Present Evidence Here II

[Baruch]

Now we know how a Budhist can sit and meditate for hours. Its because they start thinking about something like Proverbs 26:4-5. almost like a computer program starting an infinite loop that keeps going until you push the power button.

Sanskrit, at reformed by Panini about 2400 years ago, is so logical, it can be compiled like a computer program.  It is the only language that is sufficiently logical to be so ;-)

[fencerider]

is sanskrit hard to learn. might make an interesting alternative to C++.

[Baruch]

is sanskrit hard to learn. might make an interesting alternative to C++.

With Sanskrit, you can only compile a superior karma ;-)

Unfortunately it is hard to learn, it is a very old language, and its grammar was perfected, to aid memorization of Hindu prayers and scriptures, even though this means a lot of limited application rules .... but there is a rule for everything ... a context-sensitive "production" as we would say in computer science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pāṇini ... in Devanagari type for example à¤...ष्टाध्यायी १

[Baruch]

Cartoon evidence ....
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-10-28

People find the god they expect to find.

[Cavebear]

A sparrow fell unobserved today.  Therefore there is no deity...  (coff, coff)

[Baruch]

A sparrow fell unobserved today.  Therefore there is no deity...  (coff, coff)

What is the content of an ignored post?  One hand clapping ;-)

[surreptitious57]

The universe is not fine tuned for life. Rather life is fine tuned for the universe. Albeit infinitesimally so given that over 99 per cent of it is
actually incompatible with human existence. And further more were one of the four fundamental forces [ weak nuclear ] removed entirely
it would not adversely affect life on Earth. In fact it would allow for greater diversity of life to exist not less. The ratios of the constants are
what makes it possible for life to exist. Now this is a random process. However random here does not mean chance but instead a statistical
probability based upon all possible outcomes. That is to say something which can be predicted in advance so is not something unanticipated

[sdelsolray]

This is the evidence that persuades me of theism.

We all have the same evidence for or against the existence of God defined here as a personal intelligent agent capable of causing a universe with the conditions for life to exist. Evidence is merely facts that comport with a belief.
The following indisputable facts lead me to believe we owe our existence to an intelligent agent commonly referred to as God as opposed to the counter belief that mindless unguided forces are responsible for all we observe.

1.   The fact the universe exists
2.   The fact life exists
3.   The fact intelligent life exists
4.   The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5.   The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

These are the primary facts of our existence and one can believe these facts came into existence minus any plan, intent or designer or doubt that claim and believe it was the intentional result of a personal agent. I subscribe to the former belief. I don't care if anyone else does everyone can decide for themselves...

Welcome Drew.

I take issue with two of your listed items:

"5.    The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies."

You imply that if these "several characteristics" had different values, then life as we know it, as well as the existence of planets, starts, etc.  would not be possible.  This is speculation, your assumption and not fact.  I do not know (and neither do you) whether such characteristics can have different values, or if they did whether intelligent life of some form could not emerge from that.  The "fine tuning" thought experiment does not demonstrate what you imply.

For those characteristics that can vary in value (e.g., distance of Earth from Sol), the fine tuning argument must take probability properly into account.  Virtually all theists who promote the fine tuning argument as "evidence" of their particular god(s) fail to do so.

"6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism."

The "fact" that you or I can imagine something does not make that something real.

As to points 1 through 4, I fail to see how those observations necessarily requires a GODDIDIT conclusion.

[Blackleaf]

Welcome Drew.

I take issue with two of your listed items:

"5.    The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies."

You imply that if these "several characteristics" had different values, then life as we know it, as well as the existence of planets, starts, etc.  would not be possible.  This is speculation, your assumption and not fact.  I do not know (and neither do you) whether such characteristics can have different values, or if they did whether intelligent life of some form could not emerge from that.  The "fine tuning" thought experiment does not demonstrate what you imply.

For those characteristics that can vary in value (e.g., distance of Earth from Sol), the fine tuning argument must take probability properly into account.  Virtually all theists who promote the fine tuning argument as "evidence" of their particular god(s) fail to do so.

"6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism."

The "fact" that you or I can imagine something does not make that something real.

As to points 1 through 4, I fail to see how those observations necessarily requires a GODDIDIT conclusion.

I'll just add that the "fine tuning" argument also fails to consider how huge the universe is. The Milky Way galaxy alone contains about 100,000,000,000 stars. It's unknown how many galaxies there are, but in the currently observable universe, there are an estimated 100,000,000,000 galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. This number is expected to increase as technology advances. So no matter how unlikely the chances are of life appearing somewhere in the universe by random chance, it's bound to happen at least once. I'd be surprised if Earth was the only planet in existence with randomly generated life.

[Cavebear]

What is the content of an ignored post?  One hand clapping ;-)

One reply...

[Baruch]

One reply...

Good try!  No gold star ... you aren't young enough to be a snowflake ;-)

[Cavebear]

Good try!  No gold star ... you aren't young enough to be a snowflake ;-)

Yet you called me one elsewhere. 

[Baruch]

Yet you called me one elsewhere.

Are you the only one who reads my posts?  Might not have meant a particular reader but a class of readers, of which you are unlikely to be ... given you are even older than me ;-)

[Drew_2017]

The universe is not fine tuned for life. Rather life is fine tuned for the universe. Albeit infinitesimally so given that over 99 per cent of it is
actually incompatible with human existence. And further more were one of the four fundamental forces [ weak nuclear ] removed entirely
it would not adversely affect life on Earth. In fact it would allow for greater diversity of life to exist not less. The ratios of the constants are
what makes it possible for life to exist. Now this is a random process. However random here does not mean chance but instead a statistical
probability based upon all possible outcomes. That is to say something which can be predicted in advance so is not something unanticipated

First things first, it's not really known how life started or what conditions led to life. The only life we know of adapted to the conditions on earth we have yet to observe other life adapting to the conditions of their planets. If we did that would be powerful evidence life can adapt to a variety of conditions. The only life we do know of requires a host of conditions.

1. A Universe
2. Stars
4. Planets
5. Stars that go super nova and create the stuff planets are made of. This is not trivial a host of exacting conditions cause stars to go super nova and a host of laws of physics allow new more complex matter to be created when a super nova occurs which is essential to life.   
6. Gravity at a certain strength so that stars occur, super nova's occur and subsequently planets occur.
7. Black matter and black energy are critical to the existence of life. Without the existence of black matter galaxies would fly apart.
8. The ratio of matter to anti matter at the beginning of the universe. Had it been the same all matter would have been annihilated.

It turns out our solar system itself is very atypical, most solar systems have giant gas planets that wind up flinging the inner rocky planets out of their orbit. If by your own admission 99% of the universe is inhabitable how can you claim life adapts to prevailing conditions? Evidently it doesn't.

[Drew_2017]

Welcome Drew.

I take issue with two of your listed items:

"5.    The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies."

You imply that if these "several characteristics" had different values, then life as we know it, as well as the existence of planets, starts, etc.  would not be possible.  This is speculation, your assumption and not fact.  I do not know (and neither do you) whether such characteristics can have different values, or if they did whether intelligent life of some form could not emerge from that.  The "fine tuning" thought experiment does not demonstrate what you imply.

For those characteristics that can vary in value (e.g., distance of Earth from Sol), the fine tuning argument must take probability properly into account.  Virtually all theists who promote the fine tuning argument as "evidence" of their particular god(s) fail to do so.



"6.   The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism."

The "fact" that you or I can imagine something does not make that something real.

As to points 1 through 4, I fail to see how those observations necessarily requires a GODDIDIT conclusion.

Hi Fungus thanks for responding...

It doesn't matter if the constants, laws of physics could be variable or not. It would be no less odd that if a universe comes into existence it has to be in a manner that allows life and sentience to obtain. You don't believe life had to happen right? What could possibly explain that if naturalistic forces somehow cause a universe to exist the only kind of universe that can come into existence has to have the laws and constants that allow not only life, but sentient life to exist? Actually from a naturalistic stand point you're better off claiming the conditions of a universe are random and this is one of an infinitude of possibilities that resulted in sentient life existing. That would be more simpatico with the belief our existence wasn't intended. Why do a thousand complicated circuit boards come out exactly identical? Because the engineers designed it that way. Why would a universe have to be in a certain configuration...because it was designed that way?

They don't require a Godidit explanation...they cast doubt on a Naturedidit explanation. In my opinion, the nature did it explanation is far more miraculous than a Goddidit explanation. This is what a naturedidit explanation requires.

First it requires naturalistic explanations 'all the way down' or that the naturalistic forces and matter we observe came into existence un-caused out of nothing, a magic act at best. If its natural causes infinitely all the way down we would never reach this time because we'd have to cross an infinitude of events to arrive at this time. Or you can believe that natural forces existed outside of time and later caused time to exist but that wouldn't be any type of naturalism we are familiar with.

Lets skip all that and assume that somehow naturalistic unguided forces caused the natural universe to exist. If so such forces without plan, intent, desire or a degree in physics caused something completely unlike itself to exist, life and mind. Life and mind came from mindless lifeless forces by happenstance.