5. Computer simulations suggest that not all of the purportedly "fine-tuned" parameters may be as fine-tuned as has been claimed. Victor Stenger has simulated different universes in which four fundamental parameters are varied. He found that long-lived stars could exist over a wide parameter range, and concluded that "... a wide variation of constants of physics leads to universes that are long-lived enough for life to evolve, although human life need not exist in such universes".
6. The multiverse theory. This is the theory that our universe is just one of many, each with different fundamental constants. It's pure speculation at this point, but that puts it on even ground with the god hypothesis for the fine tuning of the universe.
7. The anthropic principle. We are living in exactly the type of universe we would expect to see considering how the fundamental constants are. ""The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty."

3. The Ontological Argument
The Formulation
P1: God is the greatest being conceivable.
P2: God exists in the mind.
P3: To exist in the mind and reality is greater than to exist in the mind alone.
C: Therefore, god must exist in the mind and reality.

The Problems:
1. It confuses the idea of something with the thing itself. God does not exist in the mind in the same sense as we mean by existence. The only way a thing itself can exist is in reality. It is not god which is in my mind but the idea of god. The idea of god in my mind cannot create universes and perform miracles.
2. It treats existence as a property. The argument poses all these properties of god and says that god would be greater if he had one more property: existence. But existence is not a property. It is the condition a thing must have to even exhibit properties. For instance, a green, slimy object is not green and slimy unless it actually exists. Existence cannot be treated as a property, it is what enables things to have properties.
3. It relies on a subjective concept of greatness. What is greater than another is opinion. One could simply reject the third premise that existence is greater than non-existence.

And now for the free will defense:
"A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good."

The Problems:
1. Free will is falsified by omniscience. God's all knowing nature means that he knows the future of all people and their actions before you execute them. This means that you are inevitably going to do one thing rather than the other, there is no other possible outcome, and thus no free will.
2. God could create beings that freely chose good over evil. His omnipotence could create creatures with free will that simply did not freely choose evil.
3. It does not address natural evil. That is, things such as disease, natural disasters, and aging bodies. These are not caused by an action of any free being and thus is not covered by the free will defense.
4. God could intervene to stop acts of evil (at the very least gratuitous evil) before they happen without violating free will. He could allow beings to freely choose evil but stop them before they do it. Now if he did this in all cases then there would be no choice, but he could intervene in only gratuitous evil, such as by killing Hitler. Also, think this scene.

I hope the epic length of this does not stop people from reading it. I put way too much time into it. :'(

Join me next time if I have the time and motivation, as I discuss: Theistic and Secular morality!

Shock wrote on 01/26/11 at 20:31:19:


its hilarious how you don't believe RZA but you believe the guy who claims to have gone to heaven. Not only is he a sellout (he wrote a book) he was also a minister (biased?)

Wow, very nicely done Cutz. It was a great, stimulating read. It seems clear to me that you have definitely thought of this topic before and endeavored to find answers.

I think I'll give it a good reread sometime tomorrow. At the very least, you have definitely vastly narrowed what God I should be looking for.  

That whole omni- quote seems like a matter of perspective.

Goose wrote on 01/26/11 at 10:11:18:


^ Would just like to point out how retarded this is.

I'm an atheist, and as RVZ said, probably one of the biggest flat out non believers.

Let me find the little ones.

Fank009 wrote on 01/26/11 at 16:59:48:

Well I think there are plenty of problems in the world's design. Surely things would be even more perfect if I didn't need to eat, if bad stuff didn't happen to innocents, and if I had friends on Venus to play intergalactic video games with. What do you think? Are things perfect?

Quote:

Wouldn't life be even more amazing if we did hit a lottery? The chance of some god creating something or other is close to 100% since gods generally create stuff, whereas the chance of a tiny random POP! creating everything is nearly 0%. If the ~0% event didn't happen, we wouldn't be here. But we are here. Hey, that's kind of amazing! On the other hand, if the ~100% event didn't happen on Tuesday, it would've happened on Wednesday or maybe Thursday at the latest, and we'd be here either way. That's a little boring in comparison.

Quote:

These visions are kind of useless, though. Being close doesn't give one a free pass to pretend they were there. If I'm going on holiday to Whamphuti and my flight gets canceled, I don't get to strut around and use my near-take-off experience to talk about how Whamphuti's white sandy beaches make my toes feel warm and tingly. I still haven't been there.  

Camster wrote on 01/26/11 at 21:23:41:


But he is not internally contradictory through physical laws but logical truths. I'm not sure I understand which part of my argument you think relies on physical laws.

Edit: @Fank (?): will address later.

cutz22 wrote on 01/27/11 at 08:08:00:

If you read my post, I directly refer to your comments on God predicting the future. Time is physical.

As for this:
Quote:

I didn't comment on this because it's ambiguous to the point of obfuscation. What does this even mean? Define task.

And even then, your premise of logical truths is still based on your experience as a human being, limited to this physical universe. How can what you define as logical even make sense in whatever "world" God lives in? It's like a cognizant computer program trying to apply its knowledge of the digital world it lives in to a human being. It wouldn't make any sense in any context.

Camster wrote on 01/27/11 at 08:26:50:


So you object to the argument of god seeing his own future because god is timeless. Fair enough, this points back to the incomprehensibility of what it means to be timeless. I describe god's future actions sequentially because that is the only way an action, which is sequential by nature, can be made. I'll ask again what it means to exist timelessly, because existence is done from one moment to the next.

Now what is a task, it's any type of job or challenge. Say, lifting a stone. Can god create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?

Now as to the usage of logical truths in application to god, this is the ultimate futility of the topic. If the theist declares god to beyond any logic or comprehension, then the conversation becomes meaningless for both sides. But why would one believe in something you cannot rationally understand, discuss, or pose any argument for its existence? This ultimately favors lack of belief. Once one understands that logic is man's only method of making any sense whatsoever of anything, it becomes immediately apparent why it is impossible to discard.

@MVT: You've only pushed the problem back further. Can god create a task the dual minds cannot complete? Or, can the dual minds create a task they cannot complete?

TBH, the truth is you would either be a christian if your parents are white and there parents were white as well and so on, OR if you parents would colonised buy whitey, or their parents parents were colonised buy whitey. The fact is, IF their is a god, and IF the bible is true, from old testament to new testement (just using chrstianity as an example), he doesn't deserve any respect. If we are to believe it, he is a fucking psycotic, baby killing, rape and incest indorsing "god". The fact is, about 1 out of 3 people are christian (in thw world), but only 1 out of 10 chrstians have read the bible.

Really their is much to say that hasn't been said, things like sceicne flying us to the moon, and religion flying us into buildings, and other stuff. To be honest, i just find religious people brain washed. Even if you completely destroy their argument, completely to the point they would become agnostic/athiest, they wont admit the religion is BS. Most religious people are stubborn, and unfortunatly wont admit when the bible and church are not infallible. Hopefully people will eventually relise having an imaginary friend from the book of desert fables 2000 years ago. Hopefully we will get a planet with no paranoid fantasies, and just what we know, and the will to understand our universe more.

sully wrote on 01/27/11 at 09:59:46:

Well like I said, it's mostly personal. I don't expect other people to see it the way that I do, and it wasn't meant to be preachy.

And yes, I do believe God was responsible for the contents of the bible. I can refer you to certain prophetic scriptures that were written well in advance of the events they depicted, as examples of its authenticity.

As for religion, and why it causes a lot of problems in the world, that too is answered in the bible.

RUSE wrote on 01/27/11 at 09:58:22:


First of all, to MVT, I am amazed at what you said. You're telling Cutz to be more open minded? The meaning of being open minded is to consider other people's beliefs as legitimate, and investigating them without bias. In the process of telling him to be open minded, you yourself made blatantly obvious that you didn't look seriously at his beliefs. Very hypocritical. Even with the presumption that God exists, would he not want us to be open and accepting to what other's believe? (Or am I being close minded for viewing you as close minded? )

About this post I quoted... I find it very hard to take seriously, since it is so clearly a post that has adopted what others have already said in the bandwidth of the internet. I do not see any true personal opinion.  The type of rhetoric you use shows no respect for anyone else other than what you believe, so why would and should theists listen to you?

Debate is a good thing in many ways, but without critical thinking and open mindedness it is a waste of time. If you do not show any hint of taking other's posts seriously and with fairness, no one will listen to yours. I really think this thread could take us somewhere, if we let it.

On the subject at hand, Cutz makes good points. Theists like me are forced to admit that we believe in Him in faith alone, when it comes down to the bottom of things. We each have our own reasons for doing this: some because of a strong personal experience, others because faith in God strikes them as rational when they see the world. Those who do not believe a being like god could not exist believe that way on quite similar grounds: some because of personal experience, but the majority because they see faith in something that cannot be seen as irrational. The key to understanding the argument is, because quite a number of people side with both perspectives, and everybody can only see the world through their own one perspective, both sides are legitimate beliefs to consider.

I'll type up some more on this matter after I get back from tutoring math, but while I'm gone, I hope everyone tries to do the truly honorable thing, and that is to equate other's beliefs on an equal level as their own, and show due respect because of it. Until later...