If God exists, then where did he come from?

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,240
There was no question. You simply assume that your universe means evidence it popped into existence.
I do not assume. I concede we may never know, that the origin of universe may actually be unknowable

If that's the case my universe is evidence it was created. The universe is only evidence it exists, not how it came to be.
At last you stumble along the path of enlightenment.

You fail at comprehension as usual. And the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life has never been debunked.
The tune of the universe is unknown, we have nothing to compare it to it could be a F1 Car, it could be a VW Beatle.
Only more assumptions of a universe with the correct variables magically existing all by itself or a multiverse or them simply being there magically by necessity.
It's terribly foolish to assume that the unverse is tuned to support us, when in reality we are tuned to survive in our minuscule fraction of the universe.

It's important as the real "razor" is a very different principle than the one you're using. Not my fault if you can't understand that and think it's all "waffle."
You're all waffle I understand the principle just fine.

Again the issue is what makes your special pleading with additional complexity, no evidence and assumptions better than mine, for which I TOO have a universe?
But you don't appear to have a god. (at least outside your head)
 

RiaX

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
4,085
the arrogance to think the universe is fine tuned for humanity and earth LOL
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
8,030
the arrogance to think the universe is fine tuned for humanity and earth LOL
Yep, and the whole God made us in his image bit. Why would God look like a human if he/she/it does exist? What good would a human form be in another timeless dimension in the void and how can something that popped the universe into existence look like a human? Hands, feet, eyes are of no use if you can control and see everything without them.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,309
I do not assume. I concede we may never know, that the origin of universe may actually be unknowable



At last you stumble along the path of enlightenment.
Finally you get what I have been saying all along. There is hope for you yet.

The tune of the universe is unknown, we have nothing to compare it to it could be a F1 Car, it could be a VW Beatle.
It's not unknown. It can be modeled and most physicists agree if any of the hundreds of variables were only slightly altered we would not have a inhabitable universe. It may be a gocart instead of a Ferrari but it doesn't change the fact if it was only slightly different it wouldn't be a car at all.

It's terribly foolish to assume that the unverse is tuned to support us, when in reality we are tuned to survive in our minuscule fraction of the universe.
There's plenty of reasons why it is. Nothing has to be assumed.

You're all waffle I understand the principle just fine.
Yeah continue to insult.

But you don't appear to have a god. (at least outside your head)
And you don't appear to have a popping into existence. (outside of your head.)
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,240
It's not unknown. It can be modeled and most physicists agree if any of the hundreds of variables were only slightly altered we would not have a inhabitable universe. It may be a gocart instead of a Ferrari but it doesn't change the fact if it was only slightly different it wouldn't be a car at all.
That doesn't mean it couldn't support life of a different sort.


There's plenty of reasons why it is. Nothing has to be assumed.
Yet you do an awful lot of assuming.

And you don't appear to have a popping into existence. (outside of your head.)
But I do have a universe.

Present your god please, front and centre.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,773
A brute fact requires no pleading, it merely is.
I understand a brute fact to be something that has no explanation. To claim that something is a brute fact is to claim that there is no explanation for its existence and you have to claim that such a thing merely is what it is (again, without any explanation). Now, when we do science, logic, reason and philosophy, we attempt to explain the nature of things. For example, why do electrons behave the way they do (an explanation can be that they act according to their nature), or why is God a necessary being (an explanation can be that God's nature or essence just is His act of existing and thus God cannot fail to exist).

It is just a natural inclination of the mind to attempt to provide explanations to make sense of the world. So, to claim something is a brute fact actually appears to be some form of special pleading since that implies that people should stop trying to provide an explanation for whatever you claim is a brute fact.

Or even better:

What proof and evidence is there that atheism is accurate and legitimate?
A better way to ask such a question would be to ask:
Why should we accept materialism and/or naturalism (which are the strongest arguments for atheism) as accurate and legitimate metaphysical views of reality?

The tune of the universe is unknown, we have nothing to compare it to it could be a F1 Car, it could be a VW Beatle.
Given what we know, the universe appears finely-tuned for life to exist (from the conclusion "Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been, only a very small subset permits the existence of intelligent life."). Whether future discoveries may change this is an open question. Also, fine-tuning does not imply most optimal. Finding more optimal ones won't imply that our present one is not finely-tuned, it would just show that there can exist other finely-tuned universes as well. Finding other kinds of intelligent life-forms in the universe won't imply that the universe is not fine-tuned for intelligent life either (in fact it would only serve to make the argument for a fine-tuned universe even stronger)
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
Given what we know, the universe appears finely-tuned for life to exist (from the conclusion "Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been, only a very small subset permits the existence of intelligent life."). Whether future discoveries may change this is an open question. Also, fine-tuning does not imply most optimal. Finding more optimal ones won't imply that our present one is not finely-tuned, it would just show that there can exist other finely-tuned universes as well. Finding other kinds of intelligent life-forms in the universe won't imply that the universe is not fine-tuned for intelligent life either (in fact it would only serve to make the argument for a fine-tuned universe even stronger)
But finding that the universe just happens to be "Finely tuned" (I hate that term, it seems to imply an external "Tuner" of sorts) for complex life, does not imply that the tuning is anything but happenstance.
I use the term complex life, because that is far more accurate. I can conceive of a planet where the most complex life is not the most intelligent, or that intelligence is not a vital factor in natural selection, and so complexity merely involves a complex amalgamation of the most beneficial survival traits of that planet/environment.

We happen to be a product of a planet that holds intelligence as a decent factor to survival.

All that being said, I find the question is a moot point.

We are a subjectively intelligent species, that find ourselves pondering the subjectively fine-tuned[ness] of the universe that we exist within, and believe that the resulting conclusion that our universe is fine-tuned, is an objective one.

It is subjectively fine tuned to our particular brand of life, by virtue of that life developing and evolving within the universal state of the universe that that life finds itself in.
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
8,030
Life as we know it only exists in a thin 10km band around the surface of the earth. Compare that to the size of the known universe and then come back and say the universe is finely tuned for life.

Saying the constants of physics could have been different doesn't mean anything. There's a reason we call them constants.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,484
Life as we know it only exists in a thin 10km band around the surface of the earth. Compare that to the size of the known universe and then come back and say the universe is finely tuned for life.

Saying the constants of physics could have been different doesn't mean anything. There's a reason we call them constants.
This is a very concise post....
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,773
But finding that the universe just happens to be "Finely tuned" (I hate that term, it seems to imply an external "Tuner" of sorts) for complex life, does not imply that the tuning is anything but happenstance.
The fact that the universe is fine-tuned suggests that there is an explanation for it. "Happenstance" or chance is one possible explanation, but not the only one.

I use the term complex life, because that is far more accurate. I can conceive of a planet where the most complex life is not the most intelligent, or that intelligence is not a vital factor in natural selection, and so complexity merely involves a complex amalgamation of the most beneficial survival traits of that planet/environment.
Sure, complexity does not imply intelligence and intelligence does not imply complexity.

We happen to be a product of a planet that holds intelligence as a decent factor to survival.

All that being said, I find the question is a moot point.

We are a subjectively intelligent species, that find ourselves pondering the subjectively fine-tuned[ness] of the universe that we exist within, and believe that the resulting conclusion that our universe is fine-tuned, is an objective one.

It is subjectively fine tuned to our particular brand of life, by virtue of that life developing and evolving within the universal state of the universe that that life finds itself in.
I don't know what you mean by "intelligent" so I will just give you my view. I see us, humans, as intellectual animals and this is an objective fact no less than the fact that water is liquid at 10 degrees Celsius at atmospheric pressure. Intellectual animals, as an objective fact about reality, have intellectual abilities or powers and this implies that we have the power to intellectually abstract universals from particulars or as James Franklin puts it “an ability to abstract universals and understand their relations”.

Also, when we look at the evidence, it appears to point to a universe that falls within a very narrow range for parameters that can support the life we observe and this is not just some subjective notion, but one based on sound evidence and reason.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,773
Life as we know it only exists in a thin 10km band around the surface of the earth. Compare that to the size of the known universe and then come back and say the universe is finely tuned for life.
As pointed out before, the abundance of life is irrelevant to fine-tuning (it exists). AFAIU, the argument is that the parameters are finely-tuned for intelligent life to exist no matter how abundant.

Saying the constants of physics could have been different doesn't mean anything.
Of course it does. If the constants can vary a lot and still yield universe where life can exist then the set we have cannot really be argued to be fine-tuned. However, the "set of life-permitting universes is small amongst the universes that we have been able to explore".

There's a reason we call them constants.
Sure. What do you think is that reason? We are now going into the direction of talking about the laws of nature and what exactly it means and imply. I remember asking you about them. What are your views btw wrt to "the laws of nature"? Prescriptive or descriptive? Necessatarian or Regulatory view etc?
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,484
As pointed out before, the abundance of life is irrelevant to fine-tuning (it exists). AFAIU, the argument is that the parameters are finely-tuned for intelligent life to exist no matter how abundant.
So are you saying that there is abundant life throughout the universe?

We are now going into the direction of talking about the laws of nature and what exactly it means and imply. I remember asking you about them. What are your views btw wrt to "the laws of nature"? Prescriptive or descriptive? Necessatarian or Regulatory view etc?
Umm, would you be trying to bring this debate into the realms of your philosophical and sophistical realm? lol.

How about "pure" science, as opposed to the pseudo science you love so much....
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,773
So are you saying that there is abundant life throughout the universe?
No. It may or may not be. Point being, either way is irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument.

Umm, would you be trying to bring this debate into the realms of your philosophical and sophistical realm? lol.

How about "pure" science, as opposed to the pseudo science you love so much....
This is the PD section and a thread discussing various philosophical aspects.:). Philosophy, metaphysics, logic and reason are not pseudoscience :).
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,484
No. It may or may not be. Point being, either way is irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument.
It is? Please expand - specifically how abundant life elsewhere in the universe would impact on the bible and the religion as it stands on this planet.

This is the PD section and a thread discussing various philosophical aspects.:). Philosophy, metaphysics, logic and reason are not pseudoscience :).
One - you attempted to bring up nature and then direct discussion into terminology of pseudo-science.

Two - there is nothing logical or reasonable about trying to bring the words "logic" and "reason" into our debate about your pseudo-science. It's puerile :)
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,773
It is not a fact.
Fair enough. Let me rephrase;
The facts show that the "set of life-permitting universes is small amongst the universes that we have been able to explore" (which is why it is argued to be fine-tuned), and there is an explanation for it. "Happenstance" or chance is one possible explanation, but not the only one.
 

Pox

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2005
Messages
3,505
Fair enough. Let me rephrase;
The facts show that the "set of life-permitting universes is small amongst the universes that we have been able to explore" (which is why it is argued to be fine-tuned), and there is an explanation for it. "Happenstance" or chance is one possible explanation, but not the only one.
We've explored other universes? afaik we've only barely started exploring this one. Until we have ANYTHING to compare it to, the fine-tuning means nothing.
 
Top