Photon Propeller's thread on detrimental effects of religious prejudice

[Skeptic134]

I have already agreed that the logical progression is into infinity, the cosmological argument is simply evidence of cause alone, the teleological argument is evidence which describes that cause as precise. It is the combination of the two which are evidence of an intelligent source, cause and precision engineering.

 

You are using the word evidence where it is inappropriate. You mentioned using the scientific method to explore and gain knowledge of the universe so we are talking about empirical evidence.

 

Do you disagree with the following regarding empirical and scientific evidence?

 

- acquired through observation or experimentation

- results are repeatable by others

- objective

- falsifiability of the hypothesis being tested

 

The classical logical arguments regarding an intelligent creator do not meet any of these elements.

 

Personal feelings of how the universe seems isn’t sufficient to be considered evidence; you are assuming the universe is the result of intelligence, you aren’t following any evidence to that conclusion.

Thanks, but I don't see where there is any 'fine tuning' involved. All we are measuring is the way the universe is. We are not measuring any sort of tuning.

 

I don't see where this particular configuration of the universe (what you are calling a tuned universe) is any more significant than any other possible configuration of the universe. If gravity was stronger or weaker, or if there was no strong nuclear force, (or whatever) the universe would be just as fine tuned and empirical and repeatable as it is now. It is just that the universe would be fine tuned for something else. In fact, the same could be said for EVERY possible configuration of the universe.

 

So it seems to me as if you are saying that THIS configuration of the universe proves a god simply because we happen to be in it.

If not, then it seems as if you are saying ANY configuration of the universe proves a god, because that configuration is fine tuned also.

Either way, it seems as if the existence of us, or the existence of a universe, is proof enough for you that god exists.

 

Exactly.

 

If you perform an experiment to test gravity the evidence supports gravity not that an intelligent being created gravity.

[tar]

Photon Propeller,

 

I think it was Zapatos that made the point that fine tuning requires an out of tune thing to stretch or compress into something that sounds the right pitch.

 

Here, the fine tuning argument lacks a description of what it was the architect took and tuned up.

Not to mention who or what came up with the unmolded clay.

 

There is something about intelligence, that I noticed, requires a prexisting world to explain. That is, that what a conscious being like a human senses, remembers, compares and constrasts, manipulates and predicts, is a prexisting world that he/she has internalized and copied in some analogous fashion and the model of the thing that an intelligent person has, is fashioned out of the stuff that prexisted, prior the intelligence.

 

The place was already here, before life came about. Life grabbed form and structure and passed along its pattern to the next iteration/generation, from a universe that otherwise seems to be increasing in entropy. Life pulled itself up, by its own bootstraps. There is no place to house a blueprint for such an adventure, other than this universe. And nowhere for an architect to live, other than this universe. And nothing for an architech to model the place after other than this universe, and no material for an architech to mould, other than the material existant in the universe.

 

So, to believe an architect is required, one would have to at least have a thought as to what the place would be like, without an architect.

 

Interestingly enough, the place would look exactly like this. And there is nobody here, but us chickens.

 

That does not exclude your suggestion that we all come from the same source, so we should act like we are of the same cloth, the same family and have the same world to be of and in and love and be responsible for and take care of and enjoy and make it possible for others to do the same. But your suggestion does not require that an architect be praised for a job well done, because the place happened, without any such expert guidance evident or required.

 

Besides, as far as life on Earth goes, its the parameters of heat and pressure, and a certain mix of elements that exists on Earth, that makes life on Earth a possibilty. We match the place. If we were life on Jupiter, we would match Jupiter. If we were life at a vent on the bottom of the sea, we would match the place.

 

What do you suppose the conditions are that allow an architect to form?

 

Regards, TAR

Does this claim make any sense? In the beginning God created an out of tune universe, for some crazy reason, then proceeded to correct his mistake, and tuned the thing up. We are thankful he did not decide to go with the original mess.

[MonDie]

 

I am not terribly sure. I was under the impression that in many countries, including US the separation was to protect individual practitioners from state persecution. An offspring of freedom of thoughts, so to say. The exception would be laicite (pardon my lack of accents) adopted by France and Turkey which distinctly calls to lessen the influence of church on public institutions.

Though with the general rise of secularism the quoted part may be the current de facto (if not the historical) reason.

Fair point. I should have stipulated the perspective of the State in my comment. Churches should expect tolerance from the State regarding how they worship, but the State should be free from undue influence from the Church as well.

 

The first ammendment doesn't read to me as "Treat religion fairly" because the free exercise clause seems broader in scope than the establishment clause (no laws respecting an establishment of religion).

Obviously they shouldn't pass laws that specifically target a religion. However, while they can pass laws that are concordant with religion as long as they don't justify them religiously, a law that is discordant with religion may be ruled to violate the free exercise clause even if its justification was religiously impartial. When do these exceptions for religious beliefs become special treatment, particularly when it seems like most of them accomodate Christians?

Edited September 13, 2014 by MonDie

[Ten oz]

We live in a universe of cause and effect. The degree to which our universe is fine tuned is empirical and repeatable, who or what caused that degree of exactness is the only subjective question.

How exacting of a universe we have is a matter of perspective and not matter of fact. However let's assume, for the sake of argument, I agree. How does the existence of a God/creator explain anything? In my opinion the concept of a God simply shifts questions but does not answer any.

Questions like how was the universe was created still persist. Simply crediting God doesn't answer the question. By whom something was created and how something was created are different things. It that makes God an unimportant component in understand how. If you were trying to reverse engineer a piece of technology simply knowing the name of its inventor would be useless unless knowing the name allowed you insight to their research, methods, materials, tools, or etc. knowing God as the creator of the universe does not help our undertsanding of the universe. It does not provide insight to God's research, methods, materials, tools, or etc.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Ten oz