rainbow walking

What's wrong with objectifying our specialty...science? It is an objective derivative of our imagination brought into reality by us for our subjective assessment...and why we no longer reside in the caves and trees.

Broken_Ladder

This would only be evidence of theism if any deities were observed which had a higher tendency to create life-permitting universes than "randomness".
If I were to find a particular set of small pebbles laid out on a beach in just a particular way out of millians or billions of possible arrangements, I could just as well say that _it_ was evidence for God, because it would be such an unlikely arrangement if there is no pebble-placing God, but very likely if there _is_ a pebble-placing God.
alternative hypothesis. [/B][/QUOTE]

ComestibleVenom

This argument illegitimate because atheism does not constitute a cosmological hypotheses.

One COULD say "Physical theories suggest that the universe evolved properties in a highly non-randomway and thus it is highly probable given the assumptions of physics that the universe would be as we see it today"

Thus, theism immediately looses it's claim to have a monopoly on nonrandom accounts of where life comes from. More to the point, it's 'explanation' is mysterious and methodoligcally absurd. The scientific theories on he other hand are patently superior methodologically. On all counts, therefore, a non-theist view can be superior.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Broken_Ladder :

The proponent of SFTA would say in response that the background probability that a god would prefer that pebble arrangement is low, because persons generally don't prefer very specific combinations of pebbles, and God is a kind of person. But persons generally do prefer to be around other persons, and there might also be a moral obligation (or at least supererogation) to produce beings with free will. So we would expect a morally perfect being to produce agents.

Broken_Ladder

So Christians define their god as morally perfect and liking people over moving rocks. I define the god I'll call "Nafah" as liking mountains shaped like the Sierra Nevadas. Now the Sierra Nevada looks exactly like the mountains Nafah likes, thus he must have made them, and thus he obviously exists. Same argument, and another example of why the theistic rebuttal is logically and scientifically empty.
BL

Steven Carr

And then allow them to go extinct? The Universe appears designed to destroy life on Earth, and indeed, whole branches of humanity , such as Neanderthal men have gone exstinct.

ComestibleVenom

Steven Carr,

I like your tactic of commandeering the term "the universe appears designed for" to describe whatever has happened or is likely to happen.

That I shall remember.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Steven Carr :

And most of the universe doesn't allow for any life, at least not unaided. The universe really looks finetuned for empty space.

Vorkosigan

(4) A life-permitting universe is not surprising on the hypothesis of theism.
(5) A life-permitting universe is very suprising on the hypothesis of atheism.
(6) Therefore, the evidence favors theism.

LOL. Life came from atheistic chi, of course. The ethnocentricity inherent in these arguments is baffling.

Toby Wardman

Yowch. There I've been, patiently replying to one or two posts over on the "Wardman's article" thread, and today I stumble across this extended discussion!

There seem to be one or two main objections to my article which are being brought up repeatedly, both here and elsewhere. I will keep an eye on this thread from now on, but might I suggest that those who have raised objections have a look over at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=55884 (I know at least some people already have) to see if anything there answers their questions.

I have just posted a reply to Broken Ladder there, but because it's a moderated forum it may take a while to appear (previous replies have taken up to 24 hours), so I'll repeat it below.