Wiploc

For starters, some of the premises seem false, and the rest don't seem true.

Number 5, for instance, seems false. I don't think anybody has really believed in the singularity since the invention of quantum mechanics.

And there's no reason to think number six is true. if we believe in a miracle-throwing god --- and for the purposes of this exercise we do --- then we have no reason to believe there wasn't animate life during the big bang. It would take a miracle, of course, but that's of no consequence.

A major problem is that the argument assumes a deist god, one who requires the universe to produce life without his further interference.

Also, the argument neglects the possiblity of Last Thursdayism. The big bang may be a divine illusion. God may have created a running universe at some point "late" enough (like last Thursday) to assure that there would be animate life.
crc

Just_An_Atheist

"Number 5, for instance, seems false. I don't think anybody has really believed in the singularity since the invention of quantum mechanics."

Actually, I've heard that quantum mechanics does not do away with the singularity. In any case, if you're right then there is no delimma of a first cause, in which case I would lay this argument to rest. It's strength however, can be simply an effective rebuttal to the theistic solution. Since the contemporary first cause argument depends on the big bang as of now, it would be quite an interesting turn of events if the big bang, if true, would not only not be evidence for the existence of God, but would be evidence against it. In other words, even if you're right concerning the singularity and quantum physics, one can see the argument as not arguing for the conclusion that God does not exist, but for the following conditional: If Big Bang theory is true, then theism is false.

"And there's no reason to think number six is true.
Also, the argument neglects the possiblity of Last Thursdayism. The big bang may be a divine illusion. God may have created a running universe at some point "late" enough (like last Thursday) to assure that there would be animate life. "

True, but how do you know that you're not a brain in a vat, or being fooled by an evil demon about all of your beliefs? Either you accept those as possibilities, and I'll accept "Last Thursdayism."

I don't agree, because, as far as science has been able to tell us, carbon is a necessary condition for any form of *intelligent* life. Furthermore, as far as we've been able to know, not even bacteria could live in a great amount of heat such as the sun, much less in a place of infinite density; expecially so for intelligent life. Of course, sceince can only yield probable conclusions, so we can only be content with the defence that 6 is probably true.

"It would take a miracle, of course, but that's of no consequence."

Do you admit, then, that intelligent life existing in an infinitily dense singularity is exceedingly improbable?

Again, since this is only a probabilistic argument, it is irrelevant whether is logically possible to be false.

"A major problem is that the argument assumes a deist god, one who requires the universe to produce life without his further interference."

You're right that I assume a God who requires the universe to produce life, but I don't believe that I said anything about God's "further interference."

Just_An_Atheist

(continued)

but I don't believe I said anything about "personal interference after the universe is created". That's a straw man.

"Also, the argument neglects the possiblity of Last Thursdayism. The big bang may be a divine illusion. God may have created a running universe at some point "late" enough (like last Thursday) to assure that there would be animate life. "

It could be true in the sense that I might be a brain in a vat kept alive by evil scientists, or that a powerful demon fulls me about all of my beliefs. If you can accept those as "possible" then I'll accept "Last Thursdayism" as "possible" too.