Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

Just to put this fine tuning into perspective.  We live in a universe where the initial conditions set by the cosmological constant were just right for the stars to form.  If there were a large number of parallel universes each with a slightly differing rate of expansion, then to make it probable for just one of these universes to form stars, the number of universes needed would be many magnitudes greater that the number of atomic particles in this known universe - considerably more than the blades of grass on a golf course.

So what?
How do you know the constants could have any other value?

[Stranger]

Just to put this fine tuning into perspective.  We live in a universe where the initial conditions set by the cosmological constant were just right for the stars to form.  If there were a large number of parallel universes each with a slightly differing rate of expansion, then to make it probable for just one of these universes to form stars, the number of universes needed would be many magnitudes greater that the number of atomic particles in this known universe - considerably more than the blades of grass on a golf course.

None of this is an argument for a fairytale being for which there is not a scrap of evidence or hint of a reasoned argument and which would be every bit as improbable as you think the universe is...

[Walter]

Just to put this fine tuning into perspective.  We live in a universe where the initial conditions set by the cosmological constant were just right for the stars to form.  If there were a large number of parallel universes each with a slightly differing rate of expansion, then to make it probable for just one of these universes to form stars, the number of universes needed would be many magnitudes greater that the number of atomic particles in this known universe - considerably more than the blades of grass on a golf course.

puddles and holes AB , puddles and holes .

[BeRational]

puddles and holes AB , puddles and holes .

Also, arrows fired, and the target painted around them, wherever they happen to land.

[Walter]

Also, arrows fired, and the target painted around them, wherever they happen to land.

its so obvious but for many millions the concept is impossible to grasp. I don't know why , it seems to be the way peoples brains work   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to put this fine tuning into perspective.  We live in a universe where the initial conditions set by the cosmological constant were just right for the stars to form.  If there were a large number of parallel universes each with a slightly differing rate of expansion, then to make it probable for just one of these universes to form stars, the number of universes needed would be many magnitudes greater that the number of atomic particles in this known universe - considerably more than the blades of grass on a golf course.

Way to miss the point Alan. It's a thought experiment, so let's make the fairway so big that there as many blades of grass on it as you like - some unimaginably vast number. Now let's say that, when the ball happens to lands on one of them, that blade of grass thinks, "Wow! How special am I? That must have been planned then." That's why your argument makes you that blade of grass.

Is this sinking in yet?

[wigginhall]

True of individuals, isn't it?   Of all the individuals who have existed, why me now?   It's Poseidon, wot done it!

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Way to miss the point Alan. It's a thought experiment, so let's make the fairway so big that there as many blades of grass on it as you like - some unimaginably vast number. Now let's say that, when the ball happen to lands on one of them, the blade of grass thinks, "Wow! How special am I? That was planned that was." That's why your argument makes you that blade of grass.

Is this sinking in yet?

No it is you who has missed the point.  The probability of a universe forming with stars and galaxies from an initial burst of pure energy is almost absolute zero.

Going back to your Golf course analogy, we do not even know if there are an unimaginable number of blades of grass.  We do not know if we are the only one - all we know is that we are on a targeted one where life can exist.  The more realistic analogy is to hit a golfball into an almost infinite universe, and for it to land on the only blade of grass

I agree that this is not proof of God's existence, but it is just one of a great many indicators that we are are not just an accidental entity of existence.  We were meant to exist.  We were meant to know God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No it is you who has missed the point.  The probability of a universe forming with stars and galaxies from an initial burst of pure energy is almost absolute zero.

Nope, you’re still not getting it. It may or may not be “almost absolute zero” but it isn’t zero. That’s the point. 

Going back to your Golf course analogy, we do not even know if there are an unimaginable number of blades of grass.  We do not know if we are the only one - all we know is that we are on a targeted one where life can exist.

We know no such thing. What we actually know is that we exist – whether we were also in some mysterious way “targeted” to exist is entirely your speculation.

I agree that this is not proof of God's existence…

Actually it’s not true – so it can’t be “proof” of anything.

….but it is just one of a great many indicators that we are are not just an accidental entity of existence.  We were meant to exist.  We were meant to know God.

Of course it isn’t. Look, the logic is really simple but for some reason you keep ignoring it. Here it is again veeeeeeery slowly:

1. If you think that we were in some way an intended outcome then you need to make an argument for that first.

2. Only if you can demonstrate that first can you then start with the argument that, if we were intended all along, then the chances of that happening by chance are very remote.

3. As things stand all you have is endless circularity: “God intended us from the beginning; the likelihood of us happening by chance is very small; therefore God”.

Can you see now where you’ve gone wrong?

Anything?

[wigginhall]

No it is you who has missed the point.  The probability of a universe forming with stars and galaxies from an initial burst of pure energy is almost absolute zero.

Going back to your Golf course analogy, we do not even know if there are an unimaginable number of blades of grass.  We do not know if we are the only one - all we know is that we are on a targeted one where life can exist.  The more realistic analogy is to hit a golfball into an almost infinite universe, and for it to land on the only blade of grass

I agree that this is not proof of God's existence, but it is just one of a great many indicators that we are are not just an accidental entity of existence.  We were meant to exist.  We were meant to know God.

I'm curious as to how you calculate the odds of a universe forming.   Got any explicit workings?

Follow up question - what are the odds of me sitting in this room, at this time, writing this sentence? 

[Alan Burns]

I'm curious as to how you calculate the odds of a universe forming.   Got any explicit workings?

Follow up question - what are the odds of me sitting in this room, at this time, writing this sentence?

I am relying on others more expert in the field to calculate it, but it is apparently sufficient for the Multiverse theory to be postulated as a means to enable realistic odds of our universe being the way it is.  As for the reconstituted bits of star debris which comprise you, I would say that without God's wilful creativity, the odds of you sitting anywhere are absolute zero.

[Nearly Sane]

I am relying on others more expert in the field to calculate it, but it is apparently sufficient for the Multiverse theory to be postulated as a means to enable realistic odds of our universe being the way it is.  As for the reconstituted bits of star debris which comprise you, I would say that without God's wilful creativity, the odds of you sitting anywhere are absolute zero.

Problem is Alan that your 'explanation' has no odds in the calculation. Odds being a naturalistic approach. So your "explanation' means your argument is specious.

[Stranger]

I am relying on others more expert in the field to calculate it, but it is apparently sufficient for the Multiverse theory to be postulated as a means to enable realistic odds of our universe being the way it is.

The multiverse ideas are not motivated by some calculation of odds - they are suggested by several different proposals (some more credible than others).

When it comes to the existence of the universe and why it is the way it is, we are guessing because there are no tested theories that apply. We have no idea what the probabilities might be.

The point that you are studiously ignoring is that you haven't made a similar guess as to the probabilities of your god just happening to exist - something way more complex, ordered, and apparently improbable than the universe.

Comparing like with like, your god is more improbable but we know the universe exists and have no credible reason to think your god does.

As for the reconstituted bits of star debris which comprise you, I would say that without God's wilful creativity, the odds of you sitting anywhere are absolute zero.

Another blind faith assertion. Based on the above and the total lack of evidence, I'd guess that the probability of your god is very close to zero...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am relying on others more expert in the field to calculate it, but it is apparently sufficient for the Multiverse theory to be postulated as a means to enable realistic odds of our universe being the way it is.  As for the reconstituted bits of star debris which comprise you, I would say that without God's wilful creativity, the odds of you sitting anywhere are absolute zero.

What the probability happens to be as a number is still utterly irrelevant to the logic that undoes you. Take the probability for the cosmological constant – add a zero to it if you like. Add a hundred zeros if it makes you feel better. Add as many zeros as you like – it still makes no difference to the logic.

However improbable your existence, the fact remains that you do exist. So now the “you” that exists either thinks that that “you” was intentional (a top down approach) or that your (or any other species') existence is unintentional (the bottom up approach). And if you think it’s the former, then you have all your work ahead of you to make an argument for it. 

If – and only if – you can do that, can you then question the remarkable improbability of chance happenings arriving at exactly the original blueprint. Until and unless you can do that though, you’re still stuck in an endless circular loop – “God intended me, God's plan happening by chance is very unlikely, therefore God”.

Surely some of this at least must be sinking in by now mustn’t it?

Mustn’t it?

[Alan Burns]

The multiverse ideas are not motivated by some calculation of odds - they are suggested by several different proposals (some more credible than others).

When it comes to the existence of the universe and why it is the way it is, we are guessing because there are no tested theories that apply. We have no idea what the probabilities might be.

The point that you are studiously ignoring is that you haven't made a similar guess as to the probabilities of your god just happening to exist - something way more complex, ordered, and apparently improbable than the universe.

Comparing like with like, your god is more improbable but we know the universe exists and have no credible reason to think your god does.

Another blind faith assertion. Based on the above and the total lack of evidence, I'd guess that the probability of your god is very close to zero...

My awareness of my own existence is sufficient evidence for me to know that God exists, because without God I could not possibly exist.

[torridon]

My awareness of my own existence is sufficient evidence for me to know that God exists, because without God I could not possibly exist.

Here is why people accuse you of peddling fallacies.  The above is a fallacy, the non-sequitur fallacy.

[Stranger]

My awareness of my own existence is sufficient evidence for me to know that God exists, because without God I could not possibly exist.

So basically you tried an argument for your god, found out it was logically flawed in many ways and are now retreating into blind faith and circular arguments.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My awareness of my own existence is sufficient evidence for me to know that God exists, because without God I could not possibly exist.

Expressions of blind faith may be sufficient evidence for you Alan, but they're hopelessly inadequate as a means of persuading anyone else that you're right.

Do you see the problem here? You attempt an argument in logic and it blows up in your face. Rather than concede, abandon it and try something else you just resort to a faith claim as if that in some way digs you out of the hole. Trouble is though, it doesn't.

[Alan Burns]

So basically you tried an argument for your god, found out it was logically flawed in many ways and are now retreating into blind faith and circular arguments.

The problem is that you have not taken that very important first step in faith.  Once you start on a journey in faith, and come to know God, you will see things from a different perspective and realise the failings of short sighted logic.  And come to realise that God is ultimately responsible for whatever logic we perceive.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Expressions of blind faith may be sufficient evidence for you Alan, but they're hopelessly inadequate as a means of persuading anyone else that you're right.

Do you see the problem here? You attempt an argument in logic and it blows up in your face. Rather than concede, abandon it and try something else you just resort to a faith claim as if that in some way digs you out of the hole. Trouble is though, it doesn't.

I was not using this as an argument for God.  I was just expressing my own certainty about God's existence which has developed over a lifetime journey in faith.

[Stranger]

The problem is that you have not taken that very important first step in faith.  Once you start on a journey in faith, and come to know God, you will see things from a different perspective and realise the failings of short sighted logic.  And come to realise that God is ultimately responsible for whatever logic we perceive.

Well, at least that's more honest than your pretence at using reasoning and logic. Problem is, of course, that it makes no sense except in terms of a sort of self-deception: ff you really try to believe in god, you will believe in god and logic won't matter any more.

Why would a god, who wants us to believe and has an important message for us, provide no logical reasons to think it exists?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was not using this as an argument for God.  I was just expressing my own certainty about God's existence which has developed over a lifetime journey in faith.

But what use is that, any more than my expression of certainty about leprechauns which, by a remarkable coincidence, has also “developed over a lifetime journey in faith”?

You remind me a bit of a conger eel that tentatively peeks out of its hole and shoots straight back in again when it feels threatened. When you attempt arguments and reason to validate your faith beliefs and they’re falsified (as they always are) rather than deal with the problem you just resort to, “but that’s my faith and I’m certain about it”.

Faith is fine and dandy for you if you like that kind of thing, but it’s epistemically worthless for anyone else. Why? Because your faith claim “God” is no more investigable than my faith claim “leprechauns”.

And that my friend scuppers completely your attempts at proselytising.

[torridon]

I was not using this as an argument for God.  I was just expressing my own certainty about God's existence which has developed over a lifetime journey in faith.

So what do we learn from this ?  if you spend a lifetime building a belief, you'll end up believing it.

Not exactly surprising.

[Walter]

and it becomes practically impossible to veer away from that path at this late stage for fear of having to admit to yourself you've got it wrong

so, just continue as before , its so much easier .

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Faith is fine and dandy for you if you like that kind of thing, but it’s epistemically worthless for anyone else. Why? Because your faith claim “God” is no more investigable than my faith claim “leprechauns”.

Are you really claiming to have a faith claim "leprechauns"? Unless you are, there is no common reference with what Alan believes, so any comparison is invalid. You may as well compare the following statements;
"Barack Obama is the Prime Minister of England"
"Donald Trump is the President of the USA"