You are forgetting that god has already been defined. Also we know why the world is here, planets are formed during the collapse of a nebula. So if you want to call a nebula god, then i believe in your god for i believe in nebula, however your god is now an unconscious giant gas cloud floating in space and has no resemblance to any god worshiped by humans today.The apple fell, something made it fall. Lets call it gravity. The world exists, something made it exist. Lets call it God.
For many astrophysicists the universe and the planets existance as they are is of such extreme unlikelyhood that they postulate an almost infinite number of other possible universes, in order to increase the possibilities of our universe ever coming into existance as it is. Are you getting that? physists baffled by the shear unlikeliness, they cannot accept it unless thay are allowed to change the odds of it happening.You are forgetting that god has already been defined. Also we know why the world is here, planets are formed during the collapse of a nebula. So if you want to call a nebula god, then i believe in your god for i believe in nebula, however your god is now an unconscious giant gas cloud floating in space and has no resemblance to any god worshiped by humans today.
Hmm I’m not sure what a multi-verse has to do with planet formation, which was the point i was addressing? If you have another point you would like to raise then feel free. From what i can see you are invoking a god of gaps argument. “We do not understand the origin of the universe, therefore goddidit”.For many astrophysicists the universe and the planets existance as they are is of such extreme unlikelyhood that they postulate an almost infinite number of other possible universes, in order to increase the possibilities of our universe ever coming into existance as it is. Are you getting that? physists baffled by the shear unlikeliness, they cannot accept it unless thay are allowed to change the odds of it happening.
Please re-read it. It is not that they don’t understand it, it is that they *cannot *understand it, big difference.Hmm I’m not sure what a multi-verse has to do with planet formation, which was the point i was addressing? If you have another point you would like to raise then feel free. From what i can see you are invoking a god of gaps argument. “We do not understand the origin of the universe, therefore goddidit”.
No difference, we cannot understand this therefore “goddidit” is no better, as it does NOTHING to further our understanding. The cosmological argument is old hat, and none to impressive.Please re-read it. It is not that they don’t understand it, it is that they *cannot *understand it, big difference.
A transcendent intelligent first cause gives us an intelligible understanding of who we are as people and where the universe and its laws came from. Its much more reasonable than an infinite regress from nothing and nowhere, or the universe popping out of nothing, or the universe just being there for no reason other than to serve your atheism.as it does NOTHING to further our understanding.
But it kinda does [further our understanding], because if God or the Ceator is the reason things are as they are then that is significant. Obviously, to these physicists, things as they stand are intolerable, they just do not make sense. And the alternative proposed, is that there must be an infinite number of universes with different ‘looks’ to explain the unbelievable chance that our universe has defied all the odds.No difference, we cannot understand this therefore “goddidit” is no better, as it does NOTHING to further our understanding. The cosmological argument is old hat, and none to impressive.
It is your claim that the universe is “fine tuned” for life?
I agree it is more reasonable that all of those, though i don’t hold to any of them. It is very simple, when we don’t know something it is pointless to make up an answer even if that answer “gives us an intelligible understanding”. Much like when we did not know where the earth came from people made up answers. However everyone one of them, while at the time they give us an intelligible understanding, they all turned out to be incorrect.A transcendent intelligent first cause gives us an intelligible understanding of who we are as people and where the universe and its laws came from. Its much more reasonable than an infinite regress from nothing and nowhere, or the universe popping out of nothing, or the universe just being there for no reason other than to serve your atheism.
No that is not the only alternative, that is one hypothesis. In fact at this point it is not even a valid hypothesis for it is not even testable. If you claim that we have only have two possible hypothesis to choose from you are simply incorrect.But it kinda does [further our understanding], because if God or the Ceator is the reason things are as they are then that is significant. Obviously, to these physicists, things as they stand are intolerable, they just do not make sense. And the alternative proposed, is that there must be an infinite number of universes with different ‘looks’ to explain the unbelievable chance that our universe has defied all the odds.
So, on the one hand you have an infinite number of real but imaginary universes possible and we got lucky;
whilst on the other hand we have an infinite Creator who made the possibility so.
And these physists reject the former.
An argument can be valid and reasonable without being a scientific hypothesis. Science cannot determine through science that there is an infinite number of universes, because you cannot measure an infinite number. You cannot test for its existence; and thus it is not a valid hypothesis either.No that is not the only alternative, that is one hypothesis. In fact at this point it is not even a valid hypothesis for it is not even testable. If you claim that we have only have two possible hypothesis to choose from is simply incorrect.
I completely agree. However something being valid and reasonable has no bearing on it the truth. At one point it was valid and reasonable to assume the earth was flat.An argument can be valid and reasonable without being a scientific hypothesis. Science cannot determine through science that there is an infinite number of universes, because you cannot measure an infinite number. You cannot test for its existence; and thus it is not a valid hypothesis either.
That’s your subjective desire. You want to be a skeptic, but the evidence is not forcing you to be. There is no rule that tells me that i must agree with you. You are inflating scientific principles beyond the legitimate boundary of science. There is no objective rule that tells me that i cannot reason to the most rational conclusion. In fact i can do better. Physics, in principle, cannot rationally answer the question of the universes existence. This is not just an epistemological gap in our knowledge, but rather, it is a logical impossibility. Physics is ruled out as an ultimate rational explanation for the universe full-stop. Thus to seek a transcendent explanation is not making up something; but rather it is the working out of that which is logically necessary in order for our universe to make any logical sense whatsoever. Otherwise our universe is irrational; and that is not what i see. The evidence points to God.It is very simple, when we don’t know something it is pointless to make up an answer even if that answer “gives us an intelligible understanding”.
Its one thing to construct a metaphysical or logical argument that proves that the world is necessarily flat; and it is quite another thing to make the inference that the world is flat simply because it looks like it. Also there is a difference between asking what is the cause of potential being, and asking what the evidence is that the world is round. There can be only one logical explanation for the existence of potential being and that is the existence of a necessary and timeless being. It is impossible to be mistaken about that conclusion.IAt one point it was valid and reasonable to assume the earth was flat.
I personally don’t like the argument from fine tuning. But i don’t see why you think that it is unreasonable.Furthermore i would argue the universe being fine tuned for like, is not a valid or reasonable argument.
AlbertI will withhold believe until we have evidence, and if we never have evidence i will never form a belief. I have no issue with you making up answers because you require an intelligible understanding, however your answer is nothing more than a personal belief and it does not constitute knowledge, and is most likely wrong.
But surely this is the point. If it is a valid hypothesis (which it is) then you can consider *ways *to test it. But an hypothesis does not ‘have to’ be ‘testable’, I think, to be valid or otherwise you’d have no hypothesis at all on this issue. And obviously there must be an hypothesis somewhere which is true, because we are, after all, here. But perhaps you think none of them are testable, particularly not the multiverse one. So no hypothesis testing is valid, it seems, on this point, with the obvious exception now of our Creator hypothesis.No that is not the only alternative, that is one hypothesis. In fact at this point it is not even a valid hypothesis for it is not even testable…
A hypothesis by definition must be testable.But surely this is the point. If it is a valid hypothesis (which it is) then you can consider *ways *to test it. But an hypothesis does not ‘have to’ be ‘testable’
I personally don’t like the argument from fine tuning. But i don’t see why you think that it is unreasonable.
Because 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is deadly to life as we know it.
So go test it.A hypothesis by definition must be testable.
No thanks, you can keep you explainations. Anyone that thinks there is the same evidence for evolution as there is for god is not someone i care to have a discussion with.Albert
In an earlier post you invoked the formation of a planet from a nebula as an example of something you can believe in. Perhaps you could cite the evidence that allows you to believe in that theory. And just to make it easy, you may choose any of the three main planet formation theories - nebular, encounter, or protoplanet - for which to cite your evidence.
Let me save you some trouble: there is no “evidence” for any of them and they certainly cannot be tested (or falsified). Nevertheless the planet formation theories are science. They are considered science because the real definition of science is: science is that which is found in science text books. I happen to believe in the proto-planet theory of planet formation in spite of the lack of evidence because it is a plausible explanation of the known facts as determined by a consensus of scientists. The plausible explanation approach to science is only one way the hypotheses and theories make it into the text books; there is also the old standby predictive approach of observation-hypothesis-prediction-verification and also mathematical formulation and the heuristic approach.
The bottom line is that I believe in God as the most plausible explanation of the known facts - specifically, of *creatio ex nihilo *as implied by the big bang theory - with the same philosophical certainty that I believe that the proto-planet hypothesis, continental drift, dark matter, dark energy, evolution (not necessarily Darwinism) are science.
Explanations upon request!
Yppop
And it takes an infinity of universe types to produce one capable of life.Because 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is deadly to life as we know it.