Cheerful Charlie

[quote=navy seal;4737403]No, its not. Science simply notes the Universe works without invoking God.
Fine tuning proves nothing about God. Not there is a God, or a billion Gods or infinite numbers of Gods.

God as the Bible, Veda, and Quran believers think of God is doomed as a concept as it is a self contradictory idea.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ht=omnigenesis

CC

SophistiCat

Whether or not we think that will happen is irrelevant, because we don't use gaps as an argument for naturalism or against God, so the analogy doesn't hold. When you find a gap in our knowledge, you declare that the fact that there is a gap is evidence for God. When scientists find a gap in our knowledge, they work hard to fill the gap with actual knowledge. There is a world of difference between these two approaches.

But that is not at all what I said, and your reply doesn't have anything to do with the point being discussed! Did you even read what I wrote? Do you have anything to reply to that?

No, it's not a stupid argument. The worst thing about god-of-the-gaps arguments is that they stop inquiry dead in its tracks. I mean, if you can just wave your hand and say "goddidit", then what's the point of trying to discover natural mechanisms? And you are forgetting that for hundreds of years religion has been in rapid retreat from science. A lot of what is now common knowledge and a foundation of the technology and medicine that you use would have been anathema just a couple of centuries ago. Fundamentalists have since conceded some of their most hopeless battles, but they still can't resist the siren call of ignorance: they still try to fight science where they think there are gaps or weaknesses.

Depending on what brand of fundamentalism you subscribe to, you are still in denial of any number of scientific results, and hence their applications. If you are a young-earth creationist (YEC), then you have to reject much of modern physics, for example - including the physics on which nuclear plants are based, not to mention electronics like your computer.

As far as the theory of evolution in particular, see this summary answer to the claim that you are apparently making, The theory of evolution is useless, without practical application. It gives reference for further reading. I recommend in particular Bull & Wichman's paper, as well as this publication for a well-written popular overview.

Postulating that "god does exist" is not an argument, so there is nothing for atheists to take down. The argument that we have been discussing is god-of-the-gaps. Once again, you fail to address what is actually written.

Oh and please learn to spell "atheist" already.

No, I am not. Nowhere have I used ignorance as evidence for a theory or theology.

No, I am saying that evidence that you allude to doesn't point to God or anything of the sort. If you think that it does, the burden is on you to show that. Go ahead. If you succeed, you'll be the first.

I haven't seen you present an argument again the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. I have seen you studiously evade the issue.

I know what Anthropic Principle is, but the fact that you refer to it in support of your contentions tells me that you don't know what it is - you are just using it as a slogan. (Here is a list of publications on fine-tuning that I am familiar with that I posted earlier in another thread. Feel free to peruse it.)

vovaciouslyveronic

Its pointless arguing against you, but I will address some of your points of lack of examples.

Tonto Goldstein

Hi Navy Seal, I hope you’re well.

In my opinion, the “fine-tuning” argument, which underpins your assertions, is fatally flawed. There is a major unfounded assertion which is required for the fine-tuning argument to be cogent, which is can there be a universe with different fundamental forces? To date we know of one universe and it has the characteristics we observe. To posit that those forces COULD be different requires some evidence; which you have not presented. When you find another universe with different “life preventing” fundamental forces then you’ll have something. I think the only honest statement one can make is, all universes we know of have the characteristics of ours and in that universe life exists. The assertion that some external agent is required to “balance” a universes fundamental forces can be lopped off by Mr. Occam’s razor. In fact given that complex organic chemistry necessary for life appears in such hostile environments as comets and meteors, it may well be that life is as fundamental a force in the universe as the Strong force.

By the way there are naturalistic explanations for abiogenesis, but they’re certainly in their infancy. But I think yours is a very odd position to take. It’s as if we’re in a detective story, and we have followed the footprints of evolution for billions of years, over the river and through the woods, and we reach a door where the footprints end and you say aha I bet God is standing behind the door. However, I think a facetious way in which your idea could be reformulated is; as long as ignorance exists god will exist; which I can agree with.

Regards,
Rich

zorq

Well, YOU are the one who suggests we give up on science. You recommend that look at the gaps of scientific knowledge and use those as evidence for supernatural action. You see that science doesn't yet know why gravity is exactly as strong as it is, why strong nuclear forces are more powerful than weak nuclear forces, so you use these gaps as an excuse to blame the supernatural. You aren't interested in finding a natural explanation because you already have a supernatural explanation you are eager to use.

What's happening now is that scientists are still looking for more information about the universe, not giving up and going home as creationists would like them to do. It is an apologist's day dream that scientists are motivated more by disproving God rather than the pursuit of the truth.

I'm not understanding these sentences at all. Perhaps I misunderstand your position entirely. If so, I apologize.

Vicious Love

He's saying that attributing lightning to God is stupid, because God doesn't make lightning. But crediting God with flagella makes sense, because God made flagella.

I wish there was more of substance for me to translate, but there isn't. Nothing but 20/20 hindsight.

Freestinker

It is pointless ... until you provide some actual evidence to support your claims.

Minnesota Joe

Someone has probably posted this by now, but it doesn't hurt to repeat it:

The Presumption of Atheism by Antony Flew

Flew discusses the reasons for holding this position. He defends it in terms of negative atheism or weak atheism and draws an analogy between that and the presumption of innocence. To my knowledge, this article is where the idea of the presumption of atheism originated. While Flew agrees that a presumption is not an assumption, at the time he felt that in light of the presumption of atheism and given certain facts about the subject of theism, "the whole enterprise of theism appears even more difficult and precarious than it did before".

kennethamy

I suppose that is true, because if we accept the presumption of atheism, the theist is obliged to provide enough evidence to defeat atheism rather than just provide reasons for theism, and that's going to be tougher.

Dante Alighieri

Navy Seal,

The fine-tuning argument is not ignored by atheists. For some good discussion on fine-tuning on IIDB:


The fine-tuning teleological argument
An objection to the fine-tuning argument

I suggest you read the posts by SophistiCat and mirage. They know what they are talking about. I think you should open up a new thread about the fine-tuning argument. I'm personally convinced that its failure is strongly related to the failure of the principle of sufficient reason.