Why I am am athiest

[gmark77]

Fine tuning

Already dispensed with. Even if you could show that there's some "tuning" necessary here's the problems you open up:

1. You have not provided any evidence that it is "God" that set the values.
2. You have not provided any evidence that the values could even be different
3. You will then have to explain why God is CONSTRAINED and couldn't create a life-containing universe with different constants


In other words: you have no explanation. Yours is exactly equivalent to the "multiverse" hypothesis.

Also Aquinas five ways makes a good argument albeit more simply but no less effectively. Ive yet to hear a solid refutation of it.

The Argument from The First Uncaused Cause is weak as fuck. It's nothing more than special pleading for "God".

 

[gmark77]

“Running away from the logical consequences of an atheist worldview again?”

He thinks that physical materialism is some sort of 'gotcha'.

But then his rationale for that is "beauty". He will trot out "beauty" or "familial love" as some sort of indicator that there's "non-physical" things in the universe and somehow that opens the door to "God".

 

[Cypress]

What’s to defend?

Explain precisely how order, design, mathematical organization, fine tuning, physical laws, mathematical constants of the cosmos just resulted from inanimate naturalistic physical materialism.

Or else, confess to being agnostic about the whole thing.

 

[Hume]

Explain precisely how order, design, mathematical organization, fine tuning, physical laws, mathematical constants of the cosmos just resulted from inanimate naturalistic physical materialism.

Explain why it is impossible.

 

[gmark77]

Explain precisely how order, design, mathematical organization, fine tuning, physical laws, mathematical constants of the cosmos just resulted from inanimate naturalistic physical materialism.

Or else, confess to being agnostic about the whole thing.

Why don't you explain how it happened otherwise?

Go ahead. You demand it from others, but what have you got? Nothing.

 

[domer76]

Fine tuning. The 5 ways by Aquinas is also compelling and I've never heard good refutations to either.

Fine tuning proves nothing about a deity.

Aquinas never met your god, did he? Never spoke to this god, did he? No personal contact at all.

So, just more theological gymnastics.

 

[domer76]

well that's not doctrinnaire at all.

officially, all of the books are the word of god.

we see what you choose.

that's the test.


what do you choose?

All the books are the words of people. No more. No less.

Some accounts are true. Some are false. Some are myth. Some are opinion. Some are outright lies.

 

[Yakuda]

Already dispensed with. Even if you could show that there's some "tuning" necessary here's the problems you open up:

1. You have not provided any evidence that it is "God" that set the values.
2. You have not provided any evidence that the values could even be different
3. You will then have to explain why God is CONSTRAINED and couldn't create a life-containing universe with different constants


In other words: you have no explanation. Yours is exactly equivalent to the "multiverse" hypothesis.



The Argument from The First Uncaused Cause is weak as fuck. It's nothing more than special pleading for "God".

1. I don't need to prove it was God just that someone or something had to have turned it because it's illogical to suggest it's just random. I call that someone God. Now show evidence for more than one universe.
2. Anymore than you've provided that they couldn't be different. The fact is the effect of variations in the values can be calculated and show life wouldn't exist yet here we are.
3. You're declaring God constrained doesn't mean anything. It's not an argument. I have a cup in front of me right now. You're suggesting because the cup is the size and the shape it is the person who created was constrained from making the cup any other size of shape. That's asinine.

As I said "is weak as fuck" is not a compelling refutation of Aquinas. He called it God but the principle that everything has have a first cause is valid and "weak as fuck" is weak as fuck.

 

[Yakuda]

Fine tuning proves nothing about a deity.

Aquinas never met your god, did he? Never spoke to this god, did he? No personal contact at all.

So, just more theological gymnastics.

Maybe it doesn't but it certainly points to the existence of a mind that tuned it. I call it God but it doesn't change the tuning.

Meaningless drivel. Show where something created itself.

 

[Cypress]

Why don't you explain how it happened otherwise?

Go ahead. You demand it from others, but what have you got? Nothing.

I'm agnostic about the whole thing, I don't have to have an explanation.


Now, using only purely inanimate physical materialism, please explain precisely how:

-Something can come from nothing.

-Order can come from chaos.

-Life can can come from non-life.


If you cannot provide credible explanations, I will take it as evidence your atheist worldview collapses into agnosticism when pushed to it's logical conclusions.

 

[domer76]

Explain precisely how order, design, mathematical organization, fine tuning, physical laws, mathematical constants of the cosmos just resulted from inanimate naturalistic physical materialism.

Or else, confess to being agnostic about the whole thing.

I’ll leave all that to the theoretical physicists. I have no need to “defend” REALITY, however they came about.

None, however, are proof of a deity, no matter how fucking much you want them to be.

 

[Hume]

-Something can come from nothing.

No one argues that. You just have strawmen.

 

[Hume]

-Order can come from chaos.

What chaos?

 

[domer76]

Maybe it doesn't but it certainly points to the existence of a mind that tuned it. I call it God but it doesn't change the tuning.

Meaningless drivel. Show where something created itself.

Good for you. Your “mind” must have some attributes.

Is that mind omnipotent? Omniscient? Omni-benevolent? Do you pray to that mind? Does that mind answer your prayers? Does that mind offer eternal life? Did that mind have a son that died on a cross? Does that mind share his mind equally with two other minds? Did that mind create itself?

 

[Yakuda]

Good for you. Your “mind” must have some attributes.

Is that mind omnipotent? Omniscient? Omni-benevolent? Do you pray to that mind? Does that mind answer your prayers? Does that mind offer eternal life? Did that mind have a son that died on a cross? Does that mind share his mind equally with two other minds? Did that mind create itself?

My mind didn't find the universe

Nothing created itself as aquinas points out but here we are.

 

[gmark77]

I'm agnostic about the whole thing, I don't have to have an explanation.

Unlike you I don't arbitrarily decide that some random claims offered without evidence are potentially worth believing.

-Something can come from nothing.

If there's a God he had to make something from nothing. So no one (including you) has a better position.

-Life can can come from non-life.

Where did it come from then?

 

[Cypress]

Unlike you I don't arbitrarily decide!

So you can't tell me how order and mathmatical organization randomly result from purely inanimate physical reasons. And moreover, you can't even offer me a 100 percent guarantee that it did.

So you have collapsed into agnosticism

 

[Hume]

So you can't tell me how order and mathmatical organization randomly result from purely inanimate physical reasons.

Why is that a problem?

 

[gmark77]

So you have collapsed into agnosticism

No. Wish I could explain it to you but you aren't smart enough.

For people who are smart enough I simply fail to see sufficient evidence for God.

That's it.

Just like I'm not agnostic about the tooth fairy, I'm not agnostic about God either.

If you provide me evidence for either one that rises to the level to impress me I'll reconsider. Until then enjoy your magic fairies.

 

[gmark77]

Hey @Cypress : if life didn't come from non-life where did it come from?