just a question !
- Thread starter zikoz
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Good question. Scripture says:
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, (Romans 1:20)
1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. (Psalm 19:1)
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: "Their sound has gone out to all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world." (Romans 10:17-18)
5 The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them. (Matthew 11:5)
So, God is known by the things that are made, and through the message of the gospel, that is, through hearing the word of God.
1 Does not wisdom cry out, And understanding lift up her voice? (Proverbs 8:1)
However, men do not seek God:
10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." (Romans 3:10-12)
This might not seem convincing, but faith is not of ourselves. It is the gift of God:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, (Ephesians 2:8)
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God--and righteousness and sanctification and redemption-- 31 that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 1:17-31)
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; (1 Corinthians 3:19)
10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever. (Psalm 111:10)
7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7)
10 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10)
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, (Romans 1:20)
1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. (Psalm 19:1)
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: "Their sound has gone out to all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world." (Romans 10:17-18)
5 The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them. (Matthew 11:5)
So, God is known by the things that are made, and through the message of the gospel, that is, through hearing the word of God.
1 Does not wisdom cry out, And understanding lift up her voice? (Proverbs 8:1)
However, men do not seek God:
10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." (Romans 3:10-12)
This might not seem convincing, but faith is not of ourselves. It is the gift of God:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, (Ephesians 2:8)
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God--and righteousness and sanctification and redemption-- 31 that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 1:17-31)
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; (1 Corinthians 3:19)
10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever. (Psalm 111:10)
7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction. (Proverbs 1:7)
10 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10)
Last edited:
3 But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. (Psalm 115:3)
6 Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places. (Psalm 135:6)
3 Do not be hasty to go from his presence. Do not take your stand for an evil thing, for he does whatever pleases him." (Ecclesiasted 8:3)
13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, (Romans 9:13-23)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith." 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:16-32)
6 Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places. (Psalm 135:6)
3 Do not be hasty to go from his presence. Do not take your stand for an evil thing, for he does whatever pleases him." (Ecclesiasted 8:3)
13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, (Romans 9:13-23)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith." 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:16-32)
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
how can i hve the god in my life if i dont believe on him nor on his spirit ?!!!
-i think that god dont want me to know him if he exist
how can i hve the god in my life if i dont believe on him nor on his spirit ?!!!
-i think that god dont want me to know him if he exist
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. (John 3:17)
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. (John 3:17)
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7)
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. (James 1:5)
7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7)
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. (James 1:5)
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, (Romans 1:20)
The funny thing is, it wasn't until the late 20th century that scientific proof of this verse became known and scientists began to realize that the universe really does appear to be designed. This fact is called the anthropic principle, and is well-known by all scientists the world over. The anthropic principle is simply the name we give to the observation that both the physical constants of the universe, and the laws of physics themselves, are extraordinarily fine-tuned in exactly the way that is required for the existince of atoms, stars, planets, galaxies, and, hence, life.
In particular, you should read about the exact value physicists have found for the dark energy constant, which has only been discovered in the last few years. Wow! It's very very small, at about 10 to the power -123 (but if it were zero, the universe would not be possible). That's approximately
1 / 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The funny thing is, if it was different by only ONE zero (one power of ten) in either direction, the universe would either have blew itself apart or collapsed in on itself.
And the same goes for all of the other constants and laws. The chances of this being coincidence are simply not even comprehensible.
The funny thing is, it wasn't until the late 20th century that scientific proof of this verse became known and scientists began to realize that the universe really does appear to be designed. This fact is called the anthropic principle, and is well-known by all scientists the world over. The anthropic principle is simply the name we give to the observation that both the physical constants of the universe, and the laws of physics themselves, are extraordinarily fine-tuned in exactly the way that is required for the existince of atoms, stars, planets, galaxies, and, hence, life.
In particular, you should read about the exact value physicists have found for the dark energy constant, which has only been discovered in the last few years. Wow! It's very very small, at about 10 to the power -123 (but if it were zero, the universe would not be possible). That's approximately
1 / 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The funny thing is, if it was different by only ONE zero (one power of ten) in either direction, the universe would either have blew itself apart or collapsed in on itself.
And the same goes for all of the other constants and laws. The chances of this being coincidence are simply not even comprehensible.
Counter-apologetics of the cosmological fine-tuning argument.
There are plenty of arguments from the bible on world creation, but I doubt thats what you really need zikos, you need belief in its word first.
There are plenty of arguments from the bible on world creation, but I doubt thats what you really need zikos, you need belief in its word first.
M
and why this God has created this world with insufficiency?!!! Oh, He did not create it with insufficiency! Every thing He created...everything wa perfect. No sickness, disease, hate, abuse, murder, theft, deformity, death, no hunger, loneliness, anger....nothing negative was seen on the earth at the time of its creation. IF you read Genesis 1, you will read that ALL was GOOD. It was only after man sinned, disobeyed, rebelled and doubted....only after SIN did things become not so perfect and start to decay.
And that constant decay and increase of evil is what we deal with now and until our CREATOR, Jesus Christ, returns for those that have choosen to know Him and follow Him.
Maggie
Maggie
And that constant decay and increase of evil is what we deal with now and until our CREATOR, Jesus Christ, returns for those that have choosen to know Him and follow Him.
Maggie
Maggie
C
Technically speaking, the Bible does not *argue* that the world has been created by God. An argument is a set of statements (premises) that lead to (entail) a conclusion. The Bible begins in the book of Genesis by simply declaring that this world has been created by God.
This does not mean that there is no argument that the world has been created by God, but that whatever argument there is is not copied from the Bible; although, it may be informed by the Bible. So, for example, we might say that the Kalam Cosmological Argument gives evidence that the world was created by God and this argument is informed by (or at least consistent with) the Bible.
Or we might construct an argument that relies more heavily on what the Bible says about the world and how it points to God. So, for example, the Bible says that "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1). We might then construct an argument that is informed by this fact. This would probably look like the Teleological or Design Argument.
Thomas60 gave a link that is supposed to answer these arguments (or at least the Fine Tuning Argument). However, we could go through each point and note how the link fails to undercut the argument.
For example, the first point is:
But how is "I don't know" a more scientific conclusion? Science is supposed to work to the best explanation given what we do know, not issue IOUs because of prior philosophical commitments to naturalism (with apologies to Lewontin!). We could call this a fundy "nature of the gaps" arguments: "I don't know how to explain it, but it must have been a natural process!" In fact, it can only claim that it is "more scientific" by *assuming* methodological if not philosophical naturalism.
The second point is:
In other words, this rejoinder assumes the existence of a prior physical state (e.g. a multiverse) in order to get around the argument. Otherwise, the objection holds no water since "nothing" cannot be a constraint on the possible values a universe might take. But we have no evidence for a multiverse, so again this is a sort of IOU based on a prior philosopical commitment to naturalism. This is beside the fact that the multiverse itself is either irrelevant (where all universes are the same) or absurd (where any thing on a range of possible universes are instantiated).
The third point is actually the second point, unmasked. You can't have the second point without the their third. And in responding to the second I've sketched my response to the third.
We could go on down the list, pointing out the problems with the Iron Chariots article (the website has unfortunately become one big excuse for atheists to be lazy), but I don't feel like shadowboxing with an article right now.
God created the world with no insufficiency. According to the Bible, everything God made was "good". But God allowed sin to come into the world and, thereby, we might say that the world came to have "insufficiency". God allowed this for his glory: "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen" (Romans 11:36).
If you do not believe on him, you cannot have God in your life. God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). This means that God commands you to repent of your sins.
This does not mean that there is no argument that the world has been created by God, but that whatever argument there is is not copied from the Bible; although, it may be informed by the Bible. So, for example, we might say that the Kalam Cosmological Argument gives evidence that the world was created by God and this argument is informed by (or at least consistent with) the Bible.
Or we might construct an argument that relies more heavily on what the Bible says about the world and how it points to God. So, for example, the Bible says that "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1). We might then construct an argument that is informed by this fact. This would probably look like the Teleological or Design Argument.
Thomas60 gave a link that is supposed to answer these arguments (or at least the Fine Tuning Argument). However, we could go through each point and note how the link fails to undercut the argument.
For example, the first point is:
A more scientific conclusion [than the design inference] would be to state that there is some unknown natural phenomenon to explain this apparent "fine tuning".
But how is "I don't know" a more scientific conclusion? Science is supposed to work to the best explanation given what we do know, not issue IOUs because of prior philosophical commitments to naturalism (with apologies to Lewontin!). We could call this a fundy "nature of the gaps" arguments: "I don't know how to explain it, but it must have been a natural process!" In fact, it can only claim that it is "more scientific" by *assuming* methodological if not philosophical naturalism.
The second point is:
...to simply imagine a certain range of possible numerical values that each constant could assume and calculating the probability that this value would be arrived at by mere chance is fallacious for two reasons. Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us a) what range the constants could possibly assume in reality and b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values.
In other words, this rejoinder assumes the existence of a prior physical state (e.g. a multiverse) in order to get around the argument. Otherwise, the objection holds no water since "nothing" cannot be a constraint on the possible values a universe might take. But we have no evidence for a multiverse, so again this is a sort of IOU based on a prior philosopical commitment to naturalism. This is beside the fact that the multiverse itself is either irrelevant (where all universes are the same) or absurd (where any thing on a range of possible universes are instantiated).
The third point is actually the second point, unmasked. You can't have the second point without the their third. And in responding to the second I've sketched my response to the third.
We could go on down the list, pointing out the problems with the Iron Chariots article (the website has unfortunately become one big excuse for atheists to be lazy), but I don't feel like shadowboxing with an article right now.
God created the world with no insufficiency. According to the Bible, everything God made was "good". But God allowed sin to come into the world and, thereby, we might say that the world came to have "insufficiency". God allowed this for his glory: "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen" (Romans 11:36).
If you do not believe on him, you cannot have God in your life. God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). This means that God commands you to repent of your sins.
There is no obligation on science to come up with an answer in the absence of sufficient information.
If science could demonstrate a non-natural process, there might be an argument.
"Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us ... b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values."
Considering when the initial argument assumes only 1 universe could exist, and that the conditions where highly specific. Saying we don't have the data to say this is hardly an assumption on the multiverse.
If science could demonstrate a non-natural process, there might be an argument.
"Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us ... b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values."
Considering when the initial argument assumes only 1 universe could exist, and that the conditions where highly specific. Saying we don't have the data to say this is hardly an assumption on the multiverse.
C
To say that there is no sufficient information to make a judgment is to beg the question before addressing the evidence.
What do you think forensic science does or SETI? The ID community has argued extensively that science can reasonably detect intelligent processes. To say that it can't because it must be limited to natural processes is itself not a scientific claim but a philosophical claim about what science must be like. But then, you'll need to argue for those prior pre-scientific commitments.
First, the argumend doesn't assume only 1 universe *could* exist. It simply works from what we know: this universe exists. Second, it is an assumption for the multiverse, because in order to say that there may have been previous "trials" for different universal constants assumes prior or alternate universes. In other words, multiple universes in which various trials were carried out.
What do you think forensic science does or SETI? The ID community has argued extensively that science can reasonably detect intelligent processes. To say that it can't because it must be limited to natural processes is itself not a scientific claim but a philosophical claim about what science must be like. But then, you'll need to argue for those prior pre-scientific commitments.
First, the argumend doesn't assume only 1 universe *could* exist. It simply works from what we know: this universe exists. Second, it is an assumption for the multiverse, because in order to say that there may have been previous "trials" for different universal constants assumes prior or alternate universes. In other words, multiple universes in which various trials were carried out.
Present evidence first before addressing its sufficiency to make a claim. b) An 'I don't know' answer is justified regardless if sufficient evidence exists, provided it has not yet been found.
Does an intelligent process automatically mean non-natural?
On the assumption intelligent(non-natural) processes exist, that manifest in the natural world, there may well be a method to test for them. When I ask for a demonstration, whats asked for is the method and the result it finds. ID community may argue for it, science may be able to detect one, but try showing one that actually yields a result, then we can subject the method to scrutiny.
Definition: In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.
Saying something may or may not be the case (multiverse) is not an assumption. Saying there were previous trials however, would have been an assumption.
*I won't bulk out the thread anymore after the next reply ^_^*
Does an intelligent process automatically mean non-natural?
On the assumption intelligent(non-natural) processes exist, that manifest in the natural world, there may well be a method to test for them. When I ask for a demonstration, whats asked for is the method and the result it finds. ID community may argue for it, science may be able to detect one, but try showing one that actually yields a result, then we can subject the method to scrutiny.
Definition: In logic an assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.
Saying something may or may not be the case (multiverse) is not an assumption. Saying there were previous trials however, would have been an assumption.
*I won't bulk out the thread anymore after the next reply ^_^*
C
You gave a link to an article attempting to rebut the fine tuning argument. The fact that it's trying to give a rebuttal assumes the case has already been made (otherwise there is nothing to rebut). I can step in midway and show the rebuttal lacking without starting the process from scratch and making the case again, which is what I was doing.
Now you want to jump in and say we don't have sufficient evidence to know, but that doesn't deal with the evidence the fine tuning argument appeals to. It's not a rebuttal addressed to the argument. I pointed this out in not so many words last time, and now you just want me to go back and start from scratch, making the case the article you link to assumes has already been laid out. I'm not interested in doing that and I don't have to do that in order to show that their "more scientific" claim is lacking. If you're looking for such a case, I suggest the article in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
Granted, but when someone comes along and says "I think x, y, and z are good evidence" responding with "we don't know" looks more like sticking fingers in your ears than showing that x, y, and z are not in fact evidence.
Of course not, but I think you're equivocating on the article's use of "natural." When the article suggests a "natural phenomenon" it surely has in mind a law or mechanical explanation, not a personal one. Any personal explanation ("natural" or not in your sense of the term) would qualify as fine tuning in the argument's sense of the tern! So if the article was using it in this sense then it really fails to undercut the argument at that point.
Again, I'm not going to make the initial case here. I was only interested in showing how some rejoinders to it fall short.
The language of the article wasn't "we don't know whether or not..." but their part (a) requires that there be some prior or contemporary universe, as I already pointed out (otherwise there is nothing to constrain the range of possibilities and so the anthropic problem remains). But maybe it intended this and is just confused on the issue.
But let's suppose I concede that (b) just means "we don't know whether there have been multiple or even infinite trials." is this a good reason for withholding a design inference? I don't think so. It would prove too much, so to speak. For instance, we could say that we don't know that there isn't an infinite number of universes where every possible state of affairs is instantiated (like Hawking seems to think). So if the reasoning holds, you have insufficient evidence to conclude that you were born some 22 years ago in England, since there is some universe where you are just a brain in a vat created five minutes ago with false memories and the false belief "I am 22 years old and I was born in England."
Since we don't know this isn't the case, best to withhold judgment right? Hence the absurdity I alluded to in my post.
Now you want to jump in and say we don't have sufficient evidence to know, but that doesn't deal with the evidence the fine tuning argument appeals to. It's not a rebuttal addressed to the argument. I pointed this out in not so many words last time, and now you just want me to go back and start from scratch, making the case the article you link to assumes has already been laid out. I'm not interested in doing that and I don't have to do that in order to show that their "more scientific" claim is lacking. If you're looking for such a case, I suggest the article in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
Granted, but when someone comes along and says "I think x, y, and z are good evidence" responding with "we don't know" looks more like sticking fingers in your ears than showing that x, y, and z are not in fact evidence.
Of course not, but I think you're equivocating on the article's use of "natural." When the article suggests a "natural phenomenon" it surely has in mind a law or mechanical explanation, not a personal one. Any personal explanation ("natural" or not in your sense of the term) would qualify as fine tuning in the argument's sense of the tern! So if the article was using it in this sense then it really fails to undercut the argument at that point.
Again, I'm not going to make the initial case here. I was only interested in showing how some rejoinders to it fall short.
The language of the article wasn't "we don't know whether or not..." but their part (a) requires that there be some prior or contemporary universe, as I already pointed out (otherwise there is nothing to constrain the range of possibilities and so the anthropic problem remains). But maybe it intended this and is just confused on the issue.
But let's suppose I concede that (b) just means "we don't know whether there have been multiple or even infinite trials." is this a good reason for withholding a design inference? I don't think so. It would prove too much, so to speak. For instance, we could say that we don't know that there isn't an infinite number of universes where every possible state of affairs is instantiated (like Hawking seems to think). So if the reasoning holds, you have insufficient evidence to conclude that you were born some 22 years ago in England, since there is some universe where you are just a brain in a vat created five minutes ago with false memories and the false belief "I am 22 years old and I was born in England."
Since we don't know this isn't the case, best to withhold judgment right? Hence the absurdity I alluded to in my post.
Last edited:
Essentially this argument is just a variation on the argument from design. The key difference here is that it misrepresents actual scientific evidence
Just an assertion.
in such a way to support an unscientific conclusion. A more scientific conclusion would be to state that there is some unknown natural phenomenon to explain this apparent "fine tuning".
The data precicely fit my explanation. Your explanation is that there is an "unknown natural phenomenon." In other words, "I have no idea."
It is also worth mentioning that a counter-argument to design, natural-law argument, and the anthropic principle is also a counter-argument to fine-tuning. See below.
A problem arises from the premise that the cosmological constants are in fact 'fine tuned' at all. This premise assumes that there is a certain range of values that each constant could assume. The greater these ranges, the more unlikely that a given set of constants would have assumed the values we observe. However, to simply imagine a certain range of possible numerical values that each constant could assume and calculating the probability that this value would be arrived at by mere chance is fallacious for two reasons. Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us a) what range the constants could possibly assume in reality and b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values. If in a lottery one number were drawn from a pot of five numbers, then winning the lottery would become comparatively likely. Likewise, even if a trial with an extremely unlikely outcome - say winning an actual national lottery - were repeated a sufficient number of times, the outcome would become likely to occur overall. (See next point)
Even if the constants could only have had the values they do have, that still begs the question of why the necessary values happen to be the values in favor of matter and life.
Scientists theorize that given the infinite nature of time and space,
The "infinite nature of time and space?" The observable universe is far from infinite. In fact, it's only about 27.5 billion light-years in diameter. One could easily imagine that the universe extends beyond the limits of observation, implying a hidden region, but to propose that space and time are infinite is another matter entirely. There is no evidence to support the idea. Given that nothing in the physical world has ever been found to be infinite, this is just nonsense.
an infinite number of other unobservable universes could exist parallel to our own, each with infinite variations of constants.
The word "each" here is a mistake.
This is known as the multiverse theory. Given infinite possibilities, the formation of a universe such as our own is not so inconceivable.
No, it's known as the multiverse hypothesis. Given that there is no evidence whatsoever, to call it a theory, not a hypothesis, is absurd. But again, this comes down to the same point mentioned above. My explanation fits the data to a fantastic degree, while your explanation is based on the multiverse hypothesis, a figment of the imagination which has no basis in evidence.
Another flaw with this argument is that it assumes our universe is finely tuned for the sole purpose of supporting life. This is not the case at all. Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.
That's a straw man. The argument was never that life has to be prevalent by mass. Since when is significance determined on the basis of quantity of matter? That's arbitrary. If we instead choose, say, quantity of intelligence, life on our planet may constitute a very significant portion of the universe, if not the only significant part.
The Earth's total mass is 5.9736×10^24 kg while the estimated total biomass on Earth is around 7×10^13 kg. This means that the percentage of life on Earth is 1.17182269 × 10^-9. That is .00000000117%. The Earth, let alone the universe, is hardly fine tuned for life. Man has created and tested much more finely tuned mediums for simple life in the form of specialized agar solutions that support life/medium ratios far greater than .00000000117%.
This is just the same argument as the previous one. The existence of life is the topic, not its mass value.
In order for the probability argument to be valid, the fundamental constants under consideration have to be independent. That is, one cannot claim that the gravitational constant and the speed of expansion of the universe were individually tuned, since they are clearly related. The electromagnetic force is mediated by massless photons which travel at the speed of light, so therefore the strength of this force is likely related to the speed of light. Similar relationships may yet emerge between other constants.
Another straw man. No one ever claimed that every aspect of the universe is independent, which would be a strange thing to suppose in the first place. The existence of relations between some phenomena does not negate the fact that their values are highly specific.
If there were a creator who "fine tuned" the universe for our existence, who "fine tuned" the universe in order for said creator to exist?
The creator is not predicated on the existence of a pre-existing universe or any other external environment, nor is there any reason to believe that one is necessary.
The argument of a creator is infinitely paradoxical.
"Infinitely paradoxical?" What does that even mean? How can something be paradoxical in an infinite way? That's gibberish.
The initial premise of the argument is that in order for life to exist, the universe must have such properties that warrant a designer. However in this line of reasoning, the designer of those properties would exist in a state where none of these properties were true. Therefore any properties deemed to require a designer can't be necessary for existence in the first place, as the designer can exist without them. The argument is self-refuting.
This is wrong because it falsely assumes an equivalence between the creator and biological life.
If we are to consider the chance of the universe existing the way it did, surely the same principle of chance can be reversed. What is the chance that a truly omnipotent God, as proposed by many religions, made the constants, factors and general details of the universe as he did? he would have infinite possibilities meaning the probability would be 1 in infinity - much less than the supposed calculations of those presenting the argument.
This assumes for no reason that there were not reasons for making it this way and not some other way.
It may be useful to realize that the vast majority of the universe is uninhabitable by any form of life, albeit human life. If there are so many regions of space, and indeed our own planet, that are uninhabitable by life, then why should we call the universe "fine-tuned"?
Because of the existence of life, obviously. This is the same argument already given twice above.
The argument also seems to call into question the omnipotence of the creator. If he were infinitely powerful, why did he make life constrained to survive only in a tiny fraction of the universe? The case for supernatural intervention would be much more plausible if humans found themselves floating in the vacuum of space, on a toxic planet with no oxygen, or somewhere else where our continued survival was a complete mystery to scientists. As it is, we find life only in areas where the facts of biology tell us it can exist. This is exactly what we would expect if we were not the products of omnipotence.
Is that really supposed to be taken seriously?
When considering the arguments fourth premise, which includes "...created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal...", the question must be raised of how does the God being posited as the creator of said universe gain the attributes stated by the argument? the argument is in no way structured to determine the precise attributes of the personal being of which the presenter asserts. It is not necessary for the creator to be all-loving, he could be making us with the notion of torturing us for all we know. It is not necessary for the creator to be eternal, he could have fizzled out in the creation or could have died of some unfathomable cause. And it is likewise unnecessary for the creator to be omniscient and/or omnipotent, there are logical arguments against the proposition of such attributes, and the being need not be all-powerful/knowing - he could just be really, really powerful and know a lot, but not everything.
Because these attributes (obviously) have nothing to do with this particular argument. It's silly that they were included in the first place.
It may be worth noting, also, that the some of the constants specified not not require arbitrary precision. With regards to the Goldilocks zone, the amount Earth can be distanced from the sun is approximately 37%, right out to Mars (yes, our solar system has two planets in the Goldilocks zone). The point being that the so-called precision we find, is actually not that precise in reality (this is one of the more extreme cases, most others can be changed but the difference being not as much).
This is just plain wrong. Most of the constants do require extremely specific values.
Just an assertion.
in such a way to support an unscientific conclusion. A more scientific conclusion would be to state that there is some unknown natural phenomenon to explain this apparent "fine tuning".
The data precicely fit my explanation. Your explanation is that there is an "unknown natural phenomenon." In other words, "I have no idea."
It is also worth mentioning that a counter-argument to design, natural-law argument, and the anthropic principle is also a counter-argument to fine-tuning. See below.
A problem arises from the premise that the cosmological constants are in fact 'fine tuned' at all. This premise assumes that there is a certain range of values that each constant could assume. The greater these ranges, the more unlikely that a given set of constants would have assumed the values we observe. However, to simply imagine a certain range of possible numerical values that each constant could assume and calculating the probability that this value would be arrived at by mere chance is fallacious for two reasons. Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us a) what range the constants could possibly assume in reality and b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values. If in a lottery one number were drawn from a pot of five numbers, then winning the lottery would become comparatively likely. Likewise, even if a trial with an extremely unlikely outcome - say winning an actual national lottery - were repeated a sufficient number of times, the outcome would become likely to occur overall. (See next point)
Even if the constants could only have had the values they do have, that still begs the question of why the necessary values happen to be the values in favor of matter and life.
Scientists theorize that given the infinite nature of time and space,
The "infinite nature of time and space?" The observable universe is far from infinite. In fact, it's only about 27.5 billion light-years in diameter. One could easily imagine that the universe extends beyond the limits of observation, implying a hidden region, but to propose that space and time are infinite is another matter entirely. There is no evidence to support the idea. Given that nothing in the physical world has ever been found to be infinite, this is just nonsense.
an infinite number of other unobservable universes could exist parallel to our own, each with infinite variations of constants.
The word "each" here is a mistake.
This is known as the multiverse theory. Given infinite possibilities, the formation of a universe such as our own is not so inconceivable.
No, it's known as the multiverse hypothesis. Given that there is no evidence whatsoever, to call it a theory, not a hypothesis, is absurd. But again, this comes down to the same point mentioned above. My explanation fits the data to a fantastic degree, while your explanation is based on the multiverse hypothesis, a figment of the imagination which has no basis in evidence.
Another flaw with this argument is that it assumes our universe is finely tuned for the sole purpose of supporting life. This is not the case at all. Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.
That's a straw man. The argument was never that life has to be prevalent by mass. Since when is significance determined on the basis of quantity of matter? That's arbitrary. If we instead choose, say, quantity of intelligence, life on our planet may constitute a very significant portion of the universe, if not the only significant part.
The Earth's total mass is 5.9736×10^24 kg while the estimated total biomass on Earth is around 7×10^13 kg. This means that the percentage of life on Earth is 1.17182269 × 10^-9. That is .00000000117%. The Earth, let alone the universe, is hardly fine tuned for life. Man has created and tested much more finely tuned mediums for simple life in the form of specialized agar solutions that support life/medium ratios far greater than .00000000117%.
This is just the same argument as the previous one. The existence of life is the topic, not its mass value.
In order for the probability argument to be valid, the fundamental constants under consideration have to be independent. That is, one cannot claim that the gravitational constant and the speed of expansion of the universe were individually tuned, since they are clearly related. The electromagnetic force is mediated by massless photons which travel at the speed of light, so therefore the strength of this force is likely related to the speed of light. Similar relationships may yet emerge between other constants.
Another straw man. No one ever claimed that every aspect of the universe is independent, which would be a strange thing to suppose in the first place. The existence of relations between some phenomena does not negate the fact that their values are highly specific.
If there were a creator who "fine tuned" the universe for our existence, who "fine tuned" the universe in order for said creator to exist?
The creator is not predicated on the existence of a pre-existing universe or any other external environment, nor is there any reason to believe that one is necessary.
The argument of a creator is infinitely paradoxical.
"Infinitely paradoxical?" What does that even mean? How can something be paradoxical in an infinite way? That's gibberish.
The initial premise of the argument is that in order for life to exist, the universe must have such properties that warrant a designer. However in this line of reasoning, the designer of those properties would exist in a state where none of these properties were true. Therefore any properties deemed to require a designer can't be necessary for existence in the first place, as the designer can exist without them. The argument is self-refuting.
This is wrong because it falsely assumes an equivalence between the creator and biological life.
If we are to consider the chance of the universe existing the way it did, surely the same principle of chance can be reversed. What is the chance that a truly omnipotent God, as proposed by many religions, made the constants, factors and general details of the universe as he did? he would have infinite possibilities meaning the probability would be 1 in infinity - much less than the supposed calculations of those presenting the argument.
This assumes for no reason that there were not reasons for making it this way and not some other way.
It may be useful to realize that the vast majority of the universe is uninhabitable by any form of life, albeit human life. If there are so many regions of space, and indeed our own planet, that are uninhabitable by life, then why should we call the universe "fine-tuned"?
Because of the existence of life, obviously. This is the same argument already given twice above.
The argument also seems to call into question the omnipotence of the creator. If he were infinitely powerful, why did he make life constrained to survive only in a tiny fraction of the universe? The case for supernatural intervention would be much more plausible if humans found themselves floating in the vacuum of space, on a toxic planet with no oxygen, or somewhere else where our continued survival was a complete mystery to scientists. As it is, we find life only in areas where the facts of biology tell us it can exist. This is exactly what we would expect if we were not the products of omnipotence.
Is that really supposed to be taken seriously?
When considering the arguments fourth premise, which includes "...created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal...", the question must be raised of how does the God being posited as the creator of said universe gain the attributes stated by the argument? the argument is in no way structured to determine the precise attributes of the personal being of which the presenter asserts. It is not necessary for the creator to be all-loving, he could be making us with the notion of torturing us for all we know. It is not necessary for the creator to be eternal, he could have fizzled out in the creation or could have died of some unfathomable cause. And it is likewise unnecessary for the creator to be omniscient and/or omnipotent, there are logical arguments against the proposition of such attributes, and the being need not be all-powerful/knowing - he could just be really, really powerful and know a lot, but not everything.
Because these attributes (obviously) have nothing to do with this particular argument. It's silly that they were included in the first place.
It may be worth noting, also, that the some of the constants specified not not require arbitrary precision. With regards to the Goldilocks zone, the amount Earth can be distanced from the sun is approximately 37%, right out to Mars (yes, our solar system has two planets in the Goldilocks zone). The point being that the so-called precision we find, is actually not that precise in reality (this is one of the more extreme cases, most others can be changed but the difference being not as much).
This is just plain wrong. Most of the constants do require extremely specific values.