unbeliever to gloat:
To determine if the order is finely tuned I would need to compare current laws of physics to alternative laws of physics to determine which ones were more likely to occur.
Since I do not have this data I cannot make the statement that the Universe is finely tuned.

Deism FTW
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 05:40 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 04:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  A claim that cannot be falsified is a garage dragon.
No, that is incorrect.
A garage dragon claim is one where the claim keeps changing while you keep coming backing with seemingly falsifying evidence.

No, it isn't.

And even if that were the original intent of the passage - it isn't, but even if it were - it does not in any way affect the argument that I am making. If you have to categorize my position as independent of Sagan's, then so be it. I do not care. You are, and have always been, doing nothing but wasting time with "you can't call it that" rather than actually dealing with the argument.

(05-02-2017 04:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Garage dragons do not exist.
There is no evidence that they don't exist.

Save that they are defined as non-existent. If they do exist, then you can answer the question.

What is the difference between a garage dragon and no dragon at all?

(05-02-2017 04:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm saying that if a claim is insufficiently formulated then we are to ignore them rather than to conclude that they are false.

I have snipped the idiocy with you saying "durr i don't know what a unicorn is, nobody does", because I don't care to indulge someone who is being deliberately thick and thinks it's clever. If you want to make a fool of yourself in public, it's no skin off my nose.

Moving on.

Since we are explicitly not talking about insufficiently formed claims, no one cares.

All non-deistic religions make claims about their gods having interacted with the universe in specific ways. If those ways are, in theory, detectable - as they are for the majority of the major religions - then we can prove that those gods do not exist. If they claim that these interactions are not detectable, or if the deity is deistic, they are garage dragons, and do not exist by definition.

In either case, we know that these gods do not exist.

There are nebulously-defined claims made about these deities as well, and pointing out that these are incoherent is also valid. But this does not stop us from disproving these entities' existence by investigating the more complete claims, or from stating quite plainly that these more nebulous claims are also bunk.

When a Christian says "you have inherited original sin", we are perfectly justified in laughing in their face. The fact that they cannot sufficiently define "original sin" does not weaken the case for disproving its existence. It strengthens it.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 05:42 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 12:27 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 12:18 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, Shane. The question that we are asking is whether or not it was even possible for there to be variations at all.

Unless you can show that it was, fine tuning is a non-starter.
I already gave you statistical evidence for fine tuning. You denied it on the basis that we need to examine other universes first before we can claim it was fine tuning.
I bet even if I could have done that you would still have denied the evidence on some other grounds.

The fine-tuning argument is "if things were different, they'd be different." So what?
Your tacit assumption is that the universe was meant to produce us, that it was meant for us.
It is not fine-tuned for us - we are fine-tuned for it.

And unless you can show that it could have been different, you have no argument at all.

Quote:Let me ask you a personal question if you don't mind.
If cosmologists observed a formation of Galaxies in the cosmos that formed the words "God made this" would you say this was an act of randomness or fine tuning?

Neither.

Quote:Would you claim that until we can observe other universes we cannot infer fine tuning or intelligent design?

That would be one claim. Without knowing whether things could be different, there is no argument for fine-tuning.
And until you can produce an intelligence to do the designing, that is also a non-starter.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 05:44 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 05:33 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If we are to believe that the cause of the universe prior to inflation is that of natural causation then something must have happened to cause the 6 universal constants to take on the properties they got after inflation.
These laws of physics went from being none existent to existent during inflation.

Once again, Shane, you do not actually understand what your own sources say. You do not understand even the basics of the topics that you are attempting to base your position on, and this results in your posts becoming incoherent messes.

The laws of physics did not suddenly pop into existence during the inflationary period. The models of them that physicists use simply fail to appropriately describe the condition of the universe at that time.

And even if they did just pop into existence there, you still have not established that they could have been anything other than what they are.

You really don't seem to understand a single thing about what you're talking about.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 05:46 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 05:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 12:27 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I already gave you statistical evidence for fine tuning. You denied it on the basis that we need to examine other universes first before we can claim it was fine tuning.
I bet even if I could have done that you would still have denied the evidence on some other grounds.

The fine-tuning argument is "if things were different, they'd be different." So what?
Your tacit assumption is that the universe was meant to produce us, that it was meant for us.
It is not fine-tuned for us - we are fine-tuned for it.

And unless you can show that it could have been different, you have no argument at all.

Quote:Let me ask you a personal question if you don't mind.
If cosmologists observed a formation of Galaxies in the cosmos that formed the words "God made this" would you say this was an act of randomness or fine tuning?

Neither.

Quote:Would you claim that until we can observe other universes we cannot infer fine tuning or intelligent design?

That would be one claim. Without knowing whether things could be different, there is no argument for fine-tuning.
And until you can produce an intelligence to do the designing, that is also a non-starter.
You really need to read my last reply.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 05:50 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 05:46 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 05:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  The fine-tuning argument is "if things were different, they'd be different." So what?
Your tacit assumption is that the universe was meant to produce us, that it was meant for us.
It is not fine-tuned for us - we are fine-tuned for it.

And unless you can show that it could have been different, you have no argument at all.


Neither.


That would be one claim. Without knowing whether things could be different, there is no argument for fine-tuning.
And until you can produce an intelligence to do the designing, that is also a non-starter.
You really need to read my last reply.

I did. What is it you think the universe is "fine-tuned" for? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 05:59 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 05:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 05:46 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You really need to read my last reply.

I did. What is it you think the universe is "fine-tuned" for? Consider
In my last reply I stated that it is more likely that the universe had a designer, but we cannot prove that it is fine tuned for anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 06:57 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 05:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 05:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  I did. What is it you think the universe is "fine-tuned" for? Consider
In my last reply I stated that it is more likely that the universe had a designer, but we cannot prove that it is fine tuned for anything.

More likely? How did you calculate that? Or is it just a guess?

There is no evidence of design.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 07:03 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 04:19 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 04:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no evidence for "fine tuning". You have nothing to compare any statistics to.
If indeed life can only exist within a certain band-width of many factors, (and we don't really know that yet), it's STILL not evidence for fine tuning. The properties of the universe could have "frozen out" of the Big Bang, with no "tuning", (highly improbable events happen all the time), and if there are an infinite number of universes, that would be expected. We do not have enough information to say anything about the probability for what we observe at this point.
Not speaking about fine tuning for life here. You must have joined in late.
We are discussing fine tuning as an alternative to random causation based on statistical data at the start of the Universe.
The theory proposes that if the statistics are not in favor of random causation then the only alternative is none random causation.

It is a meaningless proposition. There is nothing to compare anything to.
The probability of the outcome we see is 1/1. It's here.
There is no way to determine any probability at any prior point.

What is even meant by "design" ? What is "designed" ?
There had to be some outcome.
If someone is going to claim "design" there have to be specific criteria for specific outcomes, and KNOWN probabilities for them. There are none.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 07:23 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2017 07:36 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 05:33 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If we are to believe that the cause of the universe prior to inflation is that of natural causation then something must have happened to cause the 6 universal constants to take on the properties they got after inflation.
These laws of physics went from being none existent to existent during inflation.

What caused the change in the universe at this early stage?

1. Natural Causation. Otherwise known as randomness.
Or
2. Causation by design. Which requires a designer.

If it is random then the universe should have remained in a state closer to disorder than order. However this is not the case.
The universe after inflation is more in a state of order than disorder when compared to it's older state.

It can now be inferred that state of the universe is more likely to have been caused by a designer.

I'll add this in for unbeliever to gloat:
To determine if the order is finely tuned I would need to compare current laws of physics to alternative laws of physics to determine which ones were more likely to occur.
Since I do not have this data I cannot make the statement that the Universe is finely tuned.

Deism FTW

Nope. Not at all. All kinds of unwarranted assumptions.
An argument from ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
We don't know anything about the universe prior to the Big Bang, or even *at* the Big Bang.
It may not have been "caused" at that point. (Penrose Cycles of Time)
We don't know why the universal constants fell out the way they did. Neither do you.
95 % of the universe is unknown at this point. We can say nothing about it at this time.
There may be all sorts of other variables which at this point may be unknown.
Since we know of no "designer" and no evidence for any interaction after the constants "froze out" *design* is the least probable answer.

Deism is dismissed as premature nonsense. Classic god of the gaps.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiegel/...a29cef69a8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(o..._disorder)

"2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves."

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: