Atheism

[SamCA]

eptatorata:

The antropic principle will never amount to much of anything, unless you presuppose that there is any objective significance to life as we know it.

Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? Looking just at the laws of this universe, it is fantastically improbable that they would be arranged in such a way as to allow for planets, or solar systems, or the chemical interactions that allow life, or any of a million other variables that would have to be just so to allow for a universe as we know it.

Contrary to what many creationists claim, it isn’t impossible that a universe like this could arise randomly – but it is still fantastically, mind-bogglingly improbable.

Unless, of course, there are an infinite number of universes, which there may very well be. In an infinite multiverse, or an infinite cycle of universal death and rebirth, we’re just one of the ones that happened to come out with natural laws like this.

If, however, we exist in a singular universe, then this is an extremely improbable way for the universe to be. There are other, much likelier cosmologies.

Even this doesn’t actually prove the existence of design, of course. Extremely improbable things happen all the time. But it does strike me as something that at least lends credence to the design argument, if it can be shown that this is a singular universe.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Genesis315:

Why is good good? Who decides what is good?Why should I listen to what some dead greek guys thought was good? Why is their idea of good better than mine? …There is no objective absolute.

Yes, good is to some extents subjective

But there are constants across cultures …chalk it up to evolutionary adaptations, social consensus, or the Hand of God

There are not too many places where “good” includes stealing, murder, adultery, or breaking your word

There are many key differences of course but gross similarities as well.

Those Old dead Greek guys first wrote down the notion that everything is not relative and that there are some things that are universally better than others

They didn’t bother with why is good good. They just said it was.

I’m no philosopher……I think I’m out of my depth already

Genesis315:

Not all Catholics do good under threat of Hell.

I didn’t say they did
I hope no Catholics do good under the threat of hell

I know I certainly don’t

Genesis315:

Most do it because they love God and they want to do what He says is good.

and that’s…good

 

[eptatorata]

SamCA:

Even this doesn’t actually prove the existence of design, of course. Extremely improbable things happen all the time. But it does strike me as something that at least lends credence to the design argument, if it can be shown that this is a singular universe.

Nope, not even then. It just doesn’t follow.

But try this: If life as we know is so delicate as to require extremely improbable conditions, it lends credence to the theory that the purpose of the design, if any, revolves about less improbable factors and life as we know it is just a byproduct, an impurity.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

SamCA:

… Contrary to what many creationists claim, it isn’t impossible that a universe like this could arise randomly – but it is still fantastically, mind-bogglingly improbable. …

well …no

(1) don’t confuse improbable with impossible…given billions of years even events of low probabilty become very possible

remember if you’re “one in a miliion” then there are 8 of you in New York City

(2) what do you mean when you say “random” ?

 

[SamCA]

eptatorata:

Nope, not even then. It just doesn’t follow.

Care to explain why?

But try this: If life as we know is so delicate as to require extremely improbable conditions, it lends credence to the theory that the purpose of the design, if any, revolves about less improbable factors and life as we know it is just a byproduct, an impurity.

Sure. I could buy that. I’m a big Bill Hicks fan.

 

[SamCA]

Steve Andersen:

well …no

(1) don’t confuse improbable with impossible…given billions of years even events of low probabilty become very possible

But we’re talking about the natural laws themselves which provide the context in which those events take place. There are a whole host of physical laws which, if they were even a thousandth of a thousandth of a decimal point off from what they are, would preclude the existence of life. In the case of things like gravity or the various nuclear forces, even a slight deviation from the laws that we have would preclude far more than life – if, say, the strong nuclear force had turned out differently you would be far more likely to have a universe consisting of free floating subatomic particles than any kind of macroscale matter.

(2) what do you mean when you say “random” ?

As near as we can tell – and this may be entirely wrong, obviously – there’s no particular reason that the physical laws of the universe had to turn out the way they did. The gravitational constant could just as easily be greater, or lesser, than it is. The laws that govern everything from chemical interactions to the orbit of stars are, in a sense, arbitrary. They could (probably) just as easily have been different, in a nigh infinite number of ways.

If any of them had been, we definitely wouldn’t be sitting here reading this.

This isn’t the usual creationist objection that life couldn’t arise from Earth on its own. I think it’s been pretty well proven that it could indeed do just that. The question is how we account for the natural laws that allowed life to arise in the first place, given that they’re actually pretty unlikely.

Now, if there are an infinity of universes – either existing alongside one another, or sequentially, or both – then the whole thing is moot. Even fantastically improbable things are bound to happen, given an infinite (or even really, really large) set of possibilities.

But if this is the only universe, it becomes harder to explain as random chance.

 

[eptatorata]

SamCA:

Care to explain why?

Winning the lottery is improbable. But look, I won (I wish…). Therefore, the lottery was designed for my benefit.

Do you agree with the conclusion?

If you consider humankind as the crown of creation, then the antropic principle can reinforce that presupposition.

 

[eptatorata]

SamCA:

There are a whole host of physical laws which, if they were even a thousandth of a thousandth of a decimal point off from what they are, would preclude the existence of life.

Never to forget to qualify - “life as we know it”…

 

[SamCA]

eptatorata:

Never to forget to qualify - “life as we know it”…

I think it’s safe to say that if the universe was an undifferentiated mass of subatomic particles, or if stars could not form, or if any of the other entirely different cosmologies that would form if any of our laws were different had occured, it would preclude the existence of any form of life that we can even concieve.

 

[SamCA]

eptatorata:

Winning the lottery is improbable. But look, I won (I wish…). Therefore, the lottery was designed for my benefit.

Do you agree with the conclusion?

No – but we’re talking about something rather more improbable than winning the lotto. If you won the lottery every day for ten years, people might begin to suspect there was more than chance going on.

That said, it is indeed theoretically possible for someone to win the lottery every day for ten years, just as it is possible that even in a singular universe where the physical laws were determined by chance, these particular laws could have happened.

 

[eptatorata]

SamCA:

I think it’s safe to say that if the universe was an undifferentiated mass of subatomic particles, or if stars could not form, or if any of the other entirely different cosmologies that would form if any of our laws were different had occured, it would preclude the existence of any form of life that we can even concieve.

But there’s the rub. A hypothetical being that can tweak a whole universe should be able to come up with stuff we can’t.

 

[eptatorata]

SamCA:

No – but we’re talking about something rather more improbable than winning the lotto.

Special pleading.

 

[Tulkas]

So much to talk about while gone for 6 hours! Where to start! While i probably will miss much importance, i do not doubt it will be brought up again soon.
Steve Andersen:

I didn’t say they did
I hope no Catholics do good under the threat of hell

Absurd Fantasy

Darrel:

		 				All Atheist have that question looming in the backs of there minds. It's like a distant call.... what if there is a God?

What if there is a god …Hmm… I think the words of Illuminati over at the RA Forums describe my views best, What if there really is a god?

“I believe there is no God. If there was one, I would not worship it”.

---

Of the Creation of the Universe:

If the universe needed a creator then the creator would need one and that one would require one and so on and so forth. If you say that he was always here then that means the universe could have always been here.

Why is it any more absurd from u saying god has already existed, for me to say the Universe always existed. If we are going to defy time without having a creater for a creater and so on, we might as well extend it both ways, dontcha think?

P.S.: Can i ask a favor of one bible fanatic christian? Is this truly from the bible? And if not, is it paraphrased correctly?

Psalms 53:The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: [there is] none that doeth good.

 

[eptatorata]

Tulkas:

P.S.: Can i ask a favor of one …

Not enough mud in the air already?

 

[Tulkas]

What, i guess its too much to ask a catholic to read the bible eh? Anyway i checked it myself…(online bibles are helpfull). And it is word for word according to one source. It looks reliable, so im going to trust it… After all you can’t have the wrong words on your T-shirt!!!

 

[Genesis315]

Tulkas:

Psalms 53:The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: [there is] none that doeth good.

Haha, that’s the classic verse that atheists use to show the Bible says there is no God. They quote the “There is no God” part.

After all you can’t have the wrong words on your T-shirt!!!

I don’t follow.

 

[Tulkas]

Genesis315:

Haha, that’s the classic verse that atheists use to show the Bible says there is no God. They quote the “There is no God” part.

I don’t follow.

I dont think i will share my t-**** idea, if i’ve offended anybody with my words already, i will no doubt offend them with it this.

 

[Genesis315]

Tulkas:

Of the Creation of the Universe:

If the universe needed a creator then the creator would need one and that one would require one and so on and so forth. If you say that he was always here then that means the universe could have always been here.

Why is it any more absurd from u saying god has already existed, for me to say the Universe always existed. If we are going to defy time without having a creater for a creater and so on, we might as well extend it both ways, dontcha think?

I would say to this that our universe is one of time and space, cause and effect. Everything in our universe has a cause. Us Catholics believe God exists outside our universe of time/space. In that sense, saying the God always existed is different than saying the universe always existed. This is a really tough concept to grasp, this idea of being outside time/space, especially the time part. I imagine it’s like being a fish who has lived at the bottom of the ocean its whole life. It would not be able to comprehend what air is (assuming fish could comprehend )

 

[eptatorata]

Tulkas:

What, i guess its too much to ask a catholic to read the bible eh?

I see. Low-quality trolling…

 

[Tulkas]

Genesis315:

I would say to this that our universe is one of time and space, cause and effect. Everything in our universe has a cause. Us Catholics believe God exists outside our universe of time/space. In that sense, saying the God always existed is different than saying the universe always existed. This is a really tough concept to grasp, this idea of being outside time/space, especially the time part. I imagine it’s like being a fish who has lived at the bottom of the ocean its whole life. It would not be able to comprehend what air is (assuming fish could comprehend )

While your analogy is appreciated, and so are your concessions to this subject of difficutly…You made it very clear what you are trying to convey, and i think i am grasping it with full understanding.

Yet these laws required to justify the existance of a creater, outside the laws of time and space, is more of a stretch than almost anything i have heard in christianity before. Not only does it defy all common knowledge, it creates a compelte new set of fantasy ‘laws’ to mold to christian religion and its holes.