Two more ways to convince a skeptic that God is real

[inocente]

Atheists should not despair; they, as you observe above in your post, may postulate that there exists some yet to be discovered blind principle, force, energy, or whatever that has some neutral, non-giving purpose devoid of any aesthetic properties which governs “life” in the universe. Dr. S. (Ciggy?) Freud held that the forces of libido and thanatos were behind not only our desires and emotions, but the entire cosmos, bringing things together and tearing them asunder. In the popular pseudoscientific mythology, we are imagined to be heading forward intellectually and into space along with all the extraterrestials out there. This of course is completely opposed to the scientific finding that we have been dropping an average of one IQ point a decade since this measurement began at the time of Darwin. Fitting irony, I figure.

I thought the moderator posted earlier to warn against discussing evolution.

Can you cite a reference to dropping IQ? I thought all the evidence is that IQ is rising - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

There can be no evidence because it cannot be determined.
That’s what all the talk of statistical spaces was about.

The matter boils down to something like this:
What are the odds that you would exist as you do in yourself?

• 100% because you do.
  What are the odds that your existence could been predicted by others?
• 0% because only you, those who know and love you and God would know of your existence as yourself.

I put it to you to provide me with the odds that the constants that govern the universe would be what they are.
Now, multiple those odds by those that matter would come together to form life solely on the basis of those known constants.
Go further and multiply that by the odds of your very existence.

In other words, it is common sense, that anyone would get other than someone who wishes not to or has a belief system that causes them to automatically reject it.

This is just plain wrong. It’s like being retrospectively amazed at the infinitesimal chance of your car having its particular VIN identifier, your cell phone having its particular IMEI number, and you having your particular DNA sequence.

But also, we only know the physical constants as empirical values which we have to put into equations to make the answer come out right. We don’t know what they represent, they could all be like Pi, ratios which cannot possibly be fine-tuned. Fine-tuning is an argument based not on what we know but on what we don’t know, an appeal to ignorance, a god-of-the-gaps - theopedia.com/god-of-the-gaps.

 

[Nixbits]

Peter Plato:

You can’t say, after the fact, that your odds of flipping “heads” was 100% because that’s what came up. That isn’t how probability works.

Peter, I disagree.

Having flipped a coin and got heads, what is the probability that I did get heads? It’s 100%.The event has already happened. It could be argued that there is no probability at work here in the present moment because it’s a past event.

Having flipped the coin and got heads, what was the probability (beforehand) that I would get heads? 50%

It’s not retrospective determinism to acknowledge that an event has already happened. It’s not the same as saying that, because it happened, it had to happen that way.

My disagreement with Aloysium was with his statement: “What are the odds that you would exist as you do in yourself? - 100% because you do.” The odds that I ‘would’ are unknown. I very much doubt that it was pre-determined that I end up as I am.

 

[Nixbits]

Peter, going back to your post #212, concerning the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of our universe, I have a few questions. If you have the time or inclination to address them, I’d appreciate your views.

Is the carbon-based life with which we are familiar the only form of life that could exist in any universe?

Do all of the other combinations of fundamental constants result in universes where no form of life could possibly exist, or only where our form of life could not exist?

To what extent are the fundamental constants independent? If there is some degree of inter-dependence, then this would limit the possible combinations of constants.

To what extent could a range of initial conditions result in essentially the same outcomes?

Why is life given prominence with respect to the apparent fine-tuning? Why is fine-tuning for life more convincing than fine-tuning for any other structure or phenomenon in the universe, for example, galactic filaments, dark matter, black holes or water?

 

[PRmerger]

Four of us, at least, are now waiting for PA to post her counter-hypothesis. She says she has one. Why not share it and prove the four of us wrong? To say we wouldn’t understand is just a cop-out of epic proportions, and it’s uncharitable as well, which is against forum rules. Either she has a hypothesis she can post, or she has no argument to refute Eric’s. Those are the only two choices.

Yes, I am waiting, too!

I hope that after the suspension PA will respond because I am quite curious.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter, I disagree.

Having flipped a coin and got heads, what is the probability that I did get heads? It’s 100%.The event has already happened. It could be argued that there is no probability at work here in the present moment because it’s a past event.

You are mistaken about that because there is no longer a “probability” concerning what did occur - it has been determined there is no probability or possibility left yo be determined.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter, going back to your post #212, concerning the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of our universe, I have a few questions. If you have the time or inclination to address them, I’d appreciate your views.

Is the carbon-based life with which we are familiar the only form of life that could exist in any universe?

Yes, because carbon is the only molecule capable of creating the millions of combinations by bonding with other elements that are required for the protein machines and amino acid chains that do virtually all of the complex life-permitting functions. There is no other element with that kind of open-ended structure. Which is why life is necessarily carbon-based.

Oh, we can imagine all kinds of other possibilities, but the question isn’t whether they can be imagined, it is whether they are plausibly possible because of all the complex functions required for life that need to become a reality.

If you have one to suggest, have at it, but you need to explain the details not rely on vague possibilities alone.

The thing about the constants is if one small change is made to any of them the effects apply across all the the other constants having massive impact, including where elements are concerned. The nature of what the elements are and how stable they remain (a principal requirement for life to continue and replicate) changes drastically.

The problem is that those who object to this rely solely on their powers of imagination and do nothing to work out the physics. It is a Humean approach they appeal to but it really goes nowhere.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It’s like being retrospectively amazed at the infinitesimal chance of your car having its particular VIN identifier, your cell phone having its particular IMEI number, and you having your particular DNA sequence. . . ].

So, you are agreeing with me that DNA, like a VIN, could not form spontaneously, even if we consider many, many millions of years.

Google is a good reference regarding the drop in IQ.
I’m not prepared to discuss the merits of various studies.
I wanted to merely point out some of the pseudoscientific mythology commonly shared by people in modern society regarding biological “progress”.

Feel free to imagine and describe whatever uncaring, meaningless scenario you prefer to explain your own existence.

 

[Nixbits]

Peter, you seem determined to disagree with me, even though we actually agree about the probabilities, but disagree with Aloysium.

Aloysium:

What are the odds that you would exist as you do in yourself? - 100% because you do.

This is what I originally disagreed with. The odds that I would exist cannot be determined. The odds that I do exist are irrelevant because the outcome has already been determined. Do you agree?

 

[Nixbits]

Peter Plato:

Which is why life is necessarily carbon-based.

Peter, thank you for your reply. I admit that my knowledge of chemistry and biology is rudimentary at best. But it seems to me that your reply relates only to our universe. My question was about any possible universe.

I think I understand that it is carbon’s unique ability to form such a diversity of compounds, and its unusual ability to form polymers at the sort of temperatures that are encountered on Earth, that makes it the basis of all life we know about. But my question relates to a possible universe where the fundamental constants are different.

If, for example, the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force were slightly different, is it not possible that a different element might be sufficiently abundant and have sufficient ability to form diverse compounds at some range of temperatures to allow it to be the basis of some form of life?

My point is not that I can suggest a set of conditions and a suitable candidate element. My point is to ask whether we can discount the possibility.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter, thank you for your reply. I admit that my knowledge of chemistry and biology is rudimentary at best. But it seems to me that your reply relates only to our universe. My question was about any possible universe.

I think I understand that it is carbon’s unique ability to form such a diversity of compounds, and its unusual ability to form polymers at the sort of temperatures that are encountered on Earth, that makes it the basis of all life we know about. But my question relates to a possible universe where the fundamental constants are different.

If, for example, the strong and weak nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force were slightly different, is it not possible that a different element might be sufficiently abundant and have sufficient ability to form diverse compounds at some range of temperatures to allow it to be the basis of some form of life?

My point is not that I can suggest a set of conditions and a suitable candidate element. My point is to ask whether we can discount the possibility.

For “any possible universe” to be more than a mere imaginary excursion into the land of fancy you will need to flesh out which constants could be altered and how those changes would or could create “diverse compounds.” Otherwise, your point has no compelling force with regard to actual reality, and is more - to be blunt - a kind of “if the world were flat and supported on the back of a large tortoise” kind of possibility. Sure, it is imaginable and in that tenuous sense “possible,” but until you “show your work,” why should it be taken seriously?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter, you seem determined to disagree with me, even though we actually agree about the probabilities, but disagree with Aloysium.

This is what I originally disagreed with. The odds that I would exist cannot be determined. The odds that I do exist are irrelevant because the outcome has already been determined. Do you agree?

I understood Aloysium to be speaking poetically rather than mathematically when he referenced the odds of you existing - meaning that your existence is certain and bringing up probability at all is meaningless in that context.

 

[Nixbits]

Peter Plato:

For “any possible universe” to be more than a mere imaginary excursion into the land of fancy you will need to flesh out which constants could be altered and how those changes would or could create “diverse compounds.” Otherwise, your point has no compelling force with regard to actual reality, and is more - to be blunt - a kind of “if the world were flat and supported on the back of a large tortoise” kind of possibility. Sure, it is imaginable and in that tenuous sense “possible,” but until you “show your work,” why should it be taken seriously?

But surely this issue is intrinsic to the fine-tuning argument. The whole notion of ‘fine-tuning’ implicitly postulates that the constants of the universe could be otherwise, but that the particular set of constants that we observe are fine-tuned for life. If we cannot determine whether other possible universes could be as supportive, or even more supportive, of life, then how can it be said that our universe is ‘fine-tuned’ for life?

I suggest that we, as a species, do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the effect of variations in these fundamental constants, or of the diversity of possible lifeforms, to make such a claim like the fine-tuning argument. For that reason, and to use your words, “why should it be taken seriously?”

 

[Peter_Plato]

But surely this issue is intrinsic to the fine-tuning argument. The whole notion of ‘fine-tuning’ implicitly postulates that the constants of the universe could be otherwise, but that the particular set of constants that we observe are fine-tuned for life. If we cannot determine whether other possible universes could be as supportive, or even more supportive, of life, then how can it be said that our universe is ‘fine-tuned’ for life?

I suggest that we, as a species, do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the effect of variations in these fundamental constants, or of the diversity of possible lifeforms, to make such a claim like the fine-tuning argument. For that reason, and to use your words, “why should it be taken seriously?”

You can suggest that all you want, but physicists do have sufficient knowledge to extrapolate how resetting various constants to different levels would effect the whole. This is not disputed. You may not know or think this is the case, but it is.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I like the examples you give. They both pick out something only God could do, have Him do it, and then the atheists conclude that He must be real.

There was a very creative scene in Bruce Almighty where Jim Carey tries to test Morgan Freeman to prove that he is God. He has him guess all the fingers he holds up behind his back multiple times, and when God seems to get one wrong Jim finds out that his hand got additional fingers to reach the right sum. He has God answer questions about his past and private life that only God could know. What if He told you exactly what you were thinking, every time? Every number you suggested? All that stuff.

Or how about this: what if you told Him to create something, anything from a new color to a giant statue ten thousand feet high, and He did it? Wouldn’t that be proof? It would be pretty persuasive, anyway.

I think the clever part of all this is in this sentence: “Since only God can do that, it is another PROOF for God’s existence.”

Trent Horn discusses more examples like this in this article:

New Support for the Cosmological Argument
catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/new-support-for-the-cosmological-argument

He considers these examples of what would convince atheists that God exists: “An amputated limb is healed with prayer,” “A message announcing that God exists appears in the sky in every known language,” “A towering giant says he is God and through an act of will rearranges the solar system.”

He points out that all of those boil down to the idea that God must be the cause if the person being tested can make something happen that goes beyond natural causes. And Trent then points out that the appearance of the universe itself from nothing goes beyond natural causes. The article explains it in more detail, but essentially the kinds of examples atheists want (lottery numbers and writing in the sky) are all surpassed by the one God has given us: a universe.

Pallas Athene, please let me know what you think of the article.

I like this. Also, in continuing that reasoning if an ambutee grew a limb what’s to say that an atheist wouldn’t say that it was the god of the gaps argument to say that God did it, in the same way he says that about God creating the universe.

 

[DrTaffy]

If the strong nuclear force constant were even slightly higher there would be no hydrogen and the nuclei essential for life would be unstable.

Unless the fine structure constant (characterising the e-m interaction) were also slightly higher.

If the force were slightly lower there would be no elements other than hydrogen and since carbon – the element which permits all the combinatorial possibilities that build all the requisite proteins – wouldn’t exist, neither would any carbon-based life forms.

Unless the fine structure constant were also slightly lower.

Altogether, keeping the two in balance, there is quite a range of possible values that would permit a cosmos very like ours to exist.

Given how matter remains stable as a function of the forces that underwrite that stability, it is pretty clear to physicists how even minor changes to any of the forces would affect the whole and would result in a life prohibiting universe.

Life exactly like ours, maybe, although you have not proven this, just asserted it. More to the point, what other kinds of cosmos might form at other, wildly different, values of the cosmological constants, and how many of those might permit the existence of intelligence?

The proponents of the fine tuning argument are the ones who must answer this, as they are the ones trying to prove a positive assertion. Likewise they must support their other assumptions, including hidden ones such as the ‘constants’ actually being constant over space and time, or the assumption that there is only one cosmos.

The opponents need only point out that you have not justified your assumptions.

You can suggest that all you want, but physicists do have sufficient knowledge to extrapolate how resetting various constants to different levels would effect the whole. This is not disputed. You may not know or think this is the case, but it is.

Only for values very close to ours. Go to some group of values very far removed from ours, and it is very uncertain.