The Absurdity of Atheism

[inocente]

It has been noticed for decades that the thing we call universe does not seem incredibly robust to slight changes in constants inherent to the laws of physics. But I prefer to equate fine tuning to beauty, or, even better, to love. It just seems that things have an aestethic appeal. And beauty - or love - seems outlandish enough to persuade me that brute force mechanisms to generate love are unappealing.

Sorry but a fine-tuned universe is a myth.

Some physics equations need a fudge factor to get the correct answer. The physicist has to use trial and error (“fine-tuning”) to set the value of the fudge factor, and once that’s done, the fudge factor is called a physical constant. But it’s still a fudge factor, because no one (yet) knows how to calculate the value.

If we didn’t know how to calculate Pi but could only fudge its value, we might think that God could fine-tune Pi, but of course God can’t as it’s simply the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. God can’t tune any physical constants either, as they’re just our temporary fudge factors until we learn more.

In philosophical language, universal fine-tuning is an argument from ignorance.

btw there is lots of math in the aesthetics of life, for instance the golden ratio and fractals.

Mandelbrot Zoom - simple math creating beauty which goes on forever and ever - youtube.com/watch?v=WAJE35wX1nQ

 

[NM505StKate]

It has been noticed for decades that the thing we call universe does not seem incredibly robust to slight changes in constants inherent to the laws of physics. But I prefer to equate fine tuning to beauty, or, even better, to love. It just seems that things have an aestethic appeal. And beauty - or love - seems outlandish enough to persuade me that brute force mechanisms to generate love are unappealing.

The thing with the “fine tuning” is it makes the assumption that the universe was “designed” around humans instead of humans forming because of the universal constants.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sorry but a fine-tuned universe is a myth.

I seriously doubt you expect anyone to accept this on your authority alone.

So on whose authority?

 

[Lucretius]

Sorry but a fine-tuned universe is a myth.

Some physics equations need a fudge factor to get the correct answer. The physicist has to use trial and error (“fine-tuning”) to set the value of the fudge factor, and once that’s done, the fudge factor is called a physical constant. But it’s still a fudge factor, because no one (yet) knows how to calculate the value.

If we didn’t know how to calculate Pi but could only fudge its value, we might think that God could fine-tune Pi, but of course God can’t as it’s simply the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. God can’t tune any physical constants either, as they’re just our temporary fudge factors until we learn more.

In philosophical language, universal fine-tuning is an argument from ignorance.

btw there is lots of math in the aesthetics of life, for instance the golden ratio and fractals.

Mandelbrot Zoom - simple math creating beauty which goes on forever and ever - youtube.com/watch?v=WAJE35wX1nQ

The truth is that, whatever nature is doing, mathematics isn’t the primary goal. The existence of irrational numbers in nature in particular, as well as other truths, are evidence.

Our mathematical laws are like looking at a creek a mile from its source: we see the after effects of something, but we have to get to the spring to truly understand what is going on, and modern physics can’t do this job, probably because modern physicists aren’t interested in nature as such, or they want to force nature to fit their mathematic mechanics (even though Einstein and quantum mechanics should have trashed this view by now).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Another truth about fine-tuning arguments is that they assume it is possible for the physical laws to be different than what they are. But I never experienced, say, water freezing at anything other than 0°C (at STP), which means there isn’t any evidence for it to be otherwise. Or more simply, fine tuning arguments exploit one of the foundational absurdity of modern thought: the failure to understand the difference between real and imagined possibility. Just because I can imagine it is possible, doesn’t mean it is in reality. To know if a possibility is a real possibility, we need evidence.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[tonyrey]

Another truth about fine-tuning arguments is that they assume it is possible for the physical laws to be different than what they are. But I never experienced, say, water freezing at anything other than 0°C (at STP), which means there isn’t any evidence for it to be otherwise. Or more simply, fine tuning arguments exploit one of the foundational absurdity of modern thought: the failure to understand the difference between real and imagined possibility. Just because I can imagine it is possible, doesn’t mean it is in reality. To know if a possibility is a real possibility, we need evidence.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

The flaw in your argument is that God can create universes different from this one. Otherwise He wouldn’t be omnipotent…

 

[Lucretius]

The flaw in your argument is that God can create universes different from this one. Otherwise He wouldn’t be omnipotent…

First, you are equivocating on omnipotent. Many theologians don’t take it to mean that God can do all logically possible things. For example, I’m not sure St. Thomas would agree that God can make water freeze at 50 °C (@STP), because than the things stop being water, that is, they stop being what water is.

Again, what I imagine it can imagine doesn’t have any effect on what is real or can be real.

Second, even if we accept you theology, it doesn’t serve as a cosmological argument, because God didn’t make all logical possibility real.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Charlemagne_III]

First, you are equivocating on omnipotent. Many theologians don’t take it to mean that God can do all logically possible things. For example, I’m not sure St. Thomas would agree that God can make water freeze at 50 °C

On the other hand, why couldn’t Aquinas agree that it was possible for God to make a universe in which water does not freeze?

After all, God must have made many planets on which there isn’t even any water.

 

[NM505StKate]

Roflmao, roflmao, roflmao.:d:d:d:d

 

[Nixbits]

Charlemagne III:

On the other hand, why couldn’t Aquinas agree that it was possible for God to make a universe in which water does not freeze?

After all, God must have made many planets on which there isn’t even any water.

I must be missing something here. I don’t understand how your second sentence relates to the first. Putting aside for a moment whether or not God created our universe, how does the existence of planets with no water tell us anything about the possibility of a universe with water that does not freeze (but is still what we call water)? I don’t get it.

 

[tonyrey]

The flaw in your argument is that God can create universes different from this one. Otherwise He wouldn’t be omnipotent…

No equivocation whatsoever. God could create a universe with completely different elements. In fact it could be a universe without elements!

Again, what I imagine it can imagine doesn’t have any effect on what is real or can be real.

Your concept of reality seems based on physical reality which need not exist at all! It needn’t even be a universe…

Second, even if we accept you theology, it doesn’t serve as a cosmological argument, because God didn’t make all logical possibility real.

God’s power infinitely exceeds our imagination. Logic is based on our experience of this universe but God transcends both logic and this universe. The folly of the Cross is an example…

Christi pax

Et tecum.

 

[ffg]

I’m always interested when I hear that people believe in a God for this reason.
It’s a matter of opinion I suppose.
Biologists and scientists have a lot of explanation for the randomness of nature. If this person–who I assume is not an expert in nature–can’t come to terms with the possibility that it’s random…then I suppose he must attach a creator to it.

But my next question is…why would he assume there is just *one *creator for it? If it’s so grand and well structured that it couldn’t be random, why not believe a whole team of creators did it? That would make more sense.

And also…I find it curious that some people believe in gods because of the beauty they see in the world…but then scoff at those who don’t believe in gods because of the *ugliness *they see in the world.

.

Yeah, it is interesting to hear about what moves folks.

Yesterday I was listening to a really old ‘Journey Home’ show. That person said his conversion was a little different than most as he was not seeking it and was in an airport on a business trip watching the news on April 19th 2005 (I believe) when Pope Benedict was announced and he called his wife and said he couldn’t really explain what just happened, but bam, that moment touched him in such a way to move to convert.

He said he just started crying in the airport there with all it’s awkwardness and all, just about set to hit a plane to a meeting.

It was a good listen.

Take care,

Mike

 

[tonyrey]

And their tusks are getting smaller because, well maybe Ganesh (or God) thought it might protect them from poachers.

“Perhaps the most dramatic example is the shrinking of tusks in elephants, or even their complete loss. In eastern Zambia, the proportion of tuskless female elephants shot up from 10 per cent in 1969 to nearly 40 per cent in 1989 as a result of poaching (African Journal of Ecology, vol 33, p 230). Less dramatic rises in tusklessness have been reported in many other parts of Africa, with some bull elephants losing tusks too.”

newscientist.com/article/mg21028101-900-unnatural-selection-hunting-down-elephants-tusks/

Kinda weird that all the attributes of all creates seem to suit the environment in which they live. Like they were designed exactly like that. Or that maybe they adapted (can I say ‘evolved’?) to the conditions. I wonder which it could be…

Bypassing the forbidden topic of evolution, you are assuming life had to appear and had to become more complex. In other words you take for granted the doctrine that Chance and Physical Necessity are** the sole explanation o**f our existence despite the fact that neither accounts for consciousness or the power of reason, both of which are insurmountable obstacles to materialism…

BTW Our starting point is not physical reality but our mental experiences from which we **infer **the existence of material objects. You need to consult an atheist :

However, like Gods of Homer, physical objects are posits, and there is no great epistemic difference in kind; the difference is rather that the theory of physical objects has turned out to be a more efficient theory.

W V O Quine - *Two Dogmas of Empiricism *

NB It remains a theory which presupposes the power of reason

 

[tonyrey]

What you mean, John, is that people invent

meaning in a world which would be valueless, purposeless and meaningless if it exists for no reason whatsoever. Plucking reason out of an absurd universe is a metaphysical conjuring trick! Things just happen and that is the end of the matter without imposing any artificial superstructure. In that respect Marx was correct…

Or, do they invent religions? Trying to bring some sense to what they see as a fearful, unfulfilled existence by worshiping a deity that never shows itself and allows almost unspeakable events to occur in its creation…yet somehow loves us and watches over us.

You’re overlooking the possibility of Revelation and the Incarnation… Christianity isn’t based on fear but on love.

If you object to “unspeakable events” you need to explain how they could be prevented - not piecemeal but within the immensely complex system. Do you believe it would be better if we hadn’t been born? If not why not?

If I am inventing reasons for this life, I have certainly taken the shortcut.

Shortcuts can be disastrous especially if you’re looking at the landscape from the top of a mountain. You can underestimate how far you can fall and the existence of crevasses.

 

[oldcelt]

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;13786999:

Tony, I don’t overlook revelation…I reject it entirely…that’s a Deist. So far as the incarnation…well…my view there should also be obvious.

Your views are obvious but you have given no reasons to reject either Revelation or the Incarnation.

The God you worship possesses all the necessary powers to eliminate any event, unspeakable or not, yet I see no evidence of that anywhere, at any time.

There is plenty of evidence for scientifically inexplicable cures in answer to prayer, particularly at Lourdes verified by doctors.

If a person is born only to suffer and die horribly then I would say it would be better had they not been born.

Wouldn’t it be rather strange if no one ever suffered and died horribly? What conclusion would you reach?

Of course, that assumes that a greater power directly ordained our birth. As I see it, we are here because our parents bred us.

Is that the ultimate explanation?

Finally, over-complicating an issue can also be disastrous. That type of approach can lead you to overlook the obvious.

What is the obvious?

Be well

And you too.

 

[ffg]

If we are going to introduce the problem of evil (bad events) we have to apply the proper logic, considering both sides…

If God fixes, then God doesn’t love, since love does not force a reply to love. God fixing would be a forceful move.

If God leaves the problem solving to creation, it’s because God loves and love does not force a return of love.

Same logic for ‘acts of nature’ (though the ‘bad’ here has what can seem like innumerable variables).

Though, this doesn’t mean God doesn’t care after creating. Someone who watches tv of a big destructive event, sees one thing. The person who walks out of the rubble might look at the situation differently.

It’s quite possible that ‘Looking’ for a sign can lead us to miss the obvious as well.

Take care,

Mike

 

[aclausen]

God’s power infinitely exceeds our imagination. Logic is based on our experience of this universe but God transcends both logic and this universe. The folly of the Cross is an example…

Et tecum.

So can God make 2+2=5?

 

[Bradski]

Wouldn’t it be rather strange if no one ever suffered and died horribly? What conclusion would you reach?

That someone was looking after us.

What conclusion would you reach if countless people suffer and die horribly?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

oldcelt;13787273:

tonyrey;13786999:

Wouldn’t it be rather strange if no one ever suffered and died horribly? What conclusion would you reach?

That actions do not have consequences no matter how horribly I behave.

What, me worry?