The Debate About Religion Topic

[JWeinCom]

Esiar said:

JWeinCom said:

The Universe thing kinda goes into the fine tuning argument. Which, I think simplified, would sound like: It's extremely unlikely for life like Earth's to come about by mere chance, since there are tons of different variables that if altered a tiny bit, make it impossible. With it being hugely unlikely to come by chance, it makes more sense to conclude that it was deliberate. And a deliberate effect implies a will, and a will implies that a personal being caused it.

Fine tuned for what?  Humans?

The Earth's diameter is less than one trillionth of one light year.  The observable universe is about 13.8 billion light years.  

What this means is that the universe is several trillion times larger than it needed to be (even if we assume the Earth needsa bit of breathing room).   It's like if you were making a dog house, and you decided to make it the size of the Jupiter.  

Humans have existed on the planet Earth for 2.5 million years of its 13 billion year lifespan.  That's about .001% of the Earth's lifespan.

So, if God made the Earth specifically for humans, it is several trillion times too large, and the Earth has existed for several thousands times longer than it needed to.  This is hardly what I would consider fine tuning.

Of course, the fine tuning is from a human perspective.  If the universe was tuned differently, it's possible another form of life would have developed.  And, if that lifeform reached sentience, it would say "hey isn't it amazing how the universe was created in such a way that I can exist".  In other words, the universe only seems deliberate if you assume it was made specifically for humans.  It's a circular argument.  The size of the universe indicates it was not.

It's like if you won the lottery.  If you won, those numbers will be very significant to you, and it may seem miraculous that those numbers came up.  To anyone who didn't win, it was just a random sequence.

As for the odds, I'm not sure how it is determined that it is unlikely that humans could exist.  There are an estimated 200 billion galaxies in the universe.  Assuming the galaxies have the same number of stars as the milky way, there would be roughly 100 octillion stars.  If we assume the planet/star ratio is consistend throughout the universe, there would be about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe.  That's a lot of planets.  It doesn't seem incredibly unlikely. And of course, if God's purpose was to take a personal interest in the lies of one species which has existed for an exceptionally short length of time he made a comically large universe.  

As for the universe, we don't know if this is the only one.  I don't know enough about physics to speculate about the multiverse, but it's an idea that many physicists see as worthy of note.  So there could be many universes.  Some of which do and some of which are not appropriate for human life.

In other words the idea that it is unlikely is a determination that cannot have possibly been made with the amount of data we have.  The idea that the universe was created just for humans is extremely illogical considering the data we have.

But the Bible definitely does not go that in-depth, and says "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse". So there's really not much I should say on the subject, since I believe that you know God exists in your conscience, but for whatever reason you are denying it (The root is the love of sin, but how that manifests is different)

So, you are calling me a liar and a sinner?  This is a personal attack, and I'm not going to stand for it.  Do not claim to know what is in my head.  And if you think you know what I believe because your magic book tells you, then you are a wonderful demonstration of the way religion can poison a mind and the dangers of taking the Bible literally.  Do not presume to know what I believe.  That level of arrogance is simply astounding.

Seriously, if you think you know what I think or feel DO NOT RESPOND any further.  Because any sort of rational conversation is impossible from that point.  If you already know what I think better than I do, than anything I say is irrelevant.  If you're going to just say "nuh uh you're a liar and you really love jeebus" then you have left the realm of rationality. I have been polite so far, and have tried my best to listen openly to what you've said.  If you are not willing to extend the same courtesy, we're done here.  I made this topic for discussion and debate.  If you want to preach nonsense and insult people, find somewhere else.

And for the Cosmological Argument, I think one of the points you made is flawed. The first premise says that everything that begins to exist has a cause, not that everything that exists has a cause, so God would not apply under that premise, since God is the creator of time (Genesis 1:1 mentions a beginning, meaning an absolute start), he would need to exist outside of it, meaning there is no beginning for him, meaning he didn't begin to exist. So does not require a cause. If one were to say that, if time had an absolute beginning, and that the cause of it doesn't exist outside of the boundaries of time, that would be saying that time existed before time.

The argument has been presented in several ways.  The "begins to exist" was added later once the flaws I brought up were pointed out.  And you are again making a circular argument.  You are using the bible to prove god.  What it said in Genesis is irrelevant until you can prove that the bible is a valid source, and it is not. 

You cannot, with no good reason, exempt god from the restriction of beginning.  We do not have any evidence that it is possible for something to exist outside of time, and we have no good reason to believe it is possible.  Even adding "begins to exist" does not escape the problem.  

And why would you assume the cause is personal?  Why is your god the only god that could possibly exist outside of time?  Why can't multiple things exist out of time?  If your god can just exist outside of time, then why not other gods?  Why can't there be two?  Twenty?  A billion?  Why is this cause intelligent?  Even if the argument wasn't flawed, it does not take you to a theistic god, much less one that cares about what humans do.  

As I said in the beginning, and you agreed to, a deistic god is utterly uninteresting.  So, you have a long way to go before the cosmological argument proves anything either of us would care about.

As for whether the Universe had a beginning, I did find an answer once, but I don't remember, so I'd have to look into it again.

Uhhhhh... yeah... This would be a nobel prize winning discovery if someone could prove that the universe (or the matter in the pre bang singularity) had a definite beginning, that'd be kind of a big deal.  I'm fairly certain nobody has proven this yet.  Keep in mind that I'm using the word universe to mean all of the matter and energy that exists.  The "universe" as in the current configuration of this matter and energy (and dark matter and energy and all that) most likely did have a beginning.  However, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has been able to show or indicate that the matter and energy had not previously existed in another configuration, or that the stuff that makes up our universe had a beginning. 

You actually bring up some good points, which is good. If someone isn't an Atheist, but cannot even explain why they think that way, it makes no sense to be an Atheist. But I'll try to answer as best as I can. But, I kinda go all over the place here (I'm writing this sentence after I have written a lot).

I don't think I can say I believe that Earth was or wasn't specifically made for humans. With the huge size of the Universe, it's entirely possible that God could have created other intelligent life-forms. And, whether Earth would have existed far too long if the Biblical God exists, it depends; I could either say that 1) The Earth is actually 6,000 years old, and the Earth has not existed too much longer than people, and Earth was made for us, or 2) The Earth is billions of years old, and God made the Earth way before man for some undisclosed reason, and Earth was made for us, or 3) The gap theory. 

The idea that god made the Earth aged is illogical.  I mean, if you suppose a supernatural creator exists, he could create the Earth with age, but you'd have to propose a reason for that. There is a big difference for something being possible and something being likely or reasonable.   All the evidence we have clearly demonstrates that the Earth is far older than 6000 years old to the point where believing otherwise would be absurd.  This is backwards reasoning, using a magical god to erase any inconsistencies.  

The idea of God creating other life forms is fine, but it calls the idea of fine tuning into question, and it makes one wonder why he humans would have such a special place.  In addition, I'd say the Bible clearly is written from the point of view that life is confined to Earth, and the god is only particularly interested in humans.

If you call 99.99% of people a liar and a sinner, you'd be right. But I don't think I was personally attacking you, it is just stating my belief. Generally, people can say how they themselves feel better than others can say about them, but I think this case is different, because I believe you are being ignorant wilfully. Like, a little kid not lifting up the blanket, because they don't want there to be a possibilty of a monster being there, and telling themself that there is no monster, even though they aren't looking up. Not that God is like a monster, or that God being here is just as likely as the monster, but the way the kid is not even going to look and see, is similar to an Atheist to me. Like, the kid does not want the monster to exist, so they won't even look. An Atheist doesn't want God to exist, so they won't consider it.

I don't care what you call the 99.99% of other people in the world.  When you accuse me in particular of being dishonest about my beliefs, and claim that I do so out of a love for sin, that is a personal attack, whether you believe it or not.  I believe Oprah is a shitty person.  She's a fucking conceited bitch.  Just because I believe it does not mean it isn't a personal attack on her.

And why would I not want god to exist exactly?  I surely wouldn't want the god of the bible to exist because I find the character to be awful, but if there was a genuinely all loving god who could grant me life for all eternity, I'd love that.  I  generally enjoy existing, and I would like to exist forever.  With all that being said, there is no logical reason I've found to believe this is possible, and IF I were to believe it were true because I wanted to, that would be willfully ignorant.

I was raised Jewish, and I did believe in god at a point.  I was never very religious, but I can recall praying on several occasions with sincerity.  I can't recall when exactly I stopped believing, because it was never a really important part in my life, but I was definitely down to at least deism by the time I got to high school.  Throughout the years, I've entertained several ideas about supernatural things.  Never the biblical god, but I've entertained the idea of a pantheistic god, of god as a general benevolent force, and a deistic god.  Basically, I wanted to believe there was some sort of metaphorical guardian angel looking out for my best interests.  Eventually I came to the conclusion that this was wishful thinking and that there was no good reason to believe in such a thing.  

I'm not saying that I desperately wanted to have faith, but I have no particular reason to want god not to exist.  Being an atheist really does not provide some tangible benefit, aside from providing a realistic model of the world.  I simply have to go with what I perceive as the most logical position based on available evidence.  If you, or anyone else, provides evidence that suggests a god, I'll believe.

I'm not using the Bible to prove God, I am using a Biblical defintion of God, and showing that a God, as the way the Bible describes, could fit into the Cosmological Argument. But, why would adding the "begins to exist" not solve the problem? If the argument of the causation in the first premise is supposed to be like, "Cause = The builder is the cause of the building, the car maker is the cause of the car" rather than, "The cause of the things that the building is made up of is...", then the argument would make sense, putting the issues with the second premise aside (which I would say is the weak spot of the argument), with just acting as if it was proven that the Universe began to exist Scientifically without reasonable doubt. It would sound like, The buillding began to exist, the car began to exist, they all have causes, the Universe began to exist, so it has a cause). So, I don't think premise 1 has any problem, just premise 2, that the Universe began to exist. I believe it did have a beginning, but in terms of Science there is no way that is verifiable. 

Putting in begin to exist doesn't solve the problem, beccause if you do that, you would then have the problem of proving that god did not begin to exist.  And genesis can not be used to prove that.  I get that IF Genesis is an accurate account then the argument would work, but that's a big if.  So, you'd then need to prove the Bible is real, and if you can prove that, then the cosmological argument is really not necessary.

I do not see how saying that we cannot confirm whether or not something can exist outside time/beginnings makes sense.

So... are you saying that you can definitively confirm that something can exist outside of time?  If so, give me a shout out when you accept your nobel prize. 

Either way, something has to not be bound by beginnings, because of the first cause. If premise 1 was that everything, period, has a cause, then we'd have a Domino set that has no beginning, and thus no Dominos can fall (The Universe cannot exist), so either way, whether we say God exists, that he doesn't, or that we don't know or can't know, we'd still have to say that there has to be a first Domino for all of them to fall.

First off, we do (possibly) have examples of things that do not have causes.  Read Lawrence Krauss' the Universe from nothing.  Virtual particles seemingly come into existence with no reason.  Of course, it's possible we'll find a reason later.  While in the observable universe everything we see has a cause, this is questionable at the quantum level.  

But as for the idea of the first domino, it's something that does indeed make intuitive sense to me.  But, there is a big difference between something making intuitive sense, and something being proven.  The cosmological argument works fine as a "maybe" or an interesting idea, but it is not evidence of anything.  

And, I don't think that the Christian God is the only one that could exist outside of time. The Cosmoligical argument simply narrows it down to an eternal God, which the Islamic God could also fit.

It doesn't have to be the Christian or Islamic god (who I'm rather certain is the same god anyway, just with a slightly different backstory).  It could be the Beyonder, Rosalina, Joe Pesci, the Flying Spaghetti monster, fairies, a magical bologna sandwich, or it could be some nerd with a cosmic computer.  It doesn't really narrow down the possibilities in any meaningful way.  If the argument was valid, it would simply prove "something" outside of time exists.  It does not tell us anything about the nature of something. 

And, since we both agree that a deistic god is pointless, where does this argument get us?  I don't reject the idea of a deistic god, or even think that it is particularly unlikely.  Even if such a god existed though, I wouldn't particular care beyond a minor scientific curiosity.  If on the other hand someone could actually prove the Judaic god, Jesus, Allah, or whatever, that would force me to change my life.