Satan is having an easy time of it!

[BashfulAnthony]

Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.

Nancy, actually.  Maybe she's Dawn's clever sister,  though I accept you are more on Dawn's wavelength.

[Shaker]

Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.

Nancy, actually.

So who, if not Dawn, is the D. in D. and N. French?

Maybe she's Dawn's clever sister,  though I accept you are more on Dawn's wavelength.

No; I like my comedy to be funny. I'm old-fashioned that way.

[BashfulAnthony]

Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.

Nancy, actually.

So who, if not Dawn, is the D. in D. and N. French?

Maybe she's Dawn's clever sister,  though I accept you are more on Dawn's wavelength.

No; I like my comedy to be funny. I'm old-fashioned that way.

David.

And I don't believe you;  I think you are a"Vicar of Dibley" fan.     

[Sassy]

'God isn't a liar'

Another daft assumption made by Sass. You have no idea if exists let alone whether the deity is truthful or not!

It there no end to the display of your ignorance?
Even with just the knowledge of the bible itself, anyone would know that God does not and could not lie.

Why persist with making yourself look ignorant?

[Leonard James]

'God isn't a liar'

Another daft assumption made by Sass. You have no idea if exists let alone whether the deity is truthful or not!

It there no end to the display of your ignorance?

Floo is not ignorant, and she is spot on in her assessment of your claim. You do NOT know that "God" exists, it is just your belief.

Even with just the knowledge of the bible itself, anyone would know that God does not and could not lie.

The people that lie are the ones who claim to have knowledge of "God".

Why persist with making yourself look ignorant?

She doesn't. You are the one who persists in being pig-headed enough to claim knowledge that you don't have. It's all belief, Sass, and you know it.

[jjohnjil]

'God isn't a liar'

Another daft assumption made by Sass. You have no idea if exists let alone whether the deity is truthful or not!

It there no end to the display of your ignorance?

Floo is not ignorant, and she is spot on in her assessment of your claim. You do NOT know that "God" exists, it is just your belief.

Even with just the knowledge of the bible itself, anyone would know that God does not and could not lie.

The people that lie are the ones who claim to have knowledge of "God".

Why persist with making yourself look ignorant?

She doesn't. You are the one who persists in being pig-headed enough to claim knowledge that you don't have. It's all belief, Sass, and you know it.

I very much doubt if she knows it, Len, she is so rooted in the Good Book that she believes every word - and thinks everyone else should too!

[Leonard James]

I very much doubt if she knows it, Len, she is so rooted in the Good Book that she believes every word - and thinks everyone else should too!

Unless she is very stupid, and I don't think she is, she MUST know it, even though she persists in denying it.

[Alien]

I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism.   Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation.  It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot.   Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.   ...

That's interesting. As I understand it it is completely against what scientists in general argue. The term "fine tuning" is perhaps not a good one as it seems to imply a tuner, but it is generally accepted that the actual combination of constants and quantities of stuff are so on a razor's edge that if any of them had been even very, very, very, very slightly different then there would have been no intelligent life in this universe.

This, in itself, is not a purely Christian claim.

Where did you see that claim about fine tuning being an argument for atheism, please?

[Alien]

...

It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life.   Why not just produce it ab initio?

Why shouldn't he? Is that not just an argument from personal incredulity.

[Alien]

...

God = no coherent definition. Absolutely no evidence whatever, anywhere, ever, at all. Theist's reply: "I'll take it as true anyway."

You couldn't make it up (until somebody does).

You just did.

[Alien]

Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.

So no sensible response to BA's quote then. Please do feel free to provide one. It seemed worthy of a sensible reply to me.

Note the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "evidence":

Definition of evidence in English:

noun

1 The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
 (e.g.) the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

1.1 Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:
(e.g.) without evidence, they can’t bring a charge

1.2 Signs or indications of something:
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

[OH MY WORLD!]

I just love it when Shaker's ugly arrogance does this to him. Too funny that Shaker.

[floo]

'God isn't a liar'

Another daft assumption made by Sass. You have no idea if exists let alone whether the deity is truthful or not!

It there no end to the display of your ignorance?
Even with just the knowledge of the bible itself, anyone would know that God does not and could not lie.

Why persist with making yourself look ignorant?

That is a good one coming from the mistress of ignorance. You lie if you state the deity doesn't lie, as a FACT. You want to assume that but you don't even KNOW if it exists as there is no evidence to support its existence!

[Nearly Sane]

Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.

So no sensible response to BA's quote then. Please do feel free to provide one. It seemed worthy of a sensible reply to me.

Note the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "evidence":

Definition of evidence in English:

noun

1 The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
 (e.g.) the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

1.1 Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:
(e.g.) without evidence, they can’t bring a charge

1.2 Signs or indications of something:
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

And, as ever,  evidence as described there and in law and history is methodologically naturalistic. When you eventually get back with a supernaturalistic methodology, you know the one you have been asked for over years and hundreds of times, then you can talk about evidence.

[Shaker]

That's interesting. As I understand it it is completely against what scientists in general argue. The term "fine tuning" is perhaps not a good one as it seems to imply a tuner, but it is generally accepted that the actual combination of constants and quantities of stuff are so on a razor's edge that if any of them had been even very, very, very, very slightly different then there would have been no intelligent life in this universe.

This, in itself, is not a purely Christian claim.

Where did you see that claim about fine tuning being an argument for atheism, please?

http://bfy.tw/RUz

[Andy]

I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism.   Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation.  It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot.   Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.   ...

That's interesting. As I understand it it is completely against what scientists in general argue. The term "fine tuning" is perhaps not a good one as it seems to imply a tuner, but it is generally accepted that the actual combination of constants and quantities of stuff are so on a razor's edge that if any of them had been even very, very, very, very slightly different then there would have been no intelligent life in this universe.

This, in itself, is not a purely Christian claim.

Where did you see that claim about fine tuning being an argument for atheism, please?

There wouldn't even be this universe, so what does intelligent life matter? It really is a "no shit Sherlock" argument of the tautological variety.

[wigginhall]

...

It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life.   Why not just produce it ab initio?

Why shouldn't he? Is that not just an argument from personal incredulity.

It's not an argument.  I just wonder if theists who use fine tuning as an argument, have given some pointers about why God would require so much time and so much space, when he only needs one planet.   If you're going to say, why wouldn't he, never mind.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

On the subject of the fine tuning argument, which most on here seem to think it is dead in the water, why do still see so much literature arguing against.

I am reading at the moment, The science of Discworld, Judgement Day, which devotes a whole chapter to denouncing the fine tuning argument.

Human centred thinking verses universe centred thinking, it all smacks to me of, I think they doeth protest to much.

The fact is we are here to wonder and awe at the universe and we can in a very small way understand that the universe has rules, why!!

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

Dear Wigs,

On the subject of the fine tuning argument, which most on here seem to think it is dead in the water, why do still see so much literature arguing against.

I am reading at the moment, The science of Discworld, Judgement Day, which devotes a whole chapter to denouncing the fine tuning argument.

Human centred thinking verses universe centred thinking, it all smacks to me of, I think they doeth protest to much.

The fact is we are here to wonder and awe at the universe and we can in a very small way understand that the universe has rules, why!!

Gonnagle.

I think that fine tuning was seized on by some theologians as a killing argument for God, and subsequently, different people have begun to argue against it.  It also struck me as a very detached kind of argument, in any case, as if God was sitting there twiddling dials, hmm, better reduce gravity a bit, and the proton/neutron balance is looking a bit iffy, better adjust.  And some of it just looks incorrect. 

[Nearly Sane]

Fine tuning is just updated watchmaker argument, since that leads to either an infinite regress or special pleading, it is flawed from the start

[ippy]

Dear Wigs,

On the subject of the fine tuning argument, which most on here seem to think it is dead in the water, why do still see so much literature arguing against.

I am reading at the moment, The science of Discworld, Judgement Day, which devotes a whole chapter to denouncing the fine tuning argument.

Human centred thinking verses universe centred thinking, it all smacks to me of, I think they doeth protest to much.

The fact is we are here to wonder and awe at the universe and we can in a very small way understand that the universe has rules, why!!

Gonnagle.

Gonners I note you have pointed this out:

"On the subject of the fine tuning argument, which most on here seem to think it is dead in the water, why do still see so much literature arguing against".
=====
If anyone has no case in any kind of argument you quite often see them clutching at straws, well there you are there's your answer it's no different to any other virtually lost cause.

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Clutching at straws, well here's the thing, one of the things the book chunters on about is the story telling chimpanzee.

We all love a good story, but it seems to me that they forget scientists are also story telling apes.

Gonnagle.

[floo]

Far better to be a more evolved ape than created in the image of the unpleasant deity!

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Clutching at straws, well here's the thing, one of the things the book chunters on about is the story telling chimpanzee.

We all love a good story, but it seems to me that they forget scientists are also story telling apes.

Gonnagle.

I know religion means a lot to you Gonners but surly you're not one of the creationist nutters? I've never seen or thought of you as being that far gone. No pun intended.

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Course not, simply saying religion has their stories which they cling to and scientists have their stories which they cling to, we are story telling apes, but I see no difference, we all want our way to be the truth.

Gonnagle.