Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2013, 01:59 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 01:47 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 12:24 PM)Godexists Wrote:  We do not know, why there is life only on planet earth ( thats what scientific evidence suggests ), but life to be possible on earth, many parameters must be finely tuned. Over 120 are known to date.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-...e-universe
You did not address the many failures and flaws in nature, including what I listed above. Then there are the unnecessary items including arm hair, fingernails, and the fact that my food passes by my breathing tube every time I swallow, exposing me to the very real risk of choking to death. The sun is dangerous, even lethal, to me, and something as simple as a scratch can lead to a lethal infection.

Again, I don't see the 'fine-tuning.' If you are a creationist, please say so, as I'm familiar with the creationist mindset and see no benefit to either of us in continuing this discussion.

Very improbable events happen all the time. Give me ten pair of dice, I can toss them, and the outcome, ("uncaused") will have less than 1/googleplex probability. It's a fallacy that highly improbable events need a cause.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 12:24 PM)Godexists Wrote:  We do not know, why there is life only on planet earth ( thats what scientific evidence suggests ), but life to be possible on earth, many parameters must be finely tuned. Over 120 are known to date.
And one begins to comprehend why you have found "no serious evidence for a naturalistic world view"... You don't really understand it.

Please see:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid271719
And
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid271721

By the way, if one removes gods from the equation, what's left to explain your laundry list besides naturalism? So where is your evidence that a god exists?

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 03:04 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
They speak and we point out the flaws, but do they learn ?

Unlikely, yet we must prevail. Reason, critical thinking, science and the hope for a better tomorrow, without religion, without superstition, without fear of the unknown.

This is my goal, to help people understand the world in which we all live and not settle for comfortable delusions that can cause good men and women to commit atrocities.


You've heard of bullet proof glass no doubt.
Do you think people have faith that's it's bullet proof ? NO
It is tested and retested. They fire bullets at it, trying to break it.
If they can break it with one bullet, then the process is reformulated and new samples tested until they find success.

When someone makes a claim, scientists from all over the world fire their bullets at it, looking for weak points, looking to tear it apart. Tests are repeated, data is double checked and if something isn't right, it will be exploited for all it's worth. Scientists are barbaric that way.

Our body of knowledge we have about the world, about the universe, about the social behaviors of ants, about the mating cycles of squids, about chemistry, mathematics, biology, psychology, physics, cosmology all go through that same testing. It doesn't guarantee that everything peer reviewed doesn't contain a flaw or two. After all we are only human. We can make mistakes, but this process is the best we have for finding the truth about the world.

This body of knowledge that we have built for ourselves has given us every medical advancement, every feat of engineering, literally every object around us has been crafted using the information we have attained through science, through the process of trial and error, through methods that have given us some real, tangible certainty about the world.

You ask for explanations. We can tell you what science has discovered or point you in the right direction.
Because the direction you're in right now is leading you in circles.
If we may so humbly offer you a compass, perhaps you will find a path to truth.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
13-03-2013, 03:13 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 12:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 12:24 PM)Godexists Wrote:  We do not know, why there is life only on planet earth ( thats what scientific evidence suggests ), but life to be possible on earth, many parameters must be finely tuned. Over 120 are known to date.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-...e-universe

We don't know that there is life only on earth. We only know of life on earth. Those are entirely different statements.

And 'fine-tuning' is an anthropocentric delusion; it has the cart before the horse. We are fine-tuned to the universe, not the other way around.
The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 12:44 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Sure, if the universal laws were different, even a tiny bit different, "life like us" would not be able to exist, but probably life that is not like us would evolve in that universe, and they would be sitting around arguing about how perfect it is that their universal laws were perfectly "fine tuned" just for them.
Without finetuning, no universe at all would exist. One example is the cosmological constant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 03:16 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 01:04 PM)FlyingPizzaMonster Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 12:24 PM)Godexists Wrote:  We do not know, why there is life only on planet earth ( thats what scientific evidence suggests )

There are quintillions of stars in the known universe, and planets are apparently extremely common. Earth is the only place CLOSE ENOUGH FOR US TO EXPLORE (i.e. a portion of our solar system-one out of 8 planets ) that has life. The rare earth hypothesis is an unfounded positive assertion.
no, its actually well founded.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t232-lif...ossibility


Quote:In the 1960s the odds that any given planet in the universe would possess the necessary conditions to support intelligent physical life were shown to be less than one in ten thousand.5 In 2001 those odds shrank to less than one in a number so large it might as well be infinity (10173)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 03:34 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 03:16 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 01:04 PM)FlyingPizzaMonster Wrote:  There are quintillions of stars in the known universe, and planets are apparently extremely common. Earth is the only place CLOSE ENOUGH FOR US TO EXPLORE (i.e. a portion of our solar system-one out of 8 planets ) that has life. The rare earth hypothesis is an unfounded positive assertion.
no, its actually well founded.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t232-lif...ossibility


Quote:In the 1960s the odds that any given planet in the universe would possess the necessary conditions to support intelligent physical life were shown to be less than one in ten thousand.5 In 2001 those odds shrank to less than one in a number so large it might as well be infinity (10173)
Angelo ? That you Angelo ..... Damn man ... you still trolling ? The one fixed point on an ever changing Internet ...

You do know the Elshamah rubbish was out of date from the first time you copied and pasted it .... its so old now its got cobwebs...

Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
[/font][/size]

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes watchman's post
13-03-2013, 03:45 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Actually since we have found life existing on our own planet thriving in areas we thought to be uninhabitable to sustain life there is absolutely no way to proclaim with any absolutely certainty about life existing within our solar system, let alone beyond it.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 03:58 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Please present evidence that makes supernaturalistic explanation plausible in regard of:

anything.

Note: You're not allowed to assume anything that you wouldn't allow the follower of a different god to assume.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 03:59 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2013 05:34 PM by Human Being.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
The fine-tuning is precisely the required range needed for life in this universe to occur naturally, if there were no God. Why would a omnipotent god create a universe that required fine-tuning or with such a narrow range?

If there were a God, rather than needing 70 sextillion stars and 13.75 billion years, there would only be need of one planet, rather than having more planets than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of Earth. The only reason this universe needs to be this vast and this old is if life occurs randomly without any intelligent design. If life occurs only by happenstance, then any life that exists should exist in a amazingly vast universe just to allow the chemicals needed to kick up life enough chances to happen to kick up something as complex as life.

If somebody claims to be psychic and they win the lottery three times in a row. That seems to be good evidence. However, if they bought every possible combination of numbers for each of those lotteries. That feat requires no psychic abilities at all. Only upon the assumption of atheism do we really need these exact values. For only these values allow the formation of life to occur without God and without any outside influences.

The fine-tuning argument is actually therefore a great argument for atheism, which theists are thoughtlessly claiming as evidence for God.

So, in essence the "fine-tuning apologist" is saying, "The universe looks exactly as it should look if there is no God. How amazing is that exactness? Therefore God exists." -- If the universe looked as if it couldn't exist only by chance, theists would and do claim God exists in that case as well. The universe either cannot happen naturally and therefore God did it, or the universe can happen naturally and what an amazing feat that is and therefore God did it. How convenient!

You state that for life to exist the universe was "fine-tuned," yet your LIVING God must have existed prior to said fine-tuning, thus nullifying your argument with a Special Pleading Fallacy.

As Richard Carrier states:

"Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist. If there is no god, we will only ever find ourselves in a universe finely tuned (in that case, by random chance), because without a god, there is no other kind of universe that can produce us. Likewise, a universe that produced us by chance would have to be enormously vast in size and enormously old, so as to have all the room to mix countless chemicals countless times in countless places so as to have any chance of accidentally kicking up something as complex as life. And that’s exactly the universe we see: one enormously vast in size and age. A godless universe would also only produce life rarely and sparingly, and that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) and by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal to life (constituting stars and black holes on which no life can ever live). Again, all exactly what we’d expect of a godless universe. Not what we’d expect of a god-made one."

Thus, we have exactly the universe we’d expect to have if there is no god. Whereas a god does not need vast trillions of star systems and billions of years to make life. He doesn’t need vast quantities of lethal space and deadly matter. Only a godless universe needs that. I make a more detailed survey of this kind of evidence in “Neither Life Nor the Universe Appear Intelligently Designed” in John Loftus’s The End of Christianity. It also does no good to say such a random accidental universe is improbable, because the convenient existence of a marvelously “super-omni” god is just as improbable. Either way you are assuming some amazing luck. Which leaves the evidence. And the evidence is just way more probable if there’s no god. Thus, we’re forced to choose between which lucky accident it was, and the evidence confirms the one and not the other."

Or in Douglas Adams' analogy:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

"To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all creeds." — Robert Ingersoll
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Human Being's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: