"Outside spacetime" - location - presupposes spacetime, which like north of the north pole, is nonsense. — 180 Proof
So you don't know, Devans, or offer any sound inferences. Uh huh. I just wanted to clarify - expose - that your OP amounts to nothing but an argumentum ad ignorantiam aka "g/G-of-the-Gap" fallacy (though Banno & co have beat me to it). 'Creationist apologetics' is for preaching to the gullible choir, friend, not for this scientifically literate & philosophically rowdy bunch of barflies. — 180 Proof
you started it - you called my OP shite without any justification whatsoever. — Devans99
... but I guess [your OP is shite]
... seems to be [that your OP is shite] ..
My suspicion [is that your OP is shite] ...
... they just appear that way. — Devans99
Very, very rarely, the computer program will generate a universe like ours that supports complex matter (elections and quarks make atoms - all 100+ elements from just two types of particle. And from that we have the amazing complexity of the almost infinite types of different molecules that are needed for life. The odds of such a universe occurring purely randomly are billions to one. — Devans99
It seems that God exists outside spacetime and choose the parameters of spacetime and then created spacetime. So the argument is not circular. — Devans99
Yes, and that might tell us something about our universe, for instance that it is one of a great multitude, or that its physical constants cannot have just any old value. It does not necessitate a fine-tuning, and it does not necessitate that life -- just one of the phenomena possible in this universe -- was desired. That comes from other assumptions, bad ones. — Kenosha Kid
It is circular since it presumes the existence of God -- the thing it seeks to prove -- be he inside or outside of spacetime. — Kenosha Kid
I do not believe in God, therefore I do not believe that God caused everything." That logic is correct. — Kenosha Kid
Not really, there is a lot of data available for quantum weirdness.... — A Seagull
Are you saying God caused something- just not everything? — 3017amen
I do not believe in God — Kenosha Kid
What is your existential definition of Causation? — 3017amen
My argument does not presume the existence of God; it deduces the existence of a timeless first cause from the assumption of causality - nothing circular about it at all. — Devans99
Multiple universe theories fail to justify the 'strong anthropic principle'. Do you suppose all such universe are made of radically different stuff to our universe or the very similar stuff? If its similar stuff, then all universes in the multiverse are fined tuned for life and all where created by God for that purpose. — Devans99
Also, consider that with a multiverse, many of the parameters that must be fined tuned for life are actually multiverse level parameters rather than parameters applicable to single universes. So the actual multiverse (if such a thing exists) must be fine tuned for life. — Devans99
Alas no. Defence of your argument relied on the assumption that the physical constants of nature had been fine-tuned in order (teleology) to yield life, which is the action of an intelligent creator. It also relied on the more general argument that a first cause must be an intended cause. Neither are themselves derived — Kenosha Kid
assumes the existence of God as a cause of similar universes, therefore cannot be used to answer a question about God's existence — Kenosha Kid
So even if every possible combination of laws in an infinity of universes existed, the existence of one inevitable universe with our laws is evidence that they were fine-tuned for life? :rofl: That's hilarious! You have a black box: put anything in, out comes "Proof that God exists!" I am eating an apple. "Proof that God exists!" It is Tuesday. "Proof that God exists!" — Kenosha Kid
:up: :lol:you started it - you called my OP shite without any justification whatsoever.
— Devans99
... but I guess [your OP is shite]
... seems to be [that your OP is shite] ..
My suspicion [is that your OP is shite] ...
... they just appear that way.
— Devans99
There. I borrowed a method of justification from your good self. — Isaac
What? I've not called you a name yet.You are just name calling ... — Devans99
Your OP is an embarrassment of fallacious & misinformed riches as others have pointed out before me. My previous post pointsq out your "north of the northpole" nonsense and "g/G-of-the-Gaps" fallacy which invalidate your "shite OP" (@Isaac).... rather than offering any substantive counter arguments -
Agreed. So why are you incorrigibly projecting onto us your own genuflected confusions? Your persistent dogma & sophistry are bad form ... :mask:- not suitable behaviour for a philosophy forum
Do I need one? Why? I may have a causal definition of existence. If I had an existential definition of causation, I'd be going round in circles. — Kenosha Kid
The chances of [1] happening are billions to one, — Devans99
Maybe the more obvious question would be, why are there laws of physics/patterns in the universe v. the unrestricted chaos of a lawless universe? — 3017amen
My argument in the OP is based purely on causality and is not at all circular. — Devans99
Maybe the more obvious question would be, why are there laws of physics/patterns in the universe v. the unrestricted chaos of a lawless universe? — 3017amen
You just pulled that number out of your ass. The chance could be anything. — Echarmion
To defend the necessity that a first cause requires an intelligent agent, when presented with current theory that has no such agent, you argued that conditions for life imply an intelligent agent. I don't know how much more circular you could get. — Kenosha Kid
Why? Explain the logic behind this. — Echarmion
Highlight a part of their post with your fingers, a little black "quote" button should appear on the top right of your screen — Echarmion
I don't want to be a spoilsport for you but if you were in a life-threatening situation and you asked me, your last hope, for help, how confident would you be about your survival if I said, "I'll almost certainly help you — TheMadFool
1. It could have attractive, repulsive or attractive and repulsive action. The 3rd is required for life. There is a 33% chance of the third — Devans99
2. Its strength must be correct so that electrons orbit the nucleus, not flying off or falling into the nucleus. I'll have to make a guess here, maybe the chance of the strength being right is 25%
3. Its range must be correct - again I'll guess at 25%. — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.