Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB

But there are valid reasons for believing that you were brought into existence as a result of conscious intent rather than being the unintended consequence of purposeless, unguided forces.

That may or may not be true, but the point of this exchange is to show YOU why YOUR specific argument “the chances of me existing unguided are very remote, therefore God” is circular, and therefore wrong. By all means try to find some different justifying arguments for your belief “God” if you want to, but YOU can and should now abandon this argument specifically.   

You may try to dismiss these reasons by making up alternative explanations - but in doing so you are starting from the premise that there is no God.  The circular reasoning works both ways.

I don’t need to make up anything. For all I know there may be a god. For all I know you may have some sound reasons for thinking there’s a god. What I also know – and so now do you – is that “the chances of me existing unguided are very remote, therefore god” cannot be one of those arguments.
 

The odds in question are far greater than winning a single huge lottery.  They are more akin to me winning the national lottery every week for the rest of my life.  You may argue that no matter how great the odds, any combination is just as likely as the rest.  In the case of the cosmological constant, the precision needed for planets and stars to form has been estimated at one part in ten to the power of 120.  Far greater than the example you give in your following post.  The point is that in every other combination there would be zero possibility for any form of life to exist because there would be no planets or stars.  I know this cannot be taken as absolute proof of conscious intent, but surely you must accept that it is valid evidence of the likelihood of conscious intent.

No, for the reasons I’ve explained and that have gone straight over your head. This is point of principle, not a discussion about numbers. Even if the imaginary lottery had odds against winning a bajillion times greater than those you set out here, somebody would in it. Would that person be entitled to think their win was “valid evidence of the likelihood of conscious intent” or only that the winner just happened to be them?

Your fundamental mistake here is still circular reasoning: “my existence is so unlikely that a god must have guided the process” ONLY works of you also install a god ab initio to intend your existence all along. Try to understand the principle here rather than disappear down rabbit holes about the scale of the unlikeliness of your existence.

The number of tickets the hypothetical lottery company sells is completely, utterly, entirely irrelevant. Do you now understand why?     

[Alan Burns]

 
No, for the reasons I’ve explained and that have gone straight over your head. This is point of principle, not a discussion about numbers. Even if the imaginary lottery had odds against winning a bajillion times greater than those you set out here, somebody would in it. Would that person be entitled to think their win was “valid evidence of the likelihood of conscious intent” or only that the winner just happened to be them?

In this you are making the invalid presumption that any one of the vast number of combinations could be a potential winner: ("somebody would win it").  In the fine tuning of the universe only one combination can produce the stars and planets.  Every other combination must be a loser.

I recently came across a snippet of Christopher Hitchens admitting to a fellow atheist that he regarded the fine tuning argument to be the most convincing argument for God.  Personally I do not regard it as the most convincing, but I feel it is an easy first step to admit the probability of God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In this you are making the invalid presumption that any one of the vast number of combinations could be a potential winner: ("somebody would win it").  In the fine tuning of the universe only one combination can produce the stars and planets.  Every other combination must be a loser.

Wrong again. How do you know that some other combination of stars and planets wouldn’t have life forms of its own. Indeed, if one such life form was also hard of thinking perhaps he too would be thinking how special he was because the universe happen to have produced him and not someone else.

The “someone would win it” relates to a vast lottery designed such that it has one winner by the way.

I recently came across a snippet of Christopher Hitchens admitting to a fellow atheist that he regarded the fine tuning argument to be the most convincing argument for God.  Personally I do not regard it as the most convincing, but I feel it is an easy first step to admit the probability of God.

Yes, I remember that and I always wondered why he thought it given that there’s no argument there at all.

Again you seem determined to avoid the argument, so here it is again: no matter how unlikely your existence, the fact that you do exist is only remarkable if you also insert something to have wanted that outcome ab initio. Thus “my existence unguided is very unlikely, therefore god” is a circular argument and therefore a wrong argument regardless of the scale of the unlikeliness.

Can you now finally see why?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

It is easily demonstrated in our ability to drive our conscious thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions.  Without this ability there can be no way of validating what we postulate to be true.  What is the alternative - is it to rely on whatever emerges from physically driven sub conscious brain activity without any means of conscious control?

Still waiting on the actual demonstration.

[Alan Burns]

You start from the premise that we have nothing. No God, no physics, no maths, no observations.

The starting premise is that you exist.  You have conscious awareness.  You have the power to think.  You have the power to draw conclusions.

[Maeght]

In this you are making the invalid presumption that any one of the vast number of combinations could be a potential winner: ("somebody would win it").  In the fine tuning of the universe only one combination can produce the stars and planets.  Every other combination must be a loser.

I recently came across a snippet of Christopher Hitchens admitting to a fellow atheist that he regarded the fine tuning argument to be the most convincing argument for God.  Personally I do not regard it as the most convincing, but I feel it is an easy first step to admit the probability of God.

No one has demonstrated that the Universe could be different than it is. We only know of one Universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The starting premise is that you exist.  You have conscious awareness.  You have the power to think.  You have the power to draw conclusions.

"Ability" rather than "power", but "I think, therefore I am" is as good a place to start as any.

Do you now understand why "my unguided existence is very unlikely, therefore god" is a false argument by the way?

[Outrider]

The starting premise is that you exist. You have conscious awareness.  You have the power to think.  You have the power to draw conclusions.

Yep. Then we progress to having senses, and validating the existence of other thinking things and an apparently consistent physical framework in which we all operate. Then you, and others, seem to make a leap - call it an intuitive leap, if you will - to this must be deliberate, this must be intentional. That's the jump that I don't see a rationale for, in your suggestion that the odds of us are somehow significant. The odds of us are only significant if we were the intention, otherwise we're just what happened. It's of significance to us, sure, but you're suggesting it has a broader significance to reality, but you've not shown why we should accept that claim.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Again you seem determined to avoid the argument, so here it is again: no matter how unlikely your existence, the fact that you do exist is only remarkable if you also insert something to have wanted that outcome ab initio. Thus “my existence unguided is very unlikely, therefore god” is a circular argument and therefore a wrong argument regardless of the scale of the unlikeliness.

Can you now finally see why?

No.

Also - it is not just one unlikely chance event which brought us into existence.  There is a whole series of unlikely chance events.  How many coincidences does it take to make a miracle?

[Maeght]

No.

Also - it is not just one unlikely chance event which brought us into existence.  There is a whole series of unlikely chance events.  How many coincidences does it take to make a miracle?

We don't know how unlikely the events are but even if they are very unlikely that doesn't mean impossible to have happened.

[Nearly Sane]

No.

Also - it is not just one unlikely chance event which brought us into existence.  There is a whole series of unlikely chance events.  How many coincidences does it take to make a miracle?

How many does it? After all you believe in them? How many coincidences did it take for your god to help you find your contact lens?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Quite possibly, but they’re still qualitatively very different positions that you elide nonetheless.

A materialist isn’t bound to be or do any such thing. A materialist merely considers the material explanations available to her to be the most reliable way to describe the observable universe.

True or not that has nothing to do with you routinely eliding terms like "naturalism", "materialism" etc into absolutist positions like "physicalism", "scientism" etc and then running away when the deceit is brought to your attention.

But these aren't what what physicalism, naturalism, scientism are.

There's nothing in their definitions that restrict the adherent to ' merely believing they are the most reliable description of the universe and even if that was the case they still have to justify that belief. In other words you could believe that science is the most reliable source and not be a naturalist, materialist or whatever.

Naturalists are so because they observe natural processes and extrapolate that as their view of the universe.

Yet somehow we cannot observe contingency with it's logical demand for necessity and extrapolate that.

That is special pleading.

[jeremyp]

In this you are making the invalid presumption that any one of the vast number of combinations could be a potential winner: ("somebody would win it").  In the fine tuning of the universe only one combination can produce the stars and planets.  Every other combination must be a loser.

What do you mean only one combination?

How do you know other combinations don't produce conditions conducive to life of a different kind?

How do you know there aren't countless other universes, all with different starting conditions?

I find the last point to be philosophically unsatisfactory, but it is enough, by itself to destroy the fine tuning argument.

I recently came across a snippet of Christopher Hitchens admitting to a fellow atheist that he regarded the fine tuning argument to be the most convincing argument for God. 

And yet he was still an atheist. It's a bit like the fact that I regard rainbows to be the most convincing argument for the existence of leprechauns. I still don't believe there are any leprechauns.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No.

Why not? I’ve explained it in simple terms several times to you now, so why can’t you understand it?

Tell you what – let me try again using as many monosyllabic words as I can: the slim chance of “you” does not matter at all unless you show as well that “you” were the plan from the start.

And that’s called circular reasoning.

Surely you can understand this now?   

Also - it is not just one unlikely chance event which brought us into existence.  There is a whole series of unlikely chance events.

Let’s agree that it’s a very big number of events – call it “bajillions” if that helps. Let’s say too that, had any one of them been slightly different, it’s quite possible either that something other than you or indeed nothing all would have evolved. What evidence of a guiding god do you think that provides though UNLESS you can ALSO establish that this god intended you to be here all along?       

Again: winning the lottery does NOT imply that the lottery company engineered the result in your favour, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY TICKETS THERE WERE.

Do you get it now?

How many coincidences does it take to make a miracle?

None, because you have no argument for those “coincidences” to have been purposive – ie, directed at a goal that was little old you. A different event along the way could well have changed the whole process to produce something else that, if sentient but not very bright, could just as wrongheadedly claim a “miracle” for its existence too.

Can you see why? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But these aren't what what physicalism, naturalism, scientism are.

Yes they are.

Methodological naturalism for example is:

“On the other hand, the more moderate view that naturalism should be assumed in one's working methods as the current paradigm, without any further consideration of whether naturalism is true in the robust metaphysical sense, is called methodological naturalism.[4]” 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

“Scientism” on the other hand is a more absolutist position, namely:

“Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.[1][2]

While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

In other words, one set of terms is a “bottom up” approach that says that currently at least the material provides the only available investigable and verifiable way of understanding the universe, whereas the other set take a “top down” approach of simply declaring the material to be all there is (and, in the case of scientism specifically, that one day science will explain everything). 

What you have done for years here is to elide them into the same position, and then to straw man that the "top down" position that no-one here actually argues for cannot be justified.   

There's nothing in their definitions that restrict the adherent to ' merely believing they are the most reliable description of the universe and even if that was the case they still have to justify that belief. In other words you could believe that science is the most reliable source and not be a naturalist, materialist or whatever.

Naturalists are so because they observe natural processes and extrapolate that as their view of the universe.

Yes there is – try looking them up. I suggest though that this time you actually read the definitions before you cite them as, hilariously, each time you’ve provided citations in the past the definitions have said the opposite of what you wanted them to say.

Yet somehow we cannot observe contingency with it's logical demand for necessity and extrapolate that.

Yes we can to some extent, but we cannot also lurch into a suite of fallacious arguments to support our claim – which is what you do.

That is special pleading.

No it isn’t. Special pleading would be something like – ooh I dunno – “everything in the universe is contingent on something else, but my god is magic so contingency doesn’t apply to him”.   

[Outrider]

Also - it is not just one unlikely chance event which brought us into existence.

How are you assessing these likelihoods? How many times have any given set of circumstances occurred, and what is the capacity for variability?

There is a whole series of unlikely chance events.  How many coincidences does it take to make a miracle?

It's only a 'miracle' if you presume that this was the supposed outcome. Picking the right lottery numbers isn't indicative of any particular intent on the part of the universe to give you the right numbers, you just randomly coincided with another random selection. If you don't view us as the point of the universe, we merely have a sequence of events that have landed here -we benefit, sure, but that doesn't make it 'a miracle'. A miracle is if you can show that the universe was started with the intent that you would be deploying fallacious arguments on the internet - until you can do that, we're just a consequence of a sequence of events, no more or less likely than any other possible output of a universe, of which there may be potentially an infinite number.

If there are an infinite number of universes, far from being a miracle, your particular combination of arguments from incredulity and inability to identify logical fallacies is not just not unlikely, it's inevitable. Just another monkey with a typewriter...

O.

[Alan Burns]

If there are an infinite number of universes, far from being a miracle, your particular combination of arguments from incredulity and inability to identify logical fallacies is not just not unlikely, it's inevitable. Just another monkey with a typewriter...

We only know of one universe.
From our current knowledge, in comprises a finite number of particles and has existed for a finite amount of time.
You cannot use the infinite arguments to cope with the vast improbabilities encountered in bringing life into existence.
There is nothing infinite in our known universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We only know of one universe.
From our current knowledge, in comprises a finite number of particles and has existed for a finite amount of time.
You cannot use the infinite arguments to cope with the vast improbabilities encountered in bringing life into existence.
There is nothing infinite in our known universe.

Multiple universes or not, even if there is just the universe we observe you cannot take the huge unlikeliness of your existence to be indicative of a guiding hand unless you also insert your existence being intended to begin with.

And that’s your circular reasoning problem right there: your premise (“God” who wanted your existence ab initio) and your conclusion (also “God” who then engineered events to bring his own plan to fruition) are the same thing, ie “God”.

Is any of this sinking in yet?         

[jeremyp]

We only know of one universe.

We don't know of any gods.

From our current knowledge, in comprises a finite number of particles and has existed for a finite amount of time.

The finite number of particles part is not within our current knowledge.

You cannot use the infinite arguments to cope with the vast improbabilities encountered in bringing life into existence.

Why not?

There is nothing infinite in our known universe.

You need to ponder on what the word "known" means.

[BeRational]

We only know of one universe.
From our current knowledge, in comprises a finite number of particles and has existed for a finite amount of time.
You cannot use the infinite arguments to cope with the vast improbabilities encountered in bringing life into existence.
There is nothing infinite in our known universe.

But the universe is pretty big and has lots of stuff in it.

It's so big, that we will never ever see it all. Some of it is already too far away that the light will never reach us.

It is silly to say that life could not have arisen somewhere else. I am not saying it did, maybe we are all there is, but I don't know if that is the case, is the ONLY honest answer.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Multiple universes or not, even if there is just the universe we observe you cannot take the huge unlikeliness of your existence to be indicative of a guiding hand unless you also insert your existence being intended to begin with.
 

Of course I do believe we are the result which God intended.
We all have the God given gift which nature  alone could never give.
It is the gift you consciously choose to seek reasons to deny.
It is our freedom to think, to act and to choose our own destiny as God intended.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course I do believe we are the result which God intended.

In that case, your “my existence is so unlikely that evolution must have been guided to make it happen, therefore “God”” argument is dead in the water.

I’ve explained to you several times now why it’s dead in the water – essentially because it requires “God” both as the premise and as the conclusion, so it’s circular reasoning.

So far you’ve shown no sign of understanding the problem even though it’s been explained to you in simple terms, but perhaps at some point it will sink in.   
 

We all have the God given gift which nature  alone could never give.
It is the gift you consciously choose to seek reasons to deny.
It is our freedom to think, to act and to choose our own destiny as God intended.

These are just unqualified blind faith claims so they need not detain thinking people. I suggest instead that you try – really, really try this time – to understand the circular reasoning problem that, by your own admission here, you’ve given yourself. 

[Outrider]

We only know of one universe.

Which means we can't presume others, but it doesn't mean that we can dismiss the idea, either.

From our current knowledge, in comprises a finite number of particles and has existed for a finite amount of time.

Possibly, and possibly. It may comprise a net balance of no particles, being made of equal amounts of matter/energy and antimatter and 'dark energy'. Given that time appears to be an artefact of the current format of the universe, and to have emerged alongside the other dimensions during the early expansion of the universe, it somewhat defies conventional notions of time to try to talk about the 'early' moments.

You cannot use the infinite arguments to cope with the vast improbabilities encountered in bringing life into existence.

I can. I just did. You can't say that they definitively aren't there, so you can't guarantee that there's anything special about this particular universe. Of course, my argument goes on that even if you could, it doesn't make the answer god, but you can't simply dismiss the possibilities on the basis of 'no evidence', given that your claim is 'sky fairy'.

There is nothing infinite in our known universe.

Except, perhaps, its extent into the future and out into space. Outside of our known universe, however, who knows. But apart from that...

Or, if you prefer, there are more things outside heaven and earth, Alan, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

In that case, your “my existence is so unlikely that evolution must have been guided to make it happen, therefore “God”” argument is dead in the water.

I’ve explained to you several times now why it’s dead in the water – essentially because it requires “God” both as the premise and as the conclusion, so it’s circular reasoning.

So far you’ve shown no sign of understanding the problem even though it’s been explained to you in simple terms, but perhaps at some point it will sink in.   

Sorry, but I still fail to see how the incredibly precise conditions needed to bring about the existence and sustainability of life cannot be taken as evidence of deliberate intention from a source beyond our human perception rather than a series of accidental coincidences.

[Outrider]

Sorry, but I still fail to see how the incredibly precise conditions needed to bring about the existence and sustainability of life cannot be taken as evidence of deliberate intention from a source beyond our human perception rather than a series of accidental coincidences.

First - how do you know they're precise? What other forms of life might have emerged under different circumstances?
Second - given this life has emerged and evolved to flourish in these circumstances, how precise do the circumstances need to be?
Third - how are you determining whether there is the possibility of variation in these circumstances?
Fourth - how are you calculating these odds across an unknown number of instances, and trillions upon trillions of potential locations across billions of years in this universe alone?
Fifth - why are you presuming the emergence of human perception is somehow significant on the scale of reality?

Apart from that, though, no. You've said it yourself in that single sentence - you fail to see. You are incredulous. This is the textbook definition of an argument from incredulity, even down to the phrasing.

That you don't accept those odds isn't an argument - even the longest odds, if you could potentially calculate them, by definition isn't a proof.

O.

O.