Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

[LORD KAL-EL]

Quote from jem:

Yes but given the building blocks of the universe and what we know of how it started... how likely is it that the universe would be set up just right so we can observe.


Scientific models say the odds are trillions and trillions to one against our universe being just right for life.

which is why it looks like our universe is designed if there is only one universe... But if there are almost infinite universes than anything is possible.

100% if you buy the multiverse explanation.

Of course that leads us back to where we started it neither proves the existence of God nor disproves it.

I believe in the creator but it's pretty obvious to me man's description of characteristics of GOD changes with society and technology.

How could it be otherwise, how can the terminally finite aptly describe or understand the infinite?

The real problem of understanding GOD is that it undeniably is limited by our capacity to know and understand.

It's like asking a virus to understand the implications of quantum mechanics.

Does that mean GOD really changes =no, it's just that when man is used as the measure of all things some interesting errors are inevitable.


My personal concept if the multiverse is true : Perhaps the quantum mechanics of consciousness merely allows us to perceive the correct corresponding universe.

IOW: We self select what universe we shall experience on an ongoing basis.

 

[MarketMasher]

The Higgs Boson dammit!! Prove it or refute it if you claim certainty about God!!

How can anyone claim to be "O Wisest Keeper of The Certitude" (a self-aggrandized implication of course) without being able to provide what is trivial in comparison? The Boson is a theory about the workings of Nature - surely that knowledge is much simpler than Certainty about God!

Even Einstein thought "God does not play dice with the Universe", and yet those with Certainty about God are Greater even than he!! (a self-aggrandized implication of course)

Tell us O Wisest of the Wise all about the Higgs Boson, whether it be real or imagined. And do it quickly - lest those scientists make claims before you do and prove you are but a charlatan in you claims!!

 

[jem]

Quote from LORD KAL-EL:

100% if you buy the multiverse explanation.

Of course that leads us back to where we started it neither proves the existence of God nor disproves it.

I believe in the creator but it's pretty obvious to me man's description of characteristics of GOD changes with society and technology.

How could it be otherwise, how can the terminally finite aptly describe or understand the infinite?

The real problem of understanding GOD is that it undeniably is limited by our capacity to know and understand.

It's like asking a virus to understand the implications of quantum mechanics.

Does that mean GOD really changes =no, it's just that when man is used as the measure of all things some interesting errors are inevitable.


My personal concept if the multiverse is true : Perhaps the quantum mechanics of consciousness merely allows us to perceive the correct corresponding universe.

IOW: We self select what universe we shall experience on an ongoing basis.

That is why I keep saying

if one universe, (some) evidence of design, or
one can speculate (have faith in ) the existence of almost infinite universes.

 

[MarketMasher]

Quote from killthesunshine:

"logically there could be a god"...prove it. let's see your logical proof..if it is valid and irrefutable i'll concede

How is that different than the assertion

"I have Certainty there is no God"?

Then someone who says "I do not know for certain about the existence of God" says

"Prove it."

OR are you speaking from "faith" that there is no God?

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:
So you claim to be without faith...

Now, there is a first...time for a new word:

stu, the afaithest...

Laughable really, someone claims they are "non" faith...but does not have knowledge (affirmative knowledge) to support their position.

It would be true if one would define the requirements of knowing God to proclaim they did not know God based on the lack of their own definitions
of required fact to know God...however, lacking knowledge of God would also deny an ability to define God. To give anything a definition, requires
knowledge. That which cannot be defined can in fact exist, but that which does not exist cannot be defined. Just as light exists, but darkness is
nothing but an absence of the light. An absence of something is not an existence. Theist state a positive existence of God, but atheist counter with a
positive existence of non God? Lunacy.

The more you tighten the screws, the more the faith comes to the surface.

Faith in human mind, faith in physical senses, faith remains faith...a way to generate a feeling of knowing where knowing is absent.

The honest admit to their respective faith, the cowards take refuge in "non" responses...

The dishonest insist there is faith where non exists.

So why is it you are so emotional and worked up about the fact that I don't have faith, that you need to insist I do?

You do realize the Reformation has taken place and the Age of Enlightenment also?
Rational reasonable people don't declare someone else's faith for them anymore.
It's especially weird to try and do so because they don't have any in the first place.

 

[stu]

Quote from LORD KAL-EL:

Oh kinda like you, he doesn't have the balls to come out and say it just prolific writing and numerous books , speeches and debates implying it.

Hitchens? Kinda like me? You mean honest?

Well yes ok.


So there could be a God could there?
Like there could be a Tooth Fairy.

So you think there's good reason to be believe in the Tooth Fairy?

God and Tooth Fairies don't even make it to need of proof.
They both produce enough implication themselves to make it abundantly evident in what ways they don't exist

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
Yes but given the building blocks of the universe and what we know of how it started... how likely is it that the universe would be set up just right so we can observe.

Scientific models say the odds are trillions and trillions to one against our universe being just right for life.

which is why it looks like our universe is designed if there is only one universe... But if there are almost infinite universes than anything is possible.

Scientific models say no such thing.
And before you start posting more misleading nonsense like you did with Christian de Duve earlier, the Anthropic Principle is in essence not a scientific model either.

The universe apparently isn't set up just right for life. Most of it is empty and completely hostile to it.

That a tiny speck did occur, out of all the countless quadrillions or more possibilities that a formation of stars and planets might just by chance line up once, enough for it to happen, seems hardly unlikely.

Who needs infinite universes?
In this one alone there are countless opportunities, countless billions upon billions of planets and stars for life to happen, even with the odds stacked heavily against.
Out of all that.... life certainly emerged once.

So it's a 100% chance, as it happens. No need for any intelligent designer

 

[OPTIONAL777]

So you think I am worked up and emotional?

Your own emotion must be clouding your judgment.

You do have faith...not theistic faith, but faith in science, faith in senses, faith in your own reasoning, etc.

So for you to deny the practice of faith...is a lie.

Quote from stu:

The dishonest insist there is faith where non exists.

So why is it you are so emotional and worked up about the fact that I don't have faith, that you need to insist I do?

You do realize the Reformation has taken place and the Age of Enlightenment also?
Rational reasonable people don't declare someone else's faith for them anymore.
It's especially weird to try and do so because they don't have any in the first place.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"So it's a 100% chance."

Prove that scientifically by ruling out non chance...

Prove that logically by ruling out non chance...

Not a chance in hell that you can scientifically or logically do so...but give it your best shot!

Quote from stu:

Scientific models say no such thing.
And before you start posting more misleading nonsense like you did with Christian de Duve earlier, the Anthropic Principle is in essence not a scientific model either.

The universe apparently isn't set up just right for life. Most of it is empty and completely hostile to it.

That a tiny speck did occur, out of all the countless quadrillions or more possibilities that a formation of stars and planets might just by chance line up once, enough for it to happen, seems hardly unlikely.

Who needs infinite universes?
In this one alone there are countless opportunities, countless billions upon billions of planets and stars for life to happen, even with the odds stacked heavily against.
Out of all that.... life certainly emerged once.

So it's a 100% chance, as it happens. No need for any intelligent designer

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Scientific models say no such thing.
And before you start posting more misleading nonsense like you did with Christian de Duve earlier, the Anthropic Principle is in essence not a scientific model either.

The universe apparently isn't set up just right for life. Most of it is empty and completely hostile to it.

That a tiny speck did occur, out of all the countless quadrillions or more possibilities that a formation of stars and planets might just by chance line up once, enough for it to happen, seems hardly unlikely.

Who needs infinite universes?
In this one alone there are countless opportunities, countless billions upon billions of planets and stars for life to happen, even with the odds stacked heavily against.
Out of all that.... life certainly emerged once.

So it's a 100% chance, as it happens. No need for any intelligent designer

saying it is not so is not a logical response... when I give you the info.

1. Hawkins talks about models.
2. On this thread I gave you an link to the information behind the models. .

3. You ignore the quotes I have given like:

Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. ...

But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”



http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

or the dozens of other quotes like the above he has been presented with