How many of you are atheists?

[Skashion]

From 2-05 to 3-00 mins.

We are living in a universe and at a time in the universes history, where life is possible.
In most of the universes history there was no life, we are just a product of the changing conditions in the universe.

"Fine tuning" demands a "tuner", it is just a god of the gaps argument, with William Lane Craig, as its biggest mouthpiece.

I don't think you understand what he's saying.

 

[peoffrey]

Most devout Christians I know are kind, warm and honest people who serve their community well. I'd hope they didn't need faith as an excuse to be good people but, for me, it is largely a force for goodness.

 

[pominoz]

From 2-05 to 3-00 mins.

We are living in a universe and at a time in the universes history, where life is possible.
In most of the universes history there was no life, we are just a product of the changing conditions in the universe.

"Fine tuning" demands a "tuner", it is just a god of the gaps argument, with William Lane Craig, as its biggest mouthpiece.

I don't think you understand what he's saying.

Why so?

Could it be you that does not want to understand?

 

[aguero93:20]

I prefer Agnostic to be honest, I'd be more than happy to accept the existence of a god if given sufficient evidence/reason, although I still believe organised religion is bad/harmful in it's nature.

Giving some serious thought to this Pan-worship thing though.

 

[Skashion]

From 2-05 to 3-00 mins.

We are living in a universe and at a time in the universes history, where life is possible.
In most of the universes history there was no life, we are just a product of the changing conditions in the universe.

"Fine tuning" demands a "tuner", it is just a god of the gaps argument, with William Lane Craig, as its biggest mouthpiece.

I don't think you understand what he's saying.

Why so?

Could it be you that does not want to understand?

Why would I not want to understand?

In the bit you highlight, he gives the standard multiverse + anthropic principle explanation - the multiverse having little evidence, some but not much, and then says, "as pretty as that is, I think it's wrong". So he offers no proof of the bit you say deals with fine tuning and then says it's wrong anyway. Which is fair enough. He offered no proof of something he doesn't believe is correct and for which there is no evidence. So, I say again, where does HE deal with it? Not where does he offer up a standard explanation which has no evidence and which he doesn't support, WHERE does HE deal with it?

So, that's one reason why I believe you don't understand. You say he says we live in A universe (as if the multiverse was proven) that allows life. He doesn't say that all, rather, he says the opposite and that he thinks it's wrong. Secondly, you say we live in a time in the universe's history where life is possible. You've completely confused that. Life is possible at almost any point in the universe. In fact, he expressly says so. He talks of civilizations 100 billion years in the future... He definitely isn't saying life can only happen at this point in the universe's timeline. He knows better than that. After the very first generation of supernovas which created the heavier elements, there's nothing to prevent life existing at anywhere and anywhen. He is not saying this is a special time in the universe because this is a time when we can exist. This is not a question that has anything whatsoever to do fine tuning. We do not need to explain why we exist. There's no knowledge gap that needs to be filled there. He, and he's quite sceptical about this i.e. doesn't believe this either, is saying we live in a special time because we live in a time when we can observe the CMB and we can observe other galaxies and we can observe expansion etc. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether life can evolve. He is saying we should be humble about what we know and what we can know. He says using perfect science 100 billion years from now, civilizations will come to completely wrong answers because the universe will not give future civilisations enough information to get the right answers. "It should give us cosmic humility" is what he says.

 

[Damocles]

I can't see where you're coming from. Sounds very hippy not to reject something because we can't disprove it.

I probably didn't make myself clear here.

In areas where there are no evidentially supported conclusions, I don't reject anything as a possibility.

 

[Damocles]

Well, from my point of view, you are looking for a scientific answer that maybe, just maybe, has no scientific answer.

I don't have an issue with science solving anything whatsoever, but I don't recall reading anything that proved how the matter involved in the creation of the universe arrived, or was created.

Perhaps my understanding of science is not up to speed, but the ball of stuff, or whatever it was that exploded to create the universe and everything we know, well, where did it come from?

I't seems to me that physicists and mathematicians have enough difficulty trying to understand just what happened in the nano seconds after the big bang, but how did the stuff that exploded get there?

There was no matter involved in the creation of the Universe. Matter formed much later after the Big Bang. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it was a rapid expansion of the fabric of space.

It's worth noting that the Big Bang model is so evidentially supported that the Catholic Church even accepts it and has done since 1951 when the Pope declared that it does not conflict with the Catholic view of creation.

There's only a very, very tiny sect of Christianity known as Young Earth Creationists that reject the Big Bang model but unfortunately the loudest people get the most attention.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

For someone who claims to have read it, you clearly didn't read them very carefully. Dawkins is quite clear that philosophically speaking, he is one of the agnostic atheists you claim are on solid ground, and goes into quite a lot of detail about it. "Fine tuning" is just another example of the ever-retreating argument of "we don't know why this is the case, therefore God." So yes, it's quite unreasonable to believe in a god on that basis. The only good reason for believing in God is that you live somewhere where people will kill you if you don't.

Oh aye, yeah, I'm lying about having read it aren't I... It was an enormous waste of my time but now I at least know what a charlatan he is. He spent about two hundred pages setting up his sky cranes and hooks argument and then when it got to explaining fine-tuning, he had about one paragraph on a multiverse. It was laughable. His entire argument hinges on it, he's built up this entire huge argument about something which is designed needing a designer, but when it gets to the top of the argument, and the universe still needs to satisfy the fine-tuning problem whereas a creator deity needs no more sky cranes, he barely gives the a multiverse, the best scientific explanation we have for fine-tuning a paragraph. But that's his argument totally nullfied. His entire argument that no matter how complex we are, a designer would be more complex, runs out of puff and stalls next to the creator deity answer and he barely says a word... Completely pointless. As to whether Dawkins is agnostic atheist, no, he isn't. On his seven point scale he rates himself as a 6.9 i.e. nearly certain that God doesn't exist. That is a clear claim to knowledge.

I didn't say you lied about reading it, I said perhaps you didn't read it carefully enough. "Nearly certain that God doesn't exist" would be well supported by the evidence, of course. God is a character. A god is a concept. Besides, being "nearly certain" of something is still an agnostic philosophically speaking. Practically speaking, of course, and in general conversation, you would describe yourself as an atheist. Nor is it a claim to knowledge, it's simply a statement of likelihood based on the available evidence. When someone makes a wildly outrageous truth claim based on literally zero evidence, that goes against vast areas of knowledge that we do have knowledge of, the default position is one of it being hugely unlikely. It's no different from saying "I'm 99% sure that the thing you saw last night wasn't a ghost."

As for the fine-tuning problem, how is it a problem? See this is what religious types do. They go to the limit of current scientific understanding and then say that if you don't consider God (almost always a capitalised God) as a realistic possibility, you're being irrational. They present no actual evidence for a god/God being a realistic alternative (as you haven't here) other than the fact that we don't know the answer to this question. The fact that the universe appears to be finely tuned in a way that leads to life is evidence for nothing other than the fact that the universe appears to be finely tuned in a way that leads to life. Your argument is nothing more than typical god of a gaps and is basically as ignorant in its logic as the tribes who used to make offerings to volcanoes because they didn't know the scientific explanations behind why they erupted. The only difference is that the science has moved on.

 

[Skashion]

I didn't say you lied about reading it, I said perhaps you didn't read it carefully enough. "Nearly certain that God doesn't exist" would be well supported by the evidence, of course. God is a character. A god is a concept. Besides, being "nearly certain" of something is still an agnostic philosophically speaking. Practically speaking, of course, and in general conversation, you would describe yourself as an atheist. Nor is it a claim to knowledge, it's simply a statement of likelihood based on the available evidence. When someone makes a wildly outrageous truth claim based on literally zero evidence, that goes against vast areas of knowledge that we do have knowledge of, the default position is one of it being hugely unlikely. It's no different from saying "I'm 99% sure that the thing you saw last night wasn't a ghost."

As for the fine-tuning problem, how is it a problem? See this is what religious types do. They go to the limit of current scientific understanding and then say that if you don't consider God (almost always a capitalised God) as a realistic possibility, you're being irrational. They present no actual evidence for a god/God being a realistic alternative (as you haven't here) other than the fact that we don't know the answer to this question. The fact that the universe appears to be finely tuned in a way that leads to life is evidence for nothing other than the fact that the universe appears to be finely tuned in a way that leads to life. Your argument is nothing more than typical god of a gaps and is basically as ignorant in its logic as the tribes who used to make offerings to volcanoes because they didn't know the scientific explanations behind why they erupted. The only difference is that the science has moved on.

Perhaps you should read what you say more carefully because you didn't suggest I didn't read it clearly enough, you stated I didn't read it carefully enough. Well done for watching over my shoulder as I read it and then getting inside my brain and grasping my comprehension of it. Excellent job there, I didn't even notice you. God-like you were. I wouldn't mind you saying it but you haven't actually said where I was wrong. He says he's a 6.9 on his seven point scale. He defines agnostic as a 4. I'm taking him at his word that he's nowhere near agnostic atheist i.e. a 4 or 5. I'm not putting words in his mouth. It's his rating of himself on his scale.

Not a great deal different from saying "I'm 90% sure it wasn't a multiverse". There's not a big gap in how much evidence there is. All we have are a few pointers towards a multiverse.

How's it a problem? It may not be for you, although these damned scientists, including Dawkins, keep talking about it. However, I've already explained why it's a problem for Dawkins' argument. He builds up his entire argument on a designer needing to be more complex than what is designed but that gets to an end when it comes to a multiverse versus one universe and a creator deity. Basically his argument is that if someone takes n steps up a ladder, God is always n+1. But God is not n+1 when it comes to the multiverse. if you're assuming a creator deity there's no reason to assume a multiverse and there's no way of asserting a multiverse is inherently less complex than one universe and a creator deity. You cannot make assumptions about the complexities of a multiverse which we don't know exists and can't examine. So, for me, this ends IF we prove a multiverse OR if we prove that the appearance of fine tuning is an illusion and the laws of our universe were bound to happen. If we prove that, yes, game over for a creator deity. God is dead. Until that point though, I will continue to be an agnostic atheist with the view that Dawkins oversteps what he is allowed by the preponderance of evidence AND his own argument. Oh, and there's a good reason why he might do this. It sells him millions of copies of his books, gets him on telly etc.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Perhaps you should read what you say more carefully because you didn't suggest I didn't read it clearly enough, you stated I didn't read it carefully enough. Well done for watching over my shoulder as I read it and then getting inside my brain and grasping my comprehension of it. Excellent job there, I didn't even notice you. God-like you were.

It's called looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion. And the evidence in your initial post suggested someone who hasn't read the book carefully enough.

I wouldn't mind you saying it but you haven't actually said where I was wrong. He says he's a 6.9 on his seven point scale. He defines agnostic as a 4. I'm taking him at his word that he's nowhere near agnostic atheist i.e. a 4 or 5. I'm not putting words in his mouth. It's his rating of himself on his scale.

Dawkins doesn't used the term agnostic on his scale at all, so you are putting words in his mouth. From The God Delusion: "4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.""

Dawkins own description of himself is: "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.""

So as I said, in practical terms he would describe himself as an atheist, but a philosopher might technically still call this agnostic. Either way, it's just semantics really. The real point here is that there is that it's entirely reasonable to be highly sceptical about the god claim given the available evidence, and being so does not require you to make a 100% denial.

Not a great deal different from saying "I'm 90% sure it wasn't a multiverse". There's not a big gap in how much evidence there is. All we have are a few pointers towards a multiverse.

And I'm pretty sure that Dawkins doesn't portray the multiverse as anything other than an interesting hypothesis that scientists are discussing. You claim that all we have are a few pointers towards a multiverse, but then earlier, you criticise him for going into so little depth about it. The fact is that it is completely fine to reject the god hypothesis without presenting any alternative whatsoever. The fact that I don't know why the universe is as it is, doesn't make the alternative theory any more valid.

How's it a problem? It may not be for you, although these damned scientists, including Dawkins, keep talking about it. However, I've already explained why it's a problem for Dawkins' argument. He builds up his entire argument on a designer needing to be more complex than what is designed but that gets to an end when it comes to a multiverse versus one universe and a creator deity. Basically his argument is that if someone takes n steps up a ladder, God is always n+1. But God is not n+1 when it comes to the multiverse. if you're assuming a creator deity there's no reason to assume a multiverse and there's no way of asserting a multiverse is inherently less complex than one universe and a creator deity. You cannot make assumptions about the complexities of a multiverse which we don't know exists and can't examine. So, for me, this ends IF we prove a multiverse OR if we prove that the appearance of fine tuning is an illusion and the laws of our universe were bound to happen. If we prove that, yes, game over for a creator deity. God is dead. Until that point though, I will continue to be an agnostic atheist with the view that Dawkins oversteps what he is allowed by the preponderance of evidence AND his own argument. Oh, and there's a good reason why he might do this. It sells him millions of copies of his books, gets him on telly etc.

Obviously it's an interesting problem for science to work out. I meant why would it potentially prove to be a problem for atheists in the sense that it might prove them wrong? What in this scientific truth leads you to believe that god is a realistic (even if small) possibility, any more so than any other crackpot idea I might come up with? Why does it merit my attention as a serious possibility? For a start, how would you even begin to define "god" in this situation? One of the reasons I can't take it seriously, beyond believing there's no evidence even hinting at the possibility, is simply because it's such a vaguely defined concept that you end up discussing the possibility of some undefined "thing." And it's very difficult to have any sort of opinion on whether "something" might exist beyond the current universe or "something" might have caused the big bang.