Does anyone actually believe in God or are they just afraid...

that is one incoherent non sequitor / strawman.

Your nonsense about a limited Creator is the thought of a troll or a moron.
Just because you can't conceive of it happening a different way... does not mean it could not have been different.

For instance one very simple way would be a garden of eden with no constants.
Another might be a place where we the fundamentals are set up so we are aware our choices make multiple universes each time we choose.
Who knows maybe that is what it is like to be God. He chooses like in Hawking's speculation about top down cosmology and then he collapses all the other universes at once.




stu said:
Right, so now after 7 years, you're no longer saying your "Creator" chose or could have chosen to make the universe as it exists.

If it didn't choose to, then the Universe.... what exactly?...doesn't exist?:eek:
If it did choose to make it the way the Universe does exist then, according to what you're forever mumbling and posting the same old lumps of text and vids about, it couldn't have "fine tuned" it. Your "Creator" had no choice. No free will.

Time to bring out your sockpuppet again :D
More...
 
my argument is more that if there is only one universe we can rule out random chance... therefore a Tuner looks like a very strong possibility.

if the odds against it being conducive to human life... was one in 500 trillion... would you say hey that is so unlikely that we got here luck... it must have been created.

do you appreciate the difference between one in 500 trillion and one in 10 to the 230? or one in 10 to the 10 to the 123?


bigarrow said:
What proof is there that was ever any tuning. Isn't all you've shown is proof of the way things are, not tuning. Tuning means to adjust, what was it adjusted from ?? How was it adjusted ?? Just because the cosmological constant is what it is does not mean that it used to be something else or that it could be something else.
It seems like your argument is we don't know why, thus there is a god.
More...
 
Here's a thought for both sides of the argument...

The MOST HONEST answer humanity currently has to the question "Is there a God?" is:

"I don't (for a fact) know."

But this is the difference.

For believers, that is called "Doubt". Doubt is addressed by the religious with the concept of "Faith".

For Atheists (so-called), Doubt is acually called Agnosticism. It effectively eliminates the concept of Atheism.

So while someone who believes in God can answer "I don't (for a fact) know" and still maintain their belief, the same answer makes an atheist (so-called) non-existent.

For those who say "I know for a FACT there is no God", there are many other questions for you to answer regarding the nature of the Universes before answering one of the oldest questions of humanity definitively.

Otherwise, your answer is simply a dishonest one.
 
WaveStrider said:
Here's a thought for both sides of the argument...

The MOST HONEST answer humanity currently has to the question "Is there a God?" is:

"I don't (for a fact) know."

But this is the difference.

For believers, that is called "Doubt". Doubt is addressed by the religious with the concept of "Faith".

For Atheists (so-called), Doubt is acually called Agnosticism. It effectively eliminates the concept of Atheism.

So while someone who believes in God can answer "I don't (for a fact) know" and still maintain their belief, the same answer makes an atheist (so-called) non-existent.

For those who say "I know for a FACT there is no God", there are many other questions for you to answer regarding the nature of the Universes before answering one of the oldest questions of humanity definitively.

Otherwise, your answer is simply a dishonest one.
More...

Total bullshit IMO of course.
 
rewrite --- it should have said..

if the odds against it being conducive to human life... were one in 500 trillion... would
you say

that is so unlikely that we must have gotten lucky or
we could not be that lucky were must have been created.

now what would you say if it were one in 10 to the 200 or 500?
how about 10 to the 10 to the 123.
 
jem said:
For instance one very simple way would be a garden of eden with no constants.
More...
....or some other simple fairy tale. For instance Goldilocks...'just right'...even better.

jem said:
Another might be a place where we the fundamentals are set up so we are aware our choices make multiple universes each time we choose.
More...

Yeah that'll work. The old - enough self-important anthropocentric hubris to get so messed up you start thinking you could influence a universe..... and even do so billions of years before anyone existed in it .

jem said:
Who knows maybe that is what it is like to be God. He chooses like in Hawking's speculation about top down cosmology and then he collapses all the other universes at once.
More...

The word God does not spell the words fermionic field, so obviously not like Hawking's explains.

jem said:
Just because you can't conceive of it happening a different way... does not mean it could not have been different.

no -- in our universe the value could not be zero...
More...

Ugh.




So to sum it all up let's see , you are first fanciful, second incoherent and third self-contradictory.
True to form.
 
jem said:
rewrite --- it should have said..

if the odds against it being conducive to human life... were one in 500 trillion... would
you say

that is so unlikely that we must have gotten lucky or
we could not be that lucky were must have been created.

now what would you say if it were one in 10 to the 200 or 500?
how about 10 to the 10 to the 123.
More...

I would say....Chicken feed!

How about one in 10 to the 2,685,000 odds against you would be born. Basically zero odds of you being alive.

And yet those impossible odds are overcome by completely explainable natural events, and have been 7 billion other times as well.

Your argument from incredulity is a fallacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top