Best Strong Argument Content

• The Myth of Satan

  Stephen

  January 22
  
  
  
  
  Why has the Christian Church filled our minds of such  fearful satanic dogma and the same said Church have attached to the incident with Eve and the serpent?
  

  
  

    Nowhere in the Genesis account is there any mention, direct or indirect of Satan's involvement but it hasn't stopped -indeed it has become common practice - for the Church to portray the Eden serpent as a representative of Satan or Satan himself as in Revelation 12:9.
  

  
  

  From my own understanding, in the Hebrew bible as in  the conventional or mainstream Judaism to this day Satan never appears as Western Christendom has come to know him. The Christian perception of Satan is that of an evil imperialist whose hoards of demons wages war on god and humankind,  but this Satan character was an invention of the post -Jesus era that has absolutely no more historic value than anything written by Bram Stoker and his Gothic  fictional character, Count Dracula.
  

  
  

   Though rarely mentioned in the Old Testament 'satans' are portrayed as obedient underling servants or sons of gods (the bene ha - elohim) who's duty it is to perform specific tasks or strategic obstruction. Whenever a  bene ha - elohim satan appears in the Old Testament he is seen as a fully signed up member of the heavenly court- one that carries out god's more aggressive dictates and is also know as an obstructer and accuser.
  

  So in this regard, why is it that the Christian Church felt it necessary to wrap around an emissary of god a myth that is only worthy of a gothic novel that has no historicity to it whatsoever?

  

• Is God all loving?

  Factfinder

  January 21
  @just_sayin
  
  For anyone who is suffering, any answer may seem trite.  @Factfinder is still grieving the loss of his wife.  I doubt a philosophical answer will address the emotions he feels. 
  
  If anything you had to say was true you wouldn't have had to tell this lie again knowing you were lying. Why? You know my wife's death has nothing to do with the fact I realized years prior to that what a ridiculous world view Christianity presents and am quite aware of your apologetics techniques.  @juke's question doesn't involve my wife or your insecurities nor was I looking to have my feelings addressed.
  
  You see @juke you will find Just_lyin had to distract you from the content of my post to set up his response to you. Which was to of course preach the nonsense that he preached. One must believe in absolutes to accept his particular elf god, that is why he tried so hard to convince you that "evil" is defined as he said, "If objective evil exists, then objective good exists." Notice the "If" that starts his argument? First distract from statements of truth then plant the suggestion that follows the "if" as some kind of accepted common knowledge. This type of tactic being employed against you is nothing new for Just_lyin. It may be true in your case that it might be considered 'common knowledge' to you as you've indicated you are questioning at least some aspects of your faith. But the reality is good and evil are not absolutes as quite often what is good for some is bad for others, circumstances for some make some things true for them that's not true for everyone else, there are no absolutes where concepts of consciousness are concerned as we only have human concepts to work with. Absolutely none!     Seriously though don't allow no one to redefine your question as he did. You have a good question and it deserves answers from the heart, not a cut and paste job that among many other questionable things, tries to present "Do this or die" type ultimatums as some kind of creepy extension of love and freewill. Thus not only is god not an established reality but even if it were, there is no reason to think biblically it is objectively good when it admits itself to killing when it's own moral code says do not kill.
  
  
  Just tip of the iceberg stuff. You will make your own mind up what you believe. I wish you well in your search for truth and applaud your balanced approach of questioning that what is asserted.
  

  

• Is God all loving?

  just_sayin

  January 21
  @juke
  The question is often stated like this 'If God is all good, and all powerful why does evil exist?"
  
  For anyone who is suffering, any answer may seem trite.  @Factfinder is still grieving the loss of his wife.  I doubt a philosophical answer will address the emotions he feels.  Typically, it is important to define evil in a question such as this.  If objective evil exists, then objective good exists.  Evil - is the privation of good.  We know if because it good exists and this contrast can be understood.  For the atheist, there is no objective good or evil.  Evil is just something you don't like.  If everything and everyone is just the result of natural processes, then 'evil' can not objectively exist.  What might seem evil to one, is good to another.  You can't really say that natural events like fires or earthquakes are 'evil'.  They are just the result of nature - which has no mind or evil intentions.
  
  If objective evil exists, as I believe it does, that means that objective good exists, and that suggests an objectively good law giver, aka - God.  Alvin Plantiga in his many worlds hypothesis suggests that it is not inconsistent to believe that an all good, and all powerful God, to allow evil to exist.  He argues that the best possible world God could create would have love in it.  Many would agree that love is the greatest good, or one of the greatest goods.  To have true love, requires free will.  Without free will, love is just mandated or forced behavior.  True love requires free will and choice.  Therefore it is logical that God would allow evil, if it meant that the world would be capable of knowing and experiencing love.  From getliner.com
  
  

  Addressing the question "If God is all good and all powerful, why do evil things happen?" involves delving into the complex interplay between the nature of God, the existence of evil, and human free will. This inquiry, often categorized under the problem of evil, is a significant theme in Christian theology.

  
  

      Understanding God's Nature

  In Christian theology, God is described as both omnibenevolent (all good) and omnipotent (all-powerful). This establishes the foundation for the argument that an all-good and all-powerful deity would not allow gratuitous evil to exist. However, defining what constitutes 'good' and 'evil' is essential. Goodness is often viewed as the fulfillment of God's will, which encompasses not only moral perfection but also the purpose and order of creation. Evil, conversely, can be understood as a deviation from that order, often resulting from the misuse of free will bestowed upon humanity.

  
  

      The Role of Free Will

  One of the primary responses to the problem of evil within Christian theology is the emphasis on human free will. Theologians argue that God granted humanity the ability to choose between good and evil, which is essential for genuine love and moral responsibility. Without such freedom, humans would be akin to automatons, incapable of authentic relationships with God or each other. This theological perspective posits that much of the evil in the world results from human choices rather than a failure of God's goodness or power. For instance, the existence of suffering caused by human decisions—such as tyranny, prejudice, and neglect—is often attributed to this misuse of free will.

  
  

      The Nature of Suffering

  Furthermore, suffering can be seen within a broader theological context. Many Christians believe that God can bring about greater goods from instances of suffering. This perspective is often illustrated by the life and crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which, despite being an embodiment of profound suffering and injustice, resulted in the salvation of humanity. In this view, the existence of evil and suffering does not undermine God's goodness; rather, these experiences can serve a purpose—such as fostering spiritual growth, compassion, or bringing people closer to God.

  
  

      Theological Liberalism and Eschatological Hope

  Different strands of Christian thought address the question of evil distinctively. Theological liberalism, for example, posits that God's purpose is fulfilled through the betterment of humanity and the world. Under this view, God encourages human beings to combat injustice and evil, engaging them in the journey towards a more just world. Moreover, many Christians hold on to eschatological hope, which asserts that the ultimate resolution of evil awaits in the eschaton, when God will restore all things, and the full realization of good will be evident.

  
  

      In summary, while the existence of evil poses profound theological questions, the Christian response emphasizes free will, meaning derived from suffering, and hope in God’s ultimate justice as foundational elements in addressing this issue. This harmonious understanding allows many believers to reconcile their faith in an all-good, all-powerful God with the reality of evil in the world, encouraging resilience and a commitment to pursue goodness in the face of adversity.

  
  

  Sources: 

  [1] Philosophy and Christian Theology: The Problem of Evil and the Meaning of Good, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4c0d64dd90fcb1fd4b03ced20eb21effb31552fc

  [2] Technical Design Report for the: PANDA Straw Tube Tracker, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a5793b9c541998f87155a62b12f697600df372e9

  [3] Radiation hardness qualification of PbWO4scintillation crystals for the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7c9869524ca85c00811c947957edc73d52f15a55

  
  

  

• Does the fine-tuning of the universe suggest that God exists?

  Factfinder

  January 20
  @just_sayin
  
  And still no evidence of fine tuning by your magical fairytale elf god. I imagine that must be frustrating for you that reality doesn't line up with your insecurities about dying.

  

• Does the fine-tuning of the universe suggest that God exists?

  Factfinder

  January 20

  just_sayin said:

  @Factfinder
   How is a universe so hostile to life, fine tuned for life when there is so little of it, only in one tiny insignificant spot? And for such an immense universe, still no sign of life anywhere else yet? 
  
  An argument that I've hear before is that our universe isn't finely tuned for life because there is so much of it that in in hospitable for life.  I'm just going to quote Michael G Strauss, PHD - Experimental High Energy Physics (From interview in "Is God Real" by Lee Strobel).  I think he addresses it well:
  
  

  "Actually, the universe is the smallest it could possibly be and still have life...If you start with a big bang and your goal is to make solar system like ours, you have to go through two previous generations of stars.  The first generation left behind some of the elements of the periodic table, but lacked the right amounts of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen to make rocky planets and complex life.  Then the second generation of stars formed from the debris of the first generation.  When these burned out, they made more heavy elements and scattered them throughout the universe.  Our sun coalesced from that debris.  Now here's my point: this third generation of stars is the first possibility for a solar system like ours to exist.  So if you start with the big bang, it takes nine billion years to create a solar system like ours - which is approximately when our solar system formed, 4.5 billion years ago.  So if you're God and your purpose is to create Earth suitable for people and you use these processes, it would take about 13.5 billion years.  And during that time, what is the universe doing?  Expanding.  Right it's getting bigger and bigger.  So even though it's incredibly large, this is the youngest, and therefore the smallest that the universe can be if you want to create one planet that's hospitable for life."

  
  

  But we don't live in the youngest part of the universe as we observe younger parts when we look through telescopes, and your bible doesn't say that god "fine tuned" only the younger part of an old universe of approximately 14 billion years in its narrative at all. Your bible says it created it all in six literal day periods and no more than 6000 years ago or so going by biblical genealogy. So that explanation doesn't help you anymore than it did Lee Strobel. Your bible says god spoke creation into existence and it was, so sorry, deflecting isn't helping you. You see, I do not forget your past arguments. Science absolutely does not in any way lead to supporting your god as the creator and neither does nature...
  
  Genesis 1:1: In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth...verses11-19 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

  12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

  13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

  14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

  15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

  16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

  17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

  18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

  19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

  Sorry, going back in time to a smaller universe when your bible specifically says it was created the instant your elf god spoke it into existence just reveals your blind faith in having faith rather than reason.

  

• Does the fine-tuning of the universe suggest that God exists?

  MayCaesar

  January 19

  just_sayin said:

  
  

  I think you are making a mistake in missing the 1,000 executioners firing their loaded guns and all missing, by focusing exclusively on the reaction of the observer.  You seem to be missing the obvious.  While it is true that the guy who pulls off his blindfold can say he is still alive, and therefore everyone missed, he has failed to explain why everyone missed.  Given the astronomical odds of everyone missing, it seems that something more is going on, and if everyone missed, he should suspect that the reason is because, their shots were not accidental, but that they all deliberately missed.  While he can conclude he lives in world where the odds worked out in his favor and he is alive, he has failed to recognize that their was some intelligence and intentionality that was behind that, that tinkered with things to bring about that outcome..

  Well, first, I would poke a hole at the analogy by pointing out that the observer in question remembers what happened before he opened his eyes: he saw the executioners lining up and pointing their guns at him. This is very different from him waking up, remembering nothing from his past, and just seeing the smoke coming out of 1,000 guns pointing at him - which is closer to "appearance" of the Universe. Your analogy would describe a different scenario: someone witnessing a random number generator continuously generating random values for multiple constants - then waking up in this Universe and finding that the constants are aligned just right. That might suggest that something interfered with the random process.

  In statistics, whether the prior is known or not seriously affects the evaluated probability. If I see 10 coin flips resulting in 7 heads and 3 tails, and then the same coin is flipped 100 times in a row showing only heads - then I must suspect that the coin flipper uses some technique to only get heads. On the other hand, if all I see is the 100 coin flips resulting in heads, it will be more reasonable to assume that the coin is double-headed.

  
  

  Another issue here is that we are assuming that the generation of constant values is somehow uniformly random. But why? Perhaps the distribution of constants is heavily centered around the values that we observe: the more the values are removed from it, the less the resulting "Universe" makes sense. Like generating random sequences of characters and hoping to produce a compilable code: it will take an exorbitant amount of rolls to produce something that runs, but only code that runs will show anything on the screen.

  
  

  Finally, even if I grant you that something must have interfered with the "natural" process, that something does not have to be intelligence. In fact, the assumption that it has to be intelligence is very strange, given that the vast majority of processes we see around us are not directly induced by intelligence. In case of the 1,000 executioners missing, it could be just that high powers of 10 are magical numbers that lead to weird interference patterns that significantly increase the probability of altering certain expected outcomes - but the effect is so rarely encountered in reality that no one has ever considered the possibility, so we are completely in the dark.

  
  

  However I look at it, I just do not see how intelligent intervention is favored versus many other possible explanations.

  
  

  
  

  just_sayin said:

  Nobel Prize winner, Roger Penrose pointed out that the initial conditions of low entropy in the universe were incredibly unlikely and that the odds of them happening randomly were 1 in 10 ^10 ^ 123rd power.  Since there is no known reason in physics why these numbers must be this low, it demands an explanation, as he argued.  Your argument seems to be - 'since we are alive, let's forget about the explanation altogether about how we have such an improbable universe.'  That seems like the opposite of the scientific approach to me.  Mind you that Penrose is an atheist. and that Penrose also posited the notion of consciousness being the result of the collapse of the wave function whereby there is time travel into a brief moment in the past (just a side note since you went off topic onto consciousness).  A key difference I see in his response, is that he knows, something is off and it demands more than 'Let's just forget about it and go on'.
  
  The fact is, there are a limited number of scenarios where a life permitting universe is generated - I'm not talking about one that fits just our type of life right now, but just one where the universe doesn't immediately collapse upon itself, or where the fundamental forces aren't too weak and thereby no atoms can form. A parameter that I did not mention was the amount of matter in the universe.  If there was too much matter, then the universe would collapse on itself before stars and planets could form.  If there was too little matter then the stars and planets couldn't form.  This number must be finely tuned to 1 part in 10 ^60th power.  That means that a dimes worth of difference in the matter in the universe and it would not exist.  Go outside and take a look at the sky - if you added or removed 1 millimeter from what you see in the sky - your universe wouldn't exist. Again, please look up above at my initial post for many other examples.  The odds are not just astronomical they are impossibly improbable.  To claim that since we live in an environment that permits life, then we shouldn't concern ourselves with the odds - is naive and unscientific.  

  Penrose used one of the existing cosmological models that led him to this conclusion. Aside from that model not having any empirical basis (most models in theoretical physics are like that, especially in cosmology), again, as I pointed out above, failing to consider the absence of the prior is a serious logical error - which even the most prominent physicists sometimes make. Penrose later on numerous occasions emphasized that this does not imply any kind of divine intervention. He merely proposed it as a mental experiment within the confines of the model.

  I am not advocating for forgetting anything, but the way the question is formulated - "why is the Universe so finely tuned?" - does not make sense to me. "Can we derive the values of these constants from more fundamental principles?" - now this is a good question, one on which a couple of my friends are working as we speak.

  
  

  The concept of probability itself is frequently misunderstood. Aside from some quantum weirdness (which can be explained without invoking probability still, but that is more nuanced and outside of the scope of this discussion), there is no real "probability" as far as we know. We assign probabilities to events which we cannot reasonably predict due to the limited amount of knowledge and computing power we have. I cannot, for instance, predict whether the next coin flip will produce a tail or a head, and in the lack of absolutely any knowledge that seems to favor either, I will say that either outcome has the probability of 50% of happening. But someone with high-precision cameras and a powerful super-computer at their disposal can measure the initial angle of the coin flying up and predict with near-100% certainty the outcome of the flip. "Probability" here is a product of my ignorance, the next best thing to saying simply "I do not know".

  Here we are talking about something very abstract: Universe being "sampled" from some unknown distribution. There was no observer, no uncertainty: whatever happened had to happen by definition. Trying to put it in terms that we routinely apply in very different domains is bound to run into some issues, and I have pointed out some of them.
  

  

• Does the fine-tuning of the universe suggest that God exists?

  Factfinder

  January 19
  @just_sayin
  
  Tell me, does that make more sense, than the possibility that an intelligent God made the universe?  I don't think so.
  
  Why don't you think so? Going back in time is no more 'out there' than an imagined god who does it with little effort, to the extent time doesn't have any effect on it. Your blind faith doesn't have any more evidence than any other theory, or in the religious context, aimless speculation. Like "fine tuning". How is a universe so hostile to life, fine tuned for life when there is so little of it, only in one tiny insignificant spot? And for such an immense universe, still no sign of life anywhere else yet? And even with what little amount of known life there is, everything ends in death at that one single location and there is no tangible evidence of life continuing beyond your physical death. Pointing to unknowns and complex dynamics is still a bad reason to say "god did it" and think you said something of significance. 
  
  No matter who's words you quote in the wrong context or misrepresent or infer your own erroneous conclusions from, no one is suggesting your specific god exists in an official capacity except believers from a personal perspective, not a scientific one. And that is what you're assert in the thread title as you said "god exists" as opposed to "a god" or an "entity". So you still have a long way to go to make your case.
  
  
  AI Response: 
  
  

  The "fine-tuned for life" argument suggests that the universe's physical constants are precisely calibrated to support life. Critics argue against this hypothesis by presenting several counterpoints that challenge the implications of fine-tuning.

  
  

      Understanding Fine-Tuning

  The fine-tuning argument posits that numerous physical constants, if altered even slightly, would render the existence of life as we know it impossible. These constants include values related to the gravitational force, cosmological constant, and nuclear forces. Proponents of this theory often assert that the precise measurements of these constants indicate a purposeful design, commonly attributed to a creator or intelligent designer.

  
  

      Critiques of the Fine-Tuned Argument

  Critics assert that the fine-tuning argument does not necessarily imply intentional design. Instead, they propose several alternative explanations that question the necessity of extraordinary precision in physical laws. 

  
  

      Anthropic Principle**: This principle states that we observe the universe in its life-supporting form simply because we exist in it. It suggests that our observations are conditioned by our ability to observe, thereby negating the implication of fine-tuning as evidence of design. If the universe were different, we wouldn't exist to observe it, hence, life can emerge only in a universe that allows for it.

  
  

      Multiverse Theories**: Some debunk the fine-tuning argument by introducing the concept of a multiverse—suggesting the existence of countless other universes with varying laws and constants. In this view, it is unsurprising that at least one universe, like ours, is able to support life. The vast number of potential configurations increases the likelihood that life-supporting conditions can occur. 

  
  

      Probability and Counterarguments

  Critics also challenge the probability-based reasoning often employed by fine-tuning advocates. They argue that simply because life seems rare does not necessitate that it results from intentional design or fine-tuning. The existence of life could stem from random chance occurring over an incomprehensibly vast timescale.

  
  

      Natural Processes**: Some suggest that what is perceived as fine-tuning could be a result of natural processes evolving under specific conditions rather than requiring a designer. For example, some scientists propose that our understanding of physics may evolve to accommodate different conditions and behaviors that do not require fine-tuning as a precondition for emergence.

  
  

      Evolutionary Explanations

  Furthermore, the role of natural selection and evolutionary processes provides a compelling counter to the fine-tuning argument. This combination constitutes a mechanism through which life could adapt to varying conditions rather than relying on the universe being designed specifically for its emergence. 

  
  

      Conclusion

  The fine-tuned for life argument is increasingly viewed as insufficiently robust when more complex, multifaceted explanations are considered. Arguments based on the anthropic principle, multiverse theories, evolved natural processes, and the mechanisms of evolution together present a formidable array of counterarguments that challenge the premise that the universe’s physical constants must be expertly tuned to support life as we know it. The re-evaluation of fine-tuning in light of these alternative theories underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of the cosmos that accommodates both randomness and complex interactions without invoking a designer.

  
  

  Sources: 

  [1] Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

  [2] Fine-Tuning - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

  [3] The Fine-Tuned Universe: 4 Fine-Tuning Examples - Magis Center, https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/is-god-real/evidence-for-fine-tuning

  [4] The Fine-Tuning Argument: Exploring the Improbability of Our ..., https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-26300-7_6

  [5] Is the universe really "fine-tuned for life"? - Physics Stack Exchange, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/414017/is-the-universe-really-fine-tuned-for-life

  [6] The universe is finely tuned for life - Creation Ministries International, https://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life

  [7] Cosmological Constant & Fine Tuning for Life - Physics Forums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cosmological-constant-fine-tuning-for-life.747278/

  [8] Robin Collins, "The Fine-Tuning Argument", https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil383/collins.htm

  [9] The 'Fine tuning' argument : r/AskPhysics - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/1fjumt8/the_fine_tuning_argument/

  [10] How is the Universe "fine-tuned" ? : r/AskPhysics - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/1dszf4v/how_is_the_universe_finetuned/

  [11] The fine tuning argument is a horrible argument : r/DebateReligion, https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1c8zbhd/the_fine_tuning_argument_is_a_horrible_argument/

  [12] [PDF] List of Fine-Tuning Parameters - Discovery Institute, https://www.discovery.org/m/2020/06/Fine-Tuning-Parameters-Jay-Richards.pdf

  [13] What Is Fine Tuning? - John Templeton Foundation, https://www.templeton.org/news/what-is-fine-tuning

  [14] What Do "Fine-tuning" and the "Multiverse" Say About God?, https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-do-fine-tuning-and-the-multiverse-say-about-god

  [15] Multiverse - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

  [16] What is multiverse theory? | Live Science, https://www.livescience.com/multiverse

  [17] The Top Three Multiverse Theories: Many Worlds, Bubble Universes ..., https://www.adlerplanetarium.org/blog/top-multiverse-theories-niyah-and-the-multiverse/

  [18] Multiverse | Definition, Types, & Facts - Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/multiverse

  [19] Here's Why We Might Live in a Multiverse | Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-we-might-live-in-a-multiverse/

  [20] Anthropic principle - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

  [21] Anthropic principle | Cosmology, Physics & Philosophy - Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/anthropic-principle

  [22] Anthropic Principle - University of Oregon, https://pages.uoregon.edu/jschombe/cosmo/lectures/lec24.html

  [23] Amazon.com: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, https://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-John-Barrow/dp/0198519494

  [24] Anthropic Principle - Bibliography - PhilPapers, https://philpapers.org/browse/anthropic-principle

  [25] Why the Fine Tuning Argument Proves God Does Not Exist, https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/20661

  [26] Sean Carroll debunks the “fine-tuning” argument for God, https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2015/12/31/sean-carroll-debunks-the-fine-tuning-argument-for-god/

  [27] If the Universe Is Fine-Tuned, Why Is It Mostly Inhospitable for Life?, https://www.str.org/w/if-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-why-is-it-mostly-inhospitable-for-life-

  [28] Multiverse - Critiques, Theories, Evidence | Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/multiverse/Critiques-of-multiverse-theories

  [29] Multiverses Are Pseudoscientific Bullshit - John Horgan, https://johnhorgan.org/cross-check/multiverses-are-pseudoscientific-bullshit

  [30] Multiverse Theories Are Bad for Science - Scientific American, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/multiverse-theories-are-bad-for-science/

  [31] Multiverse Theory: Implications and Debates - The Network, https://tothenetwork.com/multiverse-theory-implications-and-debates/

  [32] Evolution may explain values of the fundamental constants, https://physicsworld.com/a/evolution-may-explain-values-of-the-fundamental-constants/

  [33] How do we know the fundamental constants are constant? We don't., https://www.space.com/are-fundamental-constants-of-universe-constant

  [34] Can physical constants be different in other galaxies?, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-physical-constants-be-different-in-other-galaxies.1046458/

  [35] Refuting the fine-tuning argument : r/DebateReligion - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/12cg9t8/refuting_the_finetuning_argument/

  [36] What are counter arguments to the 'fine-tuned universe ... - Quora, https://www.quora.com/What-are-counter-arguments-to-the-fine-tuned-universe-argument

  [37] Could we ever find a "reason" for why physical constants are what ..., https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/1ey5hk3/could_we_ever_find_a_reason_for_why_physical/

  [38] Considering the intricate design and order in the universe ... - Quora, https://www.quora.com/Considering-the-intricate-design-and-order-in-the-universe-what-alternative-explanations-do-you-find-plausible-for-the-apparent-fine-tuning-of-physical-constants-and-the-complexity-of-life

  [39] What is natural selection? - Natural History Museum, https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-natural-selection.html

  [40] Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common ..., https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1

  [41] Natural Selection - Understanding Evolution, https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/mechanisms-the-processes-of-evolution/natural-selection/

  [42] How Does Natural Selection Work? 5 Basic Steps (VISTA) | AMNH, https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/natural-selection-vista

  [43] Evolution by Natural Selection - University of Hawaii at Manoa, https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/biological/what-alive/evolution-natural-selection

  [44] Is Fine-Tuning “More Extreme” in Biology or Cosmology?, https://evolutionnews.org/2020/10/is-fine-tuning-more-extreme-in-biology-or-cosmology/

  [45] THE 'FINE TUNING' ARGUMENT DEBUNKED – Holy Koolaid, https://www.answers-in-reason.com/religion/christianity/fine-tuning-debunked-holy-koolaid/

  [46] Is it naive to believe the fine tuning of the universe for evolution is a ..., https://www.quora.com/Is-it-naive-to-believe-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-evolution-is-a-random-circumstance-even-when-it-would-still-be-so-without-us

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  

• Does the fine-tuning of the universe suggest that God exists?

  MayCaesar

  January 19
  @just_sayin
  

  
  

  I do not think the scenario you described helps your cause. You are making the same mistake: you are describing the situation from the side, without being that guy - therefore considering the space of all imaginable possibilities, of which the subspace of actual, materializable possibilities is a tiny fraction. If you actually are the guy who woke up after hearing 1,000 gunshots from guns pointed at him, then the inevitable conclusion for you would be that, indeed, all of them missed. If they had not, you would not wake up and make the observation. The only way you could make it is if all the bullets missed the target.

  Would it be logical for you to assume that you just got lucky and all the firemen unintentionally missed? It would not be a bad null hypothesis. What would be illogical is to say, "My guardian angel deflected all the bullets and saved me". That would be a completely unfounded statement.

  In fact, it is very much possible (although unprovable) that this is how consciousness works. It always "chooses" the scenario that allows it to keep going, so the 1,000 firemen will always miss you particularly in your local world. I would not suggest putting it to the test for obvious reasons, but it is not an impossibility.

  
  

  As for what other guys claim, it is not my responsibility to help them with an argument. The idea that men went back in time and created themselves sounds insane to me, and I seriously doubt that the authors of the book actually made this claim (unless it was made in a very peculiar context). If they did, then I disagree with them.
  

  

• Does the fine-tuning of the universe suggest that God exists?

  MayCaesar

  January 19
  The fallacy of the argument becomes very apparent if we consider a more mundane example. Such as this:

  
  

  "My wife is from Manhattan. Given that the female population of New York City constitutes only 0.001% of the global population, I could not have gotten her by chance. Fate must have played a role here!"

  
  

  What the person forgot to mention was that he had lived his whole life on Manhattan, so he was far more likely to find a wife also from Manhattan than anywhere else. But by conveniently omitting this fact, he made a seemingly plausible argument for existence of fate.

  
  

  Same here. By the very assumption of the creationist argument, any Universe in which we could possibly find ourselves must have been very close to ours in terms of the values of the constants. So even if we assume that the Universe is somehow drawn randomly from some distribution, the distribution from which it was drawn is much-much narrower than some kind of an abstract space of Universes with all possible numerical values of all constants.
  

  

• Rape Gang In the Uk

  Barnardot

  January 10

  @Stephen ; Only it wasn't "false". Both parties "enabled" these  Pakistani rape gangs to operate over decades.

  That isn't the issue. We are talking here about a specific gang rape case and there is no evidence anywhere that the defendants were Muslim immigrants or a Pakastani rape gang.