[walkhms]

(Original post by Joe-89)
Came in to post pretty much this.

The only thing you said I disagree with is the bolded bit.
I'm not at all religious myself but I think it's a bit unfair to label religion as "silly". People can't help what they believe in, and, like you said, we can't prove that what they believe is incorrect. In fact, I'd argue that those who are adamantly atheist are just as "silly".

As long as they keep it to themselves and don't try to inflict their beliefs on others without proof I'm happy to respect their faith and let them get on with it!

I'm with you on accepting that we don't know either way and that it's pointless to carry on debating it.

I completely agree with you, I gave you a positive rating.. It was silly of ME to claim religion is silly and I can see how that is disrespectful. I should be more careful with my own words. People are entitled to their own opinion is what I'm trying to say =)

[elkana]

(Original post by Hylean)
First we need to prove it was created. We cannot assume a priori that it was. I discussed this a while ago, with regards to probability.

if we cant prove it either way then we must assume that it was created

[bulgy]

(Original post by Laith)
Absolutely not. It is a construction for those that are scientifically challenged.

like einstein? or newton? how about robert boyle? lord calvin? rutherford? kepler?

[Hylean]

(Original post by elkana)
if we cant prove it either way then we must assume that it was created

Why must we?

Hawkings has created a universe model which does not need to have been created to be viable.

[Gofre]

(Original post by elkana)
if we cant prove it either way then we must assume that it was created

Nonsense.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Gofre)
x

(Original post by Hylean)
x

What do you guys think about the fine tuning argument for the existence of god? Not design, the probability one.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by bulgy)
like einstein? or newton? how about robert boyle? lord calvin? rutherford? kepler?

For ****'s sake I wish people would stop saying this.

Newton, Boyle and Kepler all lived before the atom was even discovered. The amount of scientific ignorance amongst even the most learned men of their age is astounding in comparison to nowadays. Cosmology wasn't a field in their day. There's still a ****load we don't know nowadays, but you're simply taking what Laith said out of context and applying it to an epoch completely different from our own.

Newton was an alchemist. Kepler was an astrologist. Are you about to go around preaching how we can turn lead into gold, and the orbit of Venus in relation to Saturn tells me that I'm going to be hit by a truck and the nurse who takes care of me in A&E is going to fall in love with me?

Einstein believed in Spinoza's God, and also called himself an agnostic. He criticized the idea of a theistic god as being childish.

I can't speak for Rutherford or Kelvin.

[Calumcalum]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
What do you guys think about the fine tuning argument for the existence of god? Not design, the probability one.

I think it is an excellent argument.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Calumcalum)
I think it is an excellent argument.

I know you do I've read your argument in defence on it on your site. You write well

When is your debate with Peter Atkins? (sorry if you've already had it, I haven't paid attention to TSR a lot in the past few weeks.)

ps your fancy notation hurts my brain.

[Calumcalum]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
I know you do I've read your argument in defence on it on your site. You write well

Thanks I still ought to finish that sometime...

When is your debate with Peter Atkins? (sorry if you've already had it, I haven't paid attention to TSR a lot in the past few weeks.)

27th April

ps your fancy notation hurts my brain.

I try Seriously though, make sure you're well versed in Bayesianism. It's likely to become the new paradigm in Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Religion so you will be super if you are onto it first.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Calumcalum)
Thanks I still ought to finish that sometime...
27th April
I try Seriously though, make sure you're well versed in Bayesianism. It's likely to become the new paradigm in Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Religion so you will be super if you are onto it first.

I will try to start looking at it then

with the debate with Atkins, I do hope he is prepared because it's annoying when atheists underestimate theists ... just because they're theists

I may respond to a few of your arguments in the future but time is scarce (and your better versed in this stuff than I) but keep up the work

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
What do you guys think about the fine tuning argument for the existence of god? Not design, the probability one.

It's pretty rubbish, any life form that arose by chance would have exactly the same reason to believe that their existence was fine-tuned by a deity when in reality it was just chance.

Explain the neg, now.

[ElationAndPathways]

We can't prove it either way, and we will never be able to, but there are very good arguments for both. Therefore, belief regarding the existence of God will simply remain a choice for people. If you want to believe in God, you can very simply refute atheist claims with a whole range of arguments, and exactly the same for the other way round. So I don't think atheists will ever succeed in turning the majority to atheism (although it would be good to allow people the truth...) but it's visible from history that because of science, people are getting there.

_________Lim ___________ (Religion) = 0
Human development→infinity

[ElationAndPathways]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
What do you guys think about the fine tuning argument for the existence of god? Not design, the probability one.

Look up the anthropic principle. I don't actually quite get it fully, but it's kinda saying that if we are here and able to talk about this, then obviously we're going to have the necessary conditions to have been created. The fine-tuning argument about the cosmological constants etc. is good but it's a truism. So it's kinda useless, I'd say :/

[Diety]

(Original post by ElationAndPathways)
Look up the anthropic principle. I don't actually quite get it fully, but it's kinda saying that if we are here and able to talk about this, then obviously we're going to have the necessary conditions to have been created. The fine-tuning argument about the cosmological constants etc. is good but it's a truism. So it's kinda useless, I'd say :/

The anthropic principle is the fine tuning argument.

[ElationAndPathways]

(Original post by Diety)
The anthropic principle is the fine tuning argument.

No, I don't think so...

"The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the Universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth [the fine-tuning argument]. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no one would know it. That is, it must be possible to observe some universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility."

as a response to the fine-tuning argument. It's saying the fine-tuning argument is pointless because it's so self-evident that if we're here, there must have been the correct conditions for us to exist. It doesn't mean that a creator has to have created these conditions.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by ElationAndPathways)
Look up the anthropic principle. I don't actually quite get it fully, but it's kinda saying that if we are here and able to talk about this, then obviously we're going to have the necessary conditions to have been created. The fine-tuning argument about the cosmological constants etc. is good but it's a truism. So it's kinda useless, I'd say :/

I've read that as well

[Diety]

(Original post by ElationAndPathways)
No, I don't think so...

"The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the Universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth [the fine-tuning argument]. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no one would know it. That is, it must be possible to observe some universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility."

as a response to the fine-tuning argument. It's saying the fine-tuning argument is pointless because it's so self-evident that if we're here, there must have been the correct conditions for us to exist. It doesn't mean that a creator has to have created these conditions.

The anthropic principle is the acknowledgement that the laws of the universe had to be the way they are in order for human life to have evolved. It is a basic, secular observation which has been hijacked by theists like Tenant and Lane-Craig as the 'fine tuning argument' which says that God 'finely tuned' the laws of nature so that human life would arise. So says both my Philosophy and Religious Studies and Theology A-level courses.

Why the neg? This is correct

[FrigidSymphony]

The anthropic principle is a tautology. The Fine Tuning argument is bull****.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
The anthropic principle is a tautology. The Fine Tuning argument is bull****.

Yes, I'm in agreement. Just note that it's still not definite - either there is a designer which gives us the appearance of design, or there is no designer and the appearance of fine-tuning was based on the anthropic principle. The observation of the perfect conditions for life gives us no evidtence either way, however in that situation I like to take the less complex choice (Occam's Razor) and so it seems entirely clear that the correct conditions for life are not due to design, because this requires only the law of chance and large numbers of planets (or universes in the multiverse theory) as opposed to an entity which is more complex than that which it attempts to explain.