Conversation with a theist, Part 3: "Oh, the Kalam-ity!"

Now we launch off into every creationist's favorite "trump card": The Kalam Cosmological Argument, or the "Prime Mover/First Cause" argument.  Or as you British folks call it: "Bollocks"

"Everything that began to exist has a cause....If it were not true, then things would pop in and out for no reason."

This only applies to matter and energy....not space-time itself. As far as we know, space-time can pop into existence for no reason whenever it wants.

"Please, explain that."

Since we have no way of knowing (nor would we) that space-time could not have popped into existence as it pleased, as far as we know, it did. If space-time ceased to exist and then resumed existing just as it was, we'd have no way of knowing what just happened. It would be indistinguishable to us.

"So you agree that it popped into existence? Me too."

As far as we know it did...but we need more information to say definitively one way or another.

"It still needs a cause."

And there are an infinite number of possible causes...none of which we have any evidence for.

"The universe began to exist at the big bang. Before that, there was nothing. "

I should have nailed him with "Before is a function of time, which didn't exist until the Big Bang." Hindsight.

No, before that there was a small, dense singularity of space-time...that hardly constitutes "nothing" in english or any other language. Calling it "nothing" doesn't make it "nothing" any more than calling your dog a cat makes it one. Perhaps you should research the Big Bang Theory a little more....and word usage.

"Premise 3 naturally follows. Of course, this just smacks of supernatural intervention"

Not necessarily. You have no way of knowing that the universe could not have begun to expand because of an unintelligent, impersonal force. You have no way of knowing that a particle of some sort existing outside of space-time could not have been the "first-cause". After all, if you get to special plead and say that your god exists outside of space time, then I get to special plead and say my particle does.

Even if this did "just smack of supernatural intervention" you would have no way of knowing that the first cause was "a" god and not "multiple" gods. And if everything has to have a cause, what caused them?

"There has to be something far back that has no cause and is self-existent (the un-caused cause)."

And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that this cause is "a" god and not "twenty" gods, or 10,000, or a flying spaghetti monster or an impersonal unintelligent force, or a particle that exists outside of space-time, I have no idea how the universe began and neither do you. The difference between the two of us is that I admit that while you fill in the blank with your favorite god and call it "knowing."

"There is no reason to think God began to exist so there is no reason to think he has a cause."

You have no reason to believe that your god is the original uncaused cause. He could just as easily have been caused himself. by the uncaused cause.

"You raised the point that we don't know if it was only one God but that does not disprove a word of what I've said."

Nor was it intended to. It was intended to show that you have just as much evidence for one god as you have for 20 billion. If your god can exist, then so can every god. When you can tell me why you don't believe in the other 19,999,999,999 ones, i'll tell you why I don't believe in yours.

"According to Occam's Razor, we shouldn't multiply entities beyond necessity. One God is enough so there is no need to infer more."

About 700 million Hindus would disagree with you. Are they all just idiots?

"97.5% of the world believes in the supernatural. Are they all idiots?"

You missed the point. 97.5% may believe in the supernatural, but they don't all share your interpretation of it and they have as much evidence for their claims as you do for yours. Now to you, one god makes sense. To a lot of others, one god is illogical as the universe is too big and too diverse to have been the product of just one deity. My point is: when evidenciary support is equal (as it is in this case), how can one claim be any more or less valid than another?.

He avoids the questions with the skill and grace of a 14 year-old boy trying to score on his first date and goes back to trying to "prove" that the universe had a beginning (something I didn't argue) and quotes John Barrow and Frank Tipler's, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle from 1986.

"The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.""

You failed to mention that Barrow and Tipler emphasized your point 25 years ago. This hardly represents the current thinking on the standard Big Bang model. In the year 2000, your guy Barrow had this to say:

"The interesting thing about the singularity that is predicted by [the Hawking-Penrose] theorems is that there is no explanation as to why it occurs. It marks the edge of the Universe in time. There is no before; no reason why the histories begin; no cause of the universe. It is a description of a true creation out of nothing....However, it is important to realise that they are mathematical theorems not cosmological theories. The conclusions follow by logical deduction from the assumptions. What are those assumptions and should we believe them? Unfortunately, the two central assumptions are now not regarded as likely to hold good.....Thus the old conclusions of the singularity theorems are no longer regarded by cosmologists as likely to be of relevance to our Universe."

"I don't understand what you tried to produce from your quotation of Barrow and Tipler."

Obviously you didn't read the quote. If you had, you not only would have seen that only Barrow was quoted, you would have seen that what Barrow was saying was that the claim that the universe came from "literally nothing" depended on the existence of an initial singularity...the "literal nothing" in question. If there's no initial singularity, then the idea that the universe came from "literally nothing" begins to unravel.

"But there was an initial singularity. You have not proven that there wasn't."

And I don't have to. I'm not the one who has to "prove" anything. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. That would be you.

"So, you wish me to prove the big bang? Or as you put it, that there was an initial singularity?"

No. I am not questioning the Big Bang. Nor did I ask you to provide evidence for it...which apparently means the same thing as "proof" to you. There's plenty of evidence for the Big Bang (and other interpretations, but we won't get into that). The original Hawking and Penrose theorems that predicted a singularity neglected quantum mechanics...something Hawking himself later realized. Another problem is that the model is based on Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. That's a problem because the theory breaks down when your are talking about shrinking space down to sub-atomic size. Translation: Nobody really knows what came before the Big Bang.

"So far as I know, that singularity is undisputed."

So far as I showed, it's not. Perhaps you should re-read where I showed you.

"You have certain objections to the standard big bang model."

Actually it's cosmologists who have certain objections to the standard big bang model, as I pointed out in response to your insistence that they did not.

"You say it did not take quantum mechanics into account and that Einstein's theory of general relativity somehow doesn't work"

I didn't say that, Stephen Hawking did. So did John Barrow. Two guys that you yourself have quoted as authoritative on the subject. If you get to appeal to authority, so do I.

"Can you explain those two?"

Go find Hawking and Barrow and ask them to. Better yet, go read Hawking and Barrow for yourself. My point was not to show off my "vast" knowledge of cosmology, but to call "B.S." on what you were saying. (B.S. = "Bad Solliloquy")

"the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that any universe that has been expanding like ours has had to have a beginning at some point regardless of what the early stage of the universe was."

None of which I deny. What I deny is that we have any real knowledge of what that early stage was. What we do have is all based on theories that start to break down as we approach that early stage. You are talking about not only the compression of matter and energy but time and space itself. We just don't know enough about how time and space behave in all scenarios.

"Also, a universe that has been existing for an infinite amount of time would have reached equilibrium. The energy in the universe will have spread itself evenly and the universe would have reached its heat death. Since the universe has not reached equilibrium, it hasn't been existing for eternity. It had a beginning."

Then what happens? Does it collapse back in on itself to the point that it reaches equilibrium in the other direction and then begins to expand again? Some have postulated this. It's called the "Big Bang/Big Crunch" theory.

"the cause of the Big bang was timeless (it created time),"

I don't know that "created" and "started" are synonymous. I can start an engine without creating it.

"conscious (it made decisions to create and fine-tune),"

you have no way of knowing this. This is purely speculative. You are basing this on the idea that the universe "looks" designed from your perspective. Sort of like how early man thought that the sun went around the earth.

"extremely intelligent and knowledgeable,"

see previous

He clings to Kalam like a petulant child.

"1. Everything that began to exist has a cause"

And you have no way of knowing what that cause is or whether or not it was the first such cause. You also have no way of knowing if this rule even applies to space-time.

"2. The universe began to exist"

See previous.

"3. The universe has a cause."

Ibid.

He tries repeating himself.  Maybe I didn't read it correctly the first time.  Or maybe he's from some sort of world where repeating something increses the validity of it.  So I try a different approach...thank you, infidels.org

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist.

The universe has a cause."

So we have a state in which the Universe did not exist (we'll call it X). And then, there was a state in which the Universe did exist (we'll call that Y). So for your three premises to be true, you now have to show that X and Y are distinct...there can be no overlap. For this to be true, there are four possibilities:

1. The Universe never began to exist.

2. The Universe never existed.

3. X and Y follow each other in time

4. Something in X is the atemporal "cause" of Y.

If we can eliminate all four examples, then there is no way to distinguish between the two states. In that case, there is no "beginning"...no state at which the universe "began" to exist.

If we assume the Universe "began" to exist, it rules out 1. The Universe exists, so that rules out 2. The third possibility is disproven by the fact that time is a property of the Universe, and therefore can't be applied outside of the Universe. Which means that Four is problematic because, there would have to be a point at which the universe existed and did not exist simultaneously. And that's impossible.

"How does the option that something in X is the atemporal cause of Y require the universe to have existed and not existed simultaneously? 'Atemporal' means to be independent of time. If the cause is outside of time, it does not need time or any other part of the universe to exist so there is no reason to propose that the universe existed."

Whoa, Did he really just say that there is no reason to propose that the universe existed??

If an eternal cause exists in a state where the universe does not exist, at some point it will have to cross that threshold between the state of existence of the universe (Y) and non-existence (X). Remember, these two states have to be separate and distinct for our logic to work. That threshold lies between existence and non-existence...between X and Y. That threshold has to exist at a point where X and Y become one and the same. Which is impossible. Remember, you can't have "First there was the cause and then the Universe" as that is a function of time which doesn't exist prior to the universe.

<<"That threshold has to exist at a point where X and Y become one and the same.">>

"That's where you lost me. You'll need to explain that a bit."

Let's say you have a room called X and a room called Y. The two rooms are separated by a wall.  Now in our wall, we put a space where a door will go.

In that space, the rooms are indistinguishable from each other because in that space, the wall does not exist.  Think about it this way: If you stand in the doorway between two rooms, you cannot distinguish which room you are in. You are just as much in one room as you are in the other. You exist in both, simultaneously.

Now if we change our labels from X to "A state where the universe does not exist" and from Y to "a state where the universe does exist", then in order for your atemporal agent which exists in "the place where the universe does not exist" to effect "the place where the universe exists," the atemporal agent has to be able to transcend what separates the two. If we visualize the thing which separates the two as a wall, then the atemporal agent has to be able to exist in a doorway in that wall (a doorway that he later refers to as "Q"). It has to be able to exist in between the non-existence of the universe and the existence of the universe. Problem is, if that "doorway" exists, then that means there is a point at which our separate "rooms" become indistinguishable. And we established at the beginning (to which you had no objections) that the two "rooms" must be distinct and have no overlap.

What i'm saying is that in order for Premise 4: [Something in X is the atemporal "cause" of Y] to be correct, then a point has to exist where X and Y become indistinguishable. Just as Room X and Room Y become indistinguishable when you stand in the doorway between them. If X and Y are indistinguishable at any point, then the state at which the universe exists becomes indistinguishable from the state at which the universe does not exist. This is impossible.

Now if you want to claim that your atemporal agent is a supernatural entity and has the ability to do the impossible, I may not believe you, but I will not dispute you either....unless you continue to insist on the scientific validity of an atemporal agent which exists outside of time and space, and has the ability to transcend what separates the place where time and space do not exist from the place where time and space do exist.

[Could the atemporal agent not start the universe] "Simply by walking over to room Z?"

By using a doorway to get there....unless they teleported.

"To prove this, you use the analogy of a doorway."

The analogy was intended as an illustration, not a proof. I don't use analogies in the classroom to "prove" the Industrial Revolution, I use them as an illustration of what's going on.

"An analogy is not a proof"

See previous.

"so you have not actually proven that at Q exists or that at Q, X and Z must overlap. You have simply stated that you think they overlap."

If Q does not exist, how can an atemporal agent existing in Room X effect the state of affairs in room Z when we have established from the start that there can be no overlap between X and Z? It is impossible. Which means your atemporal agent must have magical powers. Which, from what I understand about god(s)...that's kinda their claim to fame....I've just kinda confirmed that for your god to exist (as you have described it) and to have poofed the universe into existence (as you insist it did), it has to have magical powers....So, really I don't know why you are arguing with me on this point.

"Your Q is referring to something before Z and after X.  For there to be anything (Q) between X and Z or between A and B, implies the existence of time."

No, it doesn't. Not before or after, between. It implies the existence of an indistincton between the universe existing and the universe not existing.

If two rooms exist and as seperate entities and an agent in one wants to effect what happens in the other, they must create an indistinction between the two rooms. That indistinction is called a doorway.  Since nothing can exist "before" the universe, then the non-existence of the universe has to exist as a separate reality from the existence of the universe. It has to exist outside of space and time. Since you are arguing that something existing in that separate reality affected this one, there has to be a crossover point between the two realities. Since this is impossible from our perspective, if your god exists, it has supernatural powers to do the impossible. (I keep repeating and showing that your god has to be supernatural to do what you have claimed it did....why exactly are you disputing me? Do you hope to propose a god that lacks supernatural powers? aren't supernatural abilities sort of a necessity on a god's resume'?)

Undaunted, and unaffected by reality, he soldiers on....

"1. Everything that began to exist has a cause" Translation: "La-la-la-la-laaa! I can't hear you, I can't hear you!!!"

This is called begging the question. You have provided no other evidence for this claim other than the claim itself.

"It is ludicrous to believe otherwise because unicorns should also pop into existence out of nothing with no cause and no reason and then instantly pop out of existence."

And this is what we call an argument from ignorance. Just because you cannot understand how something like the universe could pop into existence with no cause and no reason doesn't mean that it didn't. Just as I cannot say for certain that your god does not exist somewhere outside of time space matter and existence as we know it, you cannot say for certain that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." "Everything" implies "everything"..the universe included.

"So, the universe did come into existence out of nothing and with no cause, after-all."

I don't recall saying that it did, just that as far as we know, it could have.

"Your response: The universe began to exist, but it was not caused. It just happened."

See previous.

"The universe attained the monumentally improbable values that are necessary for existence by pure chance "

"improbable" and "impossible" mean two different things.

"since we both agree that there were no influencing factors" We do both agree, but not how he thinks....after all, his god could be such an "influencing factor"

that we know of

"and you are certain it could not have been a designer"

I don't recall saying that either. I do recall saying that if a designer exists, it doesn't appear to exist and apparently doesn't want to appear to exist.

"Can explain to me how it is logical for something to come from nothing?"

Isn't that exactly what you are postulating? That a supernatural entity poofed a universe into existence out of nothing?

"The quantum vacuum is not nothing in the sense we are discussing (the complete absence of anything) since it is has time, space and physical laws and even if it is nothing, the process is still caused - by the scientist."

Ah. So you're the one who gets to decide what constitutes "nothing." Easy to win when you make all the rules in such a way that you always can.

"I don't get to define nothing. common sense does. Nothing is the absence of something."

So you get to define both "nothing" and "common sense." Nice.

Now he starts to get pissy.

"Let's see. We have a world full of extremely complex beings. Either they were designed (since every complex thing we know was designed) or they were products of chance. Your reply? They were products of chance because there is no evidence of a designer."

Ah, the old false dichotomy play. You seem to have forgotten a third possibility: that this world full of complex beings was the product of millions of years of evolutionary mechanisms in action....some of which operate by chance, some of which are highly deterministic. The real question then becomes did your designer use this myriad of seemingly interconnected natural processes, or did he snap his fingers, wave a magic wand and say "A-la Peanut Butter Sandwiches!!!"

"The universe we live in is so incredibly complex. The values necessary for life to exist are in so narrow a range that it seems something directed them into that range. Your response? It happened by chance because there is no evidence of a designer"

Read this part again: "it seems something directed them." You are basically saying "it looks designed therefore it was." All i'm suggesting is that looks are sometimes deceiving and that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view.

"the universe came uncaused out of nothing," What's wrong with suggesting that the origin of the universe is simply an unknowable mystery?

"When we can clearly see that the universe required a cause and that this cause has all the characteristics of God, calling it an 'unknowable mystery' smacks of... well... stupidity and a desire to deny the existence of God."

And not just any god, but your particular god. Again, because you say so.

"Did you know that concept of God was already present and fully formed in earliest recorded history of civilization complete with well-developed theologies, rituals, ethical systems, and even institutions?"

Yes, I did know that. Did you know that these "well-developed theologies, rituals, ethical systems, and even institutions" were based on the concept of polytheism? Not to be a grammar nazi, but technically your sentence should read: "Did you know that concept of gods were already present..."

"IT does seem that if God made us we would naturally look for Him but perhaps you have some evidence for the claim that humanity invented God?"

I would present it, but you did a much better job of it when you told me that the concept of god(s) were present and fully formed in the earliest recorded history of civilization. People needed an explanation for the world they observed. Since they had a limited understanding of it, they chalked it up to powerful beings that lived in or worked through or controlled the forces of nature. Considering that mankind existed long before civilization(s) did, this makes perfect sense.

"Now, please do me a favor and back that up with facts."

Which part:
that man existed prior to civilization (Man: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017145252.htm

Civilization: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/oldciv.html) Many apologies, this link is dead, but I did back up what I said.....

or that man attributed the stuff that happened in the world to powerful beings that lived in or worked through the forces of nature? I mean, you can just look at your own religion. Floods, plagues, droughts, storms, all sorts of stuff has been attributed to that particular god. Just about every other religion that exists or has existed did the same as yours. I can show you other examples of how people of other faiths have come to similar conclusions but it'll take up a lot of space.

"It seems to me that all the evidence for a designer can be written off simply by stubbornly repeating there is no evidence of a designer and appealing to chance." Yeah, the guy who repeated Kalam the way a frat boy repeats "bro" in the hope of making it right is calling me "stubborn"... just let that sink in before moving on.

You haven't presented evidence for a designer. You have presented suppositions. You have presented the idea that "it looks designed, therefore it is." You have presented special pleading for a designer who exists outside of the universe...in other words, a designer who exists outside of that which exists....for the sole reason that the universe had to have a cause because you say so.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Apparently in creationist world, repeating something makes it right. It's almost as if he's saying to himself: "Maybe if I say it one more time, it'll be right this time!! "

This is called "begging the question." You offer no evidence for this claim other than the claim itself.

"As for the universe looking designed, how did you determine the fact that it merely looks designed but is in fact, not?"

I know that a lot of things that once were thought to be the product of some supernatural designer turned out to be natural processes at work. People used to believe that the milky way was designed to hold up the night sky. People used to believe that illnesses were caused by evil spirits. People believed that frost was painted on windows by a magical fairy. People once believed that the sun moved across the sky and the heavens revolved around the earth because they appear to. It's been our experience that natural explanations tend to exist for what were once believed to be supernatural phenomena. And it has also been our experience that we should never conclude to know all there is to know about any subject because those conclusions can become erroneous in the face of new information.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause: This is more plausibly true than its contradictory because it has been observed in our experience while the opposite has not."
In what experience have we observed the genesis of a universe?
 

"Tell me again, what counts as evidence of God? Give me an example, please."

Simple. Make 2 and 2 equal 5.

"Is that your way of saying nothing will convince you?"

Not at all. You propose the existence of a supernatural entity. A supernatural entity is not bound by the laws of nature (hence the name "super"natural) or the universe as we know it Such an entity would be able to do what the laws of nature and the universe say are impossible. (Not the improbable, the impossible. An improbability happens when there is a >0 in (x) chance of it happening. An impossibility happens when there is a 0 in (x) chance of it happening.) Your bible backs this logic up when it says "with god all things are possible." Show me 2 and 2 making 5....and you have made your case.

Let me say again: if you believe a god exists, and you admit this as a belief...then there's nothing dishonest about that and you and I have no quarrel. But if you posit the scientific validity of something that the very definition of "scientific validity" says is not possible, then it sweats dishonesty.

"So, you would only believe in God if he made 2 and 2 equal five."
Not specifically that, but you get the idea.

"Supposing He doesn't want to? What then?"

Then your god is either lazy or doesn't care as much about my eternal soul as you seem to think he does..

"He definitely doesn't exist to wait on you."

How is backing up your bluster with action "waiting on" me? I didn't ask the guy to bring me a billion dollars, a pepperoni pizza and a honda accord, just that he show me he can do what his followers claim he can. If this guy can do the impossible, what's the problem in showing me? Why not show everybody? Put the opposition completely out of business. Show up in mid-town Darfur and start handing out the miracles.

"The Christian belief is that God has provided whatever is necessary for a sincere seeker to find Him"
Why the elaborate game of hide and seek?

"but that point is moot since you're obviously not searching."
quite the contrary. I want to be convinced. The problem is, people do a lousy job of convincing me.

Conversation with a Theist, Part 2: "Fine-Tuning" and Improbability vs. Impossibility

In this section, we go round and round about the "fine-tuning" of the universe.

"one evidence for the existence of God is that our universe is fine tuned for life."

You do know that the majority of the universe is empty space, right? And that the majority of the known universe is completely void of life. Life can't even exist in a majority of the earth itself.

"And you do know that if it wasn't almost exactly as it is right now, if the earth were only a little closer or nearer to the sun,"

The distance from the earth to the sun varies by about 3.5 million miles per year.

"if our solar system wasn't at this spot, If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10 raised to the power of 60, we would not be here."

I fail to see how the statistical improbability of life existing (which is something you cannot know since this is the only known universe or attempt at a universe) serves as evidence for the existence of supernatural phenomena or entities....or more specifically for your particular supernatural entity

"If it is possible that our universe could not have been this way, then it is possible to calculate the probability"

But that's just it. You have a sample of one universe. You have no way of knowing that it could not have happened this way. You have no other universe or attempt at a universe to compare it to. You have a sample size of one. It is impossible to calculate statistical probabilities with a sample size of one.

"The only sense that can be made in suggesting that it is impossible to calculate the probability is if you say the universe could not possibly have been different."

That's just it: you have no way of knowing that it could have been different. You have nothing else to compare it to.

"Simply put, the argument is that it is very, very improbable that these things happened by chance"

But it is not impossible. It is very very improbable that I could go to the casino play one hand of poker and get a royal flush. but it could happen. And I can measure the statistical probability of it happening because I'm dealing with known numbers (52 cards in a deck, four possible royal flushes in a deck all I need now is the number of players being dealt in and I can figure probability). Impossible would be playing only poker and winning at black jack.

"but it is much more probable, that they happened this way because they were intended to. Then, infer a designer."

Why is it much more probable that it happened this way "because it was intended to"? What other universes are you comparing this one to? I know what a sculpture looks like because I know what unsculpted rock looks like. How do you know this universe is designed when we know of no "undesigned" universes to compare it to? Why is it much more probable that conditions were "tailor-made" to suit the universe as it is now than it is that the universe as it is now simply arose as a consequence of existing conditions? That's like saying "it's far more likely that 2 and 2 were designed to go together to make 4 than it is that 2 and 2 just randomly came together to make 4."


So this was a bad analogy on my part. I probably should have said, "than it is that 2 and 2 make 4" and left it at that.

"Your 2+2=4 analogy doesn't work " He's right, but not why he thinks. It was a bad analogy, but the point I made is valid.

You missed the point of the analogy. and didn't answer the question. Why is it more improbable to suggest that the universe "as is" is a consequence of existing conditions than it is to suggest that existing conditions were "tailor made" for the universe when you have no other universe or attempt at a universe to compare it to?

"If the ratio [of proton to electron mass] differed by as little as 1 part in 10^37, life would not exist."

But you have no way of knowing that it could have been different by any amount.

He gave an analogy of a row of 1 * 10^37 dimes where one dime is painted red and a man chooses a dime at random from this set. "The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10^37. Let's face it. he won't pick it."

You have no way of knowing that he won't. It is not impossible that he won't pick the red one. Impossible means that you paint one dime red and he picks one painted blue.

"it seems enormously improbable that such a coincidence could have happened by chance."

But it is not impossible. When you can show that it is impossible you have a case.

"Can you tell my why it [the ratio of proton to electron mass] could not possibly be different?"

As soon as you can tell me the probability of it actually being different. How do you know what the probability of the force of this or the force that actually being off by any amount (regardless of size) is?

"Why would the universe necessarily exist in that extremely narrow window so that it has to produce intelligent beings? "

The universe doesn't "have" to do anything. Intelligent beings exist because conditions were favorable for life to flourish and advance in complexity. A puddle doesn't exist because the ground was intentionally designed to hold a puddle there or because the rain fell with the intent of filling the puddle. A puddle exists because conditions are favorable for rainwater to pool in that particular location.

"If you think anything like that could ever happen by pure, blind, chance, I rest my case. From where I'm standing, nothing like that ever happens unless it is directed. Some things can be so improbable as to be impossible."

From where i'm standing, it looks like the universe had a 100% probability of existing because, it's here. I mean, just check it out. Now since I have no other universes to compare it to, I cannot say with any degree of certainty that this number is accurate. Therefore, I cannot say that I know what the probability of the universe existing is. Now we can play "if such and such was off by this" or "if that was smaller or larger than this" all day long, but the bottom line is: until I can demonstrate what the probability of the force of this or the ratio of that being off (by any amount) is, then I cannot say with any degree of certainty what the probability of the universe existing is. Because I cannot say what the probability of the universe existing is, it follows that I cannot say with any degree of certainty what the probability of the universe not existing is. And Neither Can You. Until you can, you have no case to rest upon.

"You've been suggesting that maybe those things couldn't have been any other way."

No. I'm suggesting that you have no way of knowing that the probability was any greater that they shouldn't have been. We can talk all day about could've been. It could've been different and the question would be moot because there'd be no one to ask it. From where i'm sitting, the odds are 50/50...it either could've gone as it did or it couldn't have. You keep insisting that the odds are against it going as it did and i'm asking you to back that up with a percentage and on what you based that percentage.

"Why are the conditions favorable when the chances were so overwhelmingly in favor of their not being favorable."

Second verse, same as the first: on what are you basing the assumption that the probability was any greater for it not to have been different? Yes, it could have been different, but why should it have been different? On what are you basing the assumption that it is more likely for it to have actually been different?

"The answer to our probability problem is: how many different values could these constants have assumed?"

You still have not addressed the issue of how likely the probability was that these things which could have been achieved should have been achieved. If I flip a coin 100 times, it should land on heads 50% and on tails 50%. We know this because the two sides of a coin are basically similar in size, dimension and weight and nothing about the coin should throw off that ratio. However, there are other variables in play when flipping a coin that can skew those results (force of the flip, position of the coin at the time of flip, whether or not I drop the coin further on one flip than another, angle of the dangle, etc.) Because 0of this, I cannot say with certainty that if I flip a coin 100 times it will land on heads 50 times and on tails 50 times. What does this have to do with the discussion? You have what appears to be one coin. The coin has been probably flipped once and as far as you know it has never been flipped before or since and can probably never be flipped again. You know absolutely nothing about the other side of this coin: and you know absolutely nothing about the conditions in which it was flipped. You're not even sure that it is indeed a coin and not something that just looks like one from your vantage point. All you can say is that it was probably flipped and landed as it did. Could it have landed differently? Yes, it's possible. Should it have landed any differently? We have no way of knowing that. We can speculate, but there is no way to know.

"No, this is nothing like a coin."

Which is the point I was trying to make. You can list off all the possibilities that you like but unless you are proposing that the universe is a closed system then there are a whole lot of variables in play that throw off your probabilities.

"Here, there i [made] an entire list of possible values and by far the majority of them would result in a world with no life."

No life...as you know it. Don't assume that this product is the only possible outcome. There are billions of stars with billions of possible type of life out there that we know nothing of. Be careful that you don't weigh your conclusions on your frame of reference.

"You seem to be saying it wasn't a directed process but was chance influenced by some variables we know nothing about."

No, i'm saying that one action increases the likelihood of the actions that follow. Sort of like a tournament of 64 teams. Each team (in terms of strict probability) has a 1/64 chance of winning. (Now I know this isn't always true....if it were, bookies wouldn't be able to make any money, some teams recruit better than others, some have more experience in big games, a whole bunch of other intangibles monkey with those probabilities, but I digress). With each round of the tournament, the odds of winning increase by 50% until you are left with a 1/2 chance of winning.

"Consider the case of the fine-tuning of the strong nuclear force of the atom. If it were slightly larger or smaller, no atoms could exist other than hydrogen."

And you have no way of knowing what the real probability was for the formation of the nuclear force of the atom because you don't know what may or may not have been in play that would monkey around with your probabilities. You can guess based on number of possible outcomes, but until you know what else is in play (like say for instance the conditions in which the nuclear force was formed) you cannot know what the probabilities were

"There is an infinitely large number of values it [the strong nuclear force] could have taken."

In terms of strict probability, yes. But, you don't know about what other variables may have been in play at the time that would decrease the odds of it being any one of those other values. Take for instance my tournament analogy. Strict probability says a team has a 1/64 chance of winning it all. But, when you consider what that team is seeded, (which affects who they are playing against), where they are playing, what other teams are in their regional bracket, what time of day they are playing, what may be going on behind the scenes that affects team chemistry, who the coaches are, whether or not your star player is on a hot streak, what the team breakfast was that morning, and on and on....there are a ton of other variables that really increase or decrease the team's odds of *actually* winning it all. My point is that if we lived in a universe where strict probability was always valid, I would concede the point. But we don't. Probabilities are often monkeyed with by variables. that's why you always have to take them into account. and in this case, you can't because you don't know what they are.

"You're saying that there had to be some other variables that affected the probability of fine-tuning so that our universe now exists."

Yep.\

"You say that you do not know these factors but you assume that they are there because they are always there. That is the problem."

No, I assume that they are there because the universe is here. Now either i'm correct in assuming that something we have no knowledge of increased the likelihood of the universe's existence, or you're correct and a magic man done it.


"For example, in a poker game if you find that every time a certain player deals he gets all four aces, will you say that there are some unidentified variables that affected it?"


No I wouldn't, because I know people cheat at poker, I have seen people cheat at poker and I understand how the process works. When I see something that I don't understand how it happened, I assume that there is a logical explanation for it that does not involve supernatural mojo. Also, I have never seen a universe formed. And neither have you. And neither has Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Fred Hoyle, Paul "Bear" Bryant or the Dalai Lama. Therefore it is safe to say that none of us knows anything about how the process really works. One of us is willing to admit that he doesn't know how the universe was really formed. And the other one is you.

"Saying that some unknown variables somehow gave rise to such an incredibly improbable event just won't cut it."

And a "magic man done it" will? Let me get this straight: "Unknown variables" are unacceptable but "magic" is? Explain, please.

"We can see no reason why the values that permit life will be more probable than those that do not so all the values are equally likely."

I'm beginning to understand. Since you "see no reason why the values that permit life will be more probable than those that do not," that gives you the right to assume that all values are equally likely and therefore the values that permit life are automatically less probable by virtue of being outnumbered by all the other likely values.

But there's just one problem: Life exists.

So now we face three possibilities:
1. Life occurred despite the odds.

Problems on my end? None. I've seen improbable odds beat before.

2. Some unknown variable(s) or factor(s) was/were involved which increased those odds in life's favor.

Problems on my end? None. I'm willing to accept that a lot of things are simply unknown, unexplainable or impossible to decipher given our fundamental understanding of current knowledge. This is how people come to believe in the supernatural. Their knowledge can't explain it, so it becomes indistinguishable from magic.

3. There exists a "_?_" that "created" life

Should have added "the universe and everything.".

Problems on my end? Numerous. Who or what is this "_?_"? Where did it come from? Why did it design a universe that is so hostile to life? Why did it design a planet for that life to live on that is comprised mostly of places which are equally hostile to life? Better yet: why didn't it just design life that was better suited to live in the universe it created? Could this be an indication that the "_?_" which designed life is different from the "_?_" which designed a universe mostly inhospitable to it? It would certainly explain a lot. If not, why did the "_?_" go to so much trouble to keep the rest of the universe a secret from us? What's it hiding from us? What's it afraid of us finding out?

"I loved your questions about "_?_"

Thank you.

"but it is my philosophy that unanswered questions have never been proof of anything."

I don't believe that either.

"That we do not know certain things about "_?_" is not proof that "_?_" does not exist."

And I never claimed that "_?_" does not exist. I claim that I have no real reason to believe that it does. Because if a "_?_" is real, it doesn't appear to be and apparently doesn't want to as every single alleged revelation of "_?_" out there requires that the claim be taken on faith alone.

"The value of the gravitational constant was set at the exact moment the universe began existing. There were no influencing factors because there was nothing."

Then there's no reason to believe that it could have realistically been any other value because as you have pointed out, without it, the universe would not exist....and the point would be moot. But it does exist.

"Your response is simply that very improbable things happen (as if the next time you play poker, you would accept that your opponent got all four aces because very improbable things happen)."

A problem with your analogy is this: if I had never played poker before and knew nothing of how people cheated or even that people did cheat, I would chalk it up to probability. I know how to cheat at poker, I know that other people know how to cheat at poker, and I know that people do in fact cheat at poker. I know all this because I have seen it and the process is replicatable. I know how many cards there are in a standard deck, how many suits and how many aces. From that I can determine the likelihood of this person getting 4 aces. With the universe, there's a whole lot I don't know. I don't know how many cards are in this deck or even that it is a standard deck. I have no idea how many aces there are supposed to be, or how many hands have been dealt, how many times the deck has been shuffled, or that poker is the game being dealt for (at the deal, "Go Fish" and Poker look the same).

"All you need to know is the probability of someone getting the four aces and you can see it did not happen by chance."

No. I also need to know that people can and do cheat, meaning that the system can be tampered with. When it comes to the universe, i've seen nothing to indicate that it can be.

"1. The fine tuning of the universe is either due to chance, physical necessity or design

2. It is not due to necessity (no influencing factors)"

That you are aware of. You said yourself that a "cause" can exist outside of time and space. If you get to special plead that, I get to special plead influencing factors.

"3. It is not due to chance (way, way, way too improbable)"

But not impossible. Make 2 and 2 equal 5 and I will concede the point.

"4. Therefore, it is due to design"

Who designed it? Where are they? Who or what designed them?

"The mass of the universe, its expansion rate, etc were all set at the instant the universe began. Unless 'nothing' is an influencing factor, there is no influencing factor."

We're finally starting to agree. But not how he thinks...his god would be an "influencing factor, so he just kind of owned himself.

"We agreed that unanswered questions are not proof of anything."

You are correct. But claims about the existence of supernatural entities or phenomena require independent verification. After all, I cannot "prove" that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. However, if I claim to have one in my garage, I need to show you something other than "you can't prove there's not."

"you're willing to not believe in a designer even if the fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests it. (Because you know nothing about the designer, I suppose?)"

I don't necessarily agree that the universe is "fine-tuned." This is the old idea that 'the universe is designed because it looks designed.' To which I say: Compared to what?

And as far as what I am willing to believe, i'm willing to believe in the existence of something when I have something to go on other than "revealed" knowledge, and "you can't prove it isn't real."

Conversation with a Theist, Part 1. Setting the Table

About a year ago, I had a conversation with a theist on youtube. He seemed to be a sincere fellow and was extremely well-mannered and generally likeable. We didn't see eye to eye, but had a very spirited (but friendly) exchange, portions of which follow. Kudos and shout outs to infidels.org and atheists.org for the help in disposing of these arguments.


The set-up: We were discussing the concept of "eternal life" and whether or not it was a good thing. The conversation took off from there. His comments will be bolded. Mine will be in regular font. Any "after the fact" commentary by me will be italicized.

This first bit is an exchange over eternal life that bled into an exchange over the nature of evidence.

"survival is innately good."

not necessarily. survival which causes unnecessary suffering is not only not "innately good" but can be quite cruel. Let's break it down this way: if it is innately wrong to desire the power of a god because to do such would be to put one's self on a level of equality with a god, why then is it not equally wrong to desire the immortality of a god for the same reason?

Personally, I see it the desire to live forever as a deep-seeded case of psychological denial brought forth by the fear of death and religion as the enabler to that denial.

"It is strange for us to desire [eternal life] so intensely, if it doesn't exist."

That we desire it so intensely is not an indication that it exists...it is only an indication that we can conceive of the idea, the idea is attractive. Throw in the notion that the idea is impossible to disprove and you're going to have people trying to find it....with intensity.

"I won't grant that it's impossible to disprove"

How would one disprove eternal life after death?

"Simply by showing that materialism is true. That all that exists is the physical world so once the physical body is dead, nothing exists to move on to this eternal life."

So....in order to disprove that a realm beyond the physical world exists as you claim, I have to prove a negative? How do you propose I do that? Demonstrating non-existence is something I never learned how to do.

"You could at least prove that it is more probable than not."

How, exactly? By stating that we have no evidence of an existence beyond the natural world aside from wildly divergent "revelations" "out of body experiences" and such? It is impossible to provide you with evidence of "nothing," making your claim impossible to disprove.

"I for instance, don't want this to be true as badly as you seem to assume. I simply have no choice because it is true"

I will skip over your glaring self-contradiction (Eternal life must be real because it would be strange for us to want something that isn't real/I don't really want eternal life to be real, but it is) and will instead focus on this: You have no way of _knowing_ that because you have no way of _showing_ that. You have beliefs. You have arguments and reasoning upon which you base those beliefs. But you do not have positive knowledge, you have a declaration of faith. You don't have positive knowledge because you don't have evidence. You may have that which you accept as evidence which serves to reaffirm that faith, but if you had real evidence, any amount of faith would be completely unnecessary. I will gladly admit and proclaim that I have no evidence that eternal life or gods or fairies or invisible pink unicorns don't exist....but not having evidence of non-existence does not count as evidence of existence.

"Arguments are methods of presenting evidence"

But they are not evidence themselves.

"What do you mean by 'evidence'?"

That which is used to demonstrate the truth of an argument. If I argue that pink unicorns built the pyramids, I must show you evidence: which is a pink unicorn that either exists or existed at one time that can build pyramids and compelling evidence that their kind built the pyramids in question. (pink unicorn hoofprints or hair samples within the structure)

More Questions....

Found these at http://carm.org/questions-for-atheists

 

1.   How would you define atheism?

The lack of belief in a god or gods.

2. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?

I act according to the information I have. If I don't think I have enough information to act in a responsible or safe manner, I don't.

3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?

Yes, which is why I don’t waste my time trying to “prove” the non-existence of something.

It is much more productive to critically examine the claims of ones asserting the existence of something: be it the Loch Ness Monster, alien abductions, ghosts, ESP or gods.

4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?

It doesn’t matter what religion you are talking about, they are all built upon the testimony of people who claim to have had a divine revelation from some supernatural deity that only reveals itself at a time, place and manner of its own choosing and never seems to do so through independently verifiable means. Either they are all equally valid, which is impossible, or they are all equally invalid, which is more likely.

5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?

How sure am I that i’m unsure of something? Pretty sure.

6. How would you define what truth is?

That which is in accordance with fact or reality.

7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?

Go back and re-read my answer to number 4.

8. Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?

A realist.

9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview?  Why or why not?

It is not. A worldview is a set of fundamental assumptions about how the world is and often includes statements on how the world should be. Secular Humanism is a worldview. Religious fundamentalism is a worldview. Nihilism is a worldview. One's world view can be theistic or atheistic, but your worldview is not “atheism” or “theism.” Christianity is a theistic world view. Secular Humanism is an atheistic world view. See what I mean?

 

10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?

Why has there been such antagonism towards atheists by christians for the last couple of thousand years?

11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?

A serious and honest critical examination of what I believed and why I believed it.

12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?

No. But I don’t believe that it would be any worse either.

13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?

See previous.

14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?

It can certainly be confused as one. It does often act as an enabler for mental disorders by exacerbating an existing condition. Generally speaking though, I would say no. People ultimately choose to believe in gods, they don’t choose to have mental disorders. As far as why people choose to believe in gods, there are numerous reasons.

15. Must God be known through the scientific method?

Based on how a god is defined, it seems impossible that knowledge of one could come about through the scientific method. That’s why I assert that all religious claims are inherently equal. There is no way to determine whether or not one claim is more or less valid than the other….in science, there is.

16. If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?

I don't require material evidence for an immaterial god. I require independent verification of theistic claims.

17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?

Yes.

18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?

Depends. If you are asking for an individual purpose, each person has to find their own purpose. If you are asking for humanity’s purpose, in terms of the universe, we are largely irrelevant. We occupy a speck of dust in the middle of an incomprehensibly big ocean. As far as humanity’s purpose in terms of the planet earth, I believe Kurt Vonnegut said it best when he said, “we're here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is.”

19. Where does morality come from?

Agents of socialization, enlightened self-interest, the truth or falsehood of the underlying assumptions behind our actions, and above all, the situation and circumstances.

 

20. Are there moral absolutes?

 

It is very dangerous to deal in absolutes as it is very dangerous to assert that something is always “A” or always “B.” If something is always “A” or always “B,” then the situation or circumstances around it and/or the factuality of the underlying assumptions are irrelevant. Therefore, if we take “thou shalt not kill” as a moral absolute, then there is no moral difference between one who kills in self-defense, one who kills in a fit of passion and one who kills for sexual gratification. No criminal code on earth (not even Saudi Arabia or North Korea) operates like this.

 

21. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?

Be sure your actions are based on truthful assumptions, sound evidence, and an understanding of the situation.

 

22. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil?  If so, what is it?

As an abstract concept, yes. An action can be defined as “evil” if it is done with willful disregard to the fact that the underlying assumptions behind the actions are known to be false, or the evidenciary support is known to be fraudulent or incorrect.

23. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?

I don’t call the guy good or bad,

But a quick profile of the guy reveals:

-he’s possessive.

-he’s vain and has some obvious insecurity issues which explains his constant need for praise.

-he’s got a violent temper.

-he has an obsession with arbitrary rules that indicates OCD.

-he has schizophrenic tendencies.

-his penchant for getting others to do his dirty work for him (read the book of Joshua) is reminiscent of Charles Manson.

 

Based on this, he doesn’t seem like a guy I’d want to spend any amount of time with, much less, an eternity.

24. What would it take for you to believe in God?

 

A sound, logically consistent and/or independently verifiable reason to.

25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?

The arm of an amputee spontaneously regenerating in response to prayer.

 

26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?

It would have to be independently verifiable.

 

27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer?  Why?

I think a society run by people (regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof) who respect the principles of tolerance and pluralism is safest.

 

28. Do you believe in free will?  (free will being the ability to make choices without coercion). 

Yes.

 

29. If you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?

One uses the brain to make free will choices. The ability to use the brain is dependent upon the neuro-chemical processes of the brain. You are essentially asking if someone can use the brain independent of the brain.

30. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time?  If not, why not? 

You seem to be unclear on the difference between what is “possible” and what is “probable.”

You are asking if it is probable that something that exists inside of time and space will evolve to operate independent of time and space.

To establish probability, you must first establish possibility. Is it even possible for something inside of time and space to operate independent of it? If so, how do you know this? Even if you successfully establish possibility, you then have to determine probability based on the number of observed occurences of it happening.

You also reveal a bit of ignorance about biological evolution. Evolution does not mean that an organism is always “improving.” Evolution refers to how an organism changes over time. Changes can be beneficial, detrimental or benign.

 

31. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?

See previous.