Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

The Fine-Tuning Argument Limits God (link)

Chaosism
Posts: 2,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 7:41:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
This is a notification for a thread of the same topic in the Philosophy forum (linked below), but it crosses into religion and I'd like the opinions of those who dwell in this forum to the exclusion of the Philosophy forum. Thanks!

Main thread: http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:04:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:41:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a notification for a thread of the same topic in the Philosophy forum (linked below), but it crosses into religion and I'd like the opinions of those who dwell in this forum to the exclusion of the Philosophy forum. Thanks!
Chaosism, I think most Creationist arguments are arguments for Deism, which end up being indirect arguments against theism. This seems one of these.

Monotheism requires a god that not only created existence, but did so specifically to support human moral development. Yet if the universe is not morally ordered it's amoral, and no monotheist nowadays argues that one should worship an amoral god (it's their big point of difference over polytheism.)

So the big burden monotheists must meet isn't that the universe was created, but that causality is somehow moral. They know for pretty darn sure it isn't, so they retreat into arguing a created universe, as though that were somehow sufficient. As far as I can tell, anyone who so argues isn't a monotheist, but a Deist who likes the theatre of church.

You've interpreted that as an argument for a limited god, but among Deists the Creator is a benign but indifferent metaphysical entity that requires no worship and isn't expected to respond to it anyway -- so it's not even a god in any sociological sense, and I think the same argument applies here.

So my suggestion: monotheists need to show a morally-ordered universe, or admit that they're Deists with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. :)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:16:07 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:04:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:41:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a notification for a thread of the same topic in the Philosophy forum (linked below), but it crosses into religion and I'd like the opinions of those who dwell in this forum to the exclusion of the Philosophy forum. Thanks!
Chaosism, I think most Creationist arguments are arguments for Deism, which end up being indirect arguments against theism. This seems one of these.

Monotheism requires a god that not only created existence, but did so specifically to support human moral development. Yet if the universe is not morally ordered it's amoral, and no monotheist nowadays argues that one should worship an amoral god (it's their big point of difference over polytheism.)

So the big burden monotheists must meet isn't that the universe was created, but that causality is somehow moral. They know for pretty darn sure it isn't, so they retreat into arguing a created universe, as though that were somehow sufficient. As far as I can tell, anyone who so argues isn't a monotheist, but a Deist who likes the theatre of church.

You've interpreted that as an argument for a limited god, but among Deists the Creator is a benign but indifferent metaphysical entity that requires no worship and isn't expected to respond to it anyway -- so it's not even a god in any sociological sense, and I think the same argument applies here.

So my suggestion: monotheists need to show a morally-ordered universe, or admit that they're Deists with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. :)

I agree. Although I neglected to explicitly mention in the introduction that this only applies to monotheistic notions of God, and those of which God's direct action is the sole reason life exists in the universe. That's also why I mentioned the conclusion wasn't terribly significant, but I've encountered enough such monotheists pushing the FTA to motivate me to highlight this hidden, internal problem as opposed to the typical external refutation. Just something different. :)

Plus, I was grasping at an excuse to apply modal logic. ;P
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:36:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:16:07 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:04:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Monotheists need to show a morally-ordered universe, or admit that they're Deists with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. :)

I agree. I mentioned the conclusion wasn't terribly significant, but I've encountered enough such monotheists pushing the FTA to motivate me to highlight this hidden, internal problem as opposed to the typical external refutation. Just something different. :)
I understand. :) But as an empiricist, I find notions of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence incoherent anyway. Other than for humour, I try not to argue using incoherent premises, because it makes me feel as foolish as the fools who do. :)

Plus, I was grasping at an excuse to apply modal logic. ;P
Which one? Analytically, the popular modal logics tend to be S4 and S5 [http://plato.stanford.edu...] -- perhaps because they fit the way people like to think. But you need to stipulate which one you want and why, because not kinds of reasoning are supported under all modal logics. :)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:48:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:36:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:16:07 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:04:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Monotheists need to show a morally-ordered universe, or admit that they're Deists with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. :)

I agree. I mentioned the conclusion wasn't terribly significant, but I've encountered enough such monotheists pushing the FTA to motivate me to highlight this hidden, internal problem as opposed to the typical external refutation. Just something different. :)
I understand. :) But as an empiricist, I find notions of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence incoherent anyway. Other than for humour, I try not to argue using incoherent premises, because it makes me feel as foolish as the fools who do. :)

As do I, but this argument isn't limited to an "OOO" god. And hey, you have to engage in some foolishness sometimes to maintain some semblance of sanity (provided there's some remaining in the first place). ;) Plus, it's something to ponder while I'm sitting at the bedside not-so-responsive people in the ICU or something.

Plus, I was grasping at an excuse to apply modal logic. ;P
Which one? Analytically, the popular modal logics tend to be S4 and S5 [http://plato.stanford.edu...] -- perhaps because they fit the way people like to think. But you need to stipulate which one you want and why, because not kinds of reasoning are supported under all modal logics. :)

Generic possibility/necessity modal logic, and only up to system T. I've only learned the basics of Deontic Logic, and plan to investigate further. I believe S5 is controversial, and I'd prefer to maintain a greater skeptical position on it. Plus, the observation that an aspect of logic matches human thinking is not at all a qualifier for validity!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 9:01:49 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:48:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:36:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:16:07 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:04:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Monotheists need to show a morally-ordered universe, or admit that they're Deists with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement. :)
I agree. I mentioned the conclusion wasn't terribly significant, but I've encountered enough such monotheists pushing the FTA to motivate me to highlight this hidden, internal problem as opposed to the typical external refutation. Just something different. :)
I understand. :) But as an empiricist, I find notions of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence incoherent anyway. Other than for humour, I try not to argue using incoherent premises, because it makes me feel as foolish as the fools who do. :)
You have to engage in some foolishness sometimes to maintain some semblance of sanity (provided there's some remaining in the first place). ;)
Mm. As an intellectual living in the most anti-intellectual English-speaking country on Earth, I make no such claim. :)

Plus, it's something to ponder while I'm sitting at the bedside not-so-responsive people in the ICU or something.
Now I'm imagining awakening from a coma to find you typing on your phone about modal logic. I'd be torn between wanting to upbraid you for distraction from my vital signs, and checking your rules of inference. :)

Plus, I was grasping at an excuse to apply modal logic. ;P
Which one?
Generic possibility/necessity modal logic, and only up to system T.
Yup, okay.

I've only learned the basics of Deontic Logic, and plan to investigate further. I believe S5 is controversial, and I'd prefer to maintain a greater skeptical position on it. Plus, the observation that an aspect of logic matches human thinking is not at all a qualifier for validity!
Hi 5 on that!

When you're done with modal logics, if you haven't had a chance to look at constructive (intuitionistic) logic yet, please poke me... Also, if you want a dose of epistemological constipation, try Relevance logics. :)

And, before you exit this ironic period of reading modal logic to the comatose (which for me evokes the memory of late-afternoon tutorials), please ensure you pick up Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, and the non-standard model of Peano arithmetic -- again, please poke if you'd like an overview. :)
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 9:04:13 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:41:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a notification for a thread of the same topic in the Philosophy forum (linked below), but it crosses into religion and I'd like the opinions of those who dwell in this forum to the exclusion of the Philosophy forum. Thanks!

Main thread: http://www.debate.org...

I disagree with P2 in a fundamental way and your more than welcome to visit the first chapter of Genesis to see why. Theres a reason living creatures in the ocean, winged animals of the air, beasts of the field and then man is the last thing formed on the earth and thats because the stage has been set for all these organisms to be fruitful and multiply. This means life cant exist without these laws in play at least as we understand it. We are alluded to the fact some event happened in history before the earth was formed into what we know it as now and you can see my thread about biblical creation for more on that. Our understanding is just extremely limited scientificaly as how to form creatures out of base componets which is why we havent been able to do so. It may one day even be possible further shedding light on how God did it.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 1:43:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 9:01:49 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:48:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:36:19 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:16:07 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:04:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Plus, it's something to ponder while I'm sitting at the bedside not-so-responsive people in the ICU or something.
Now I'm imagining awakening from a coma to find you typing on your phone about modal logic. I'd be torn between wanting to upbraid you for distraction from my vital signs, and checking your rules of inference. :)

Alas, that would be a welcome event...

In any case, I'm willfully technologically primitive; no smartphone, here. I'm limited to pondering and scrawling on scrap paper, which is far less distracting.

I've only learned the basics of Deontic Logic, and plan to investigate further. I believe S5 is controversial, and I'd prefer to maintain a greater skeptical position on it. Plus, the observation that an aspect of logic matches human thinking is not at all a qualifier for validity!
Hi 5 on that!

When you're done with modal logics, if you haven't had a chance to look at constructive (intuitionistic) logic yet, please poke me... Also, if you want a dose of epistemological constipation, try Relevance logics. :)

And, before you exit this ironic period of reading modal logic to the comatose (which for me evokes the memory of late-afternoon tutorials), please ensure you pick up Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem, and the non-standard model of Peano arithmetic -- again, please poke if you'd like an overview. :)

Very nice, and appreciated! Unfortunately, my advancement is typically at the pace of a slug. The only viable time I have is roughly between 1:30AM-4:00AM when I elect not to sleep. Thankfully, I just don't need much sleep!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 1:51:14 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 9:04:13 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:41:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a notification for a thread of the same topic in the Philosophy forum (linked below), but it crosses into religion and I'd like the opinions of those who dwell in this forum to the exclusion of the Philosophy forum. Thanks!

Main thread: http://www.debate.org...

I disagree with P2 in a fundamental way and your more than welcome to visit the first chapter of Genesis to see why. Theres a reason living creatures in the ocean, winged animals of the air, beasts of the field and then man is the last thing formed on the earth and thats because the stage has been set for all these organisms to be fruitful and multiply. This means life cant exist without these laws in play at least as we understand it. We are alluded to the fact some event happened in history before the earth was formed into what we know it as now and you can see my thread about biblical creation for more on that. Our understanding is just extremely limited scientificaly as how to form creatures out of base componets which is why we havent been able to do so. It may one day even be possible further shedding light on how God did it.

P2 is extracted and placed at the end of this post for easier reference.

I don't see how your objection pertains to this premise, exactly. I'll ask a couple of questions to try to get a better idea:

1.) Is it possible for God to violate, change, or modify the natural laws that are currently established?
2.) According to these currently established natural laws, is it possible for life to arise naturally?

At 7/12/2016 7:37:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Primary Argument:
...
P2) If it's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life, then it's not necessary that the natural laws, themselves, permit the existence of life.
...
Premise elaborations:
...
P2) If God is powerful enough to perform actions or enact events that violate the laws of nature, then it follows that the laws of nature would not prevent God from creating and sustaining life in any possible world regardless of what natural laws are established.
...
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 9:03:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 1:51:14 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/12/2016 9:04:13 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:41:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a notification for a thread of the same topic in the Philosophy forum (linked below), but it crosses into religion and I'd like the opinions of those who dwell in this forum to the exclusion of the Philosophy forum. Thanks!

Main thread: http://www.debate.org...

I disagree with P2 in a fundamental way and your more than welcome to visit the first chapter of Genesis to see why. Theres a reason living creatures in the ocean, winged animals of the air, beasts of the field and then man is the last thing formed on the earth and thats because the stage has been set for all these organisms to be fruitful and multiply. This means life cant exist without these laws in play at least as we understand it. We are alluded to the fact some event happened in history before the earth was formed into what we know it as now and you can see my thread about biblical creation for more on that. Our understanding is just extremely limited scientificaly as how to form creatures out of base componets which is why we havent been able to do so. It may one day even be possible further shedding light on how God did it.

P2 is extracted and placed at the end of this post for easier reference.

I don't see how your objection pertains to this premise, exactly. I'll ask a couple of questions to try to get a better idea:

1.) Is it possible for God to violate, change, or modify the natural laws that are currently established?
Possible? Yea but allow me to elaborate. Only in the way if God wanted to manipulate something he could however I dont think that it ever happens. Even miracles imo are God using laws he set up before we appeared such that he can do things beyond our understanding. Just as I mentioned there is a reason the world was once already destroyed and became tohu wa bohu. Also theres a reason God used a flood instead of just vaporizing everyone who disagreed with him.
2.) According to these currently established natural laws, is it possible for life to arise naturally?
Not without a guiding hand no. Its just like an earlier thread I established some guiding hand is neccesary because scientist have created bacteria. The bacteria in the lab didnt assemble itself, a master of that bacteria assembled it.

At 7/12/2016 7:37:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Primary Argument:
...
P2) If it's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life, then it's not necessary that the natural laws, themselves, permit the existence of life.
...
Premise elaborations:
...
P2) If God is powerful enough to perform actions or enact events that violate the laws of nature, then it follows that the laws of nature would not prevent God from creating and sustaining life in any possible world regardless of what natural laws are established.
...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 2:08:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/13/2016 9:03:08 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/13/2016 1:51:14 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/12/2016 9:04:13 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:41:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a notification for a thread of the same topic in the Philosophy forum (linked below), but it crosses into religion and I'd like the opinions of those who dwell in this forum to the exclusion of the Philosophy forum. Thanks!

Main thread: http://www.debate.org...

I disagree with P2 in a fundamental way and your more than welcome to visit the first chapter of Genesis to see why. Theres a reason living creatures in the ocean, winged animals of the air, beasts of the field and then man is the last thing formed on the earth and thats because the stage has been set for all these organisms to be fruitful and multiply. This means life cant exist without these laws in play at least as we understand it. We are alluded to the fact some event happened in history before the earth was formed into what we know it as now and you can see my thread about biblical creation for more on that. Our understanding is just extremely limited scientificaly as how to form creatures out of base componets which is why we havent been able to do so. It may one day even be possible further shedding light on how God did it.

P2 is extracted and placed at the end of this post for easier reference.

I don't see how your objection pertains to this premise, exactly. I'll ask a couple of questions to try to get a better idea:

1.) Is it possible for God to violate, change, or modify the natural laws that are currently established?
Possible? Yea but allow me to elaborate. Only in the way if God wanted to manipulate something he could however I dont think that it ever happens. Even miracles imo are God using laws he set up before we appeared such that he can do things beyond our understanding. Just as I mentioned there is a reason the world was once already destroyed and became tohu wa bohu. Also theres a reason God used a flood instead of just vaporizing everyone who disagreed with him.
2.) According to these currently established natural laws, is it possible for life to arise naturally?
Not without a guiding hand no. Its just like an earlier thread I established some guiding hand is neccesary because scientist have created bacteria. The bacteria in the lab didnt assemble itself, a master of that bacteria assembled it. Your agreement with #1 (that it's possible) is enough to invoke the statement. It's fine if you don't think it happens that way, that's not a concern to this premise.

I understand you, but the consequent of this implication statement deals specifically with necessity. As long as it's possible for God to create and sustain life, then it's merely not necessary that those laws permit it, in of and themselves. In other words, the laws don't absolutely have to be just so in order for life to somehow exist, and that's because God could make things occur that violate the current natural laws.

At 7/12/2016 7:37:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Primary Argument:
...
P2) If it's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life, then it's not necessary that the natural laws, themselves, permit the existence of life.
...
Premise elaborations:
...
P2) If God is powerful enough to perform actions or enact events that violate the laws of nature, then it follows that the laws of nature would not prevent God from creating and sustaining life in any possible world regardless of what natural laws are established.
...
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 2:41:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 2:08:26 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/13/2016 9:03:08 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/13/2016 1:51:14 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/12/2016 9:04:13 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:41:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This is a notification for a thread of the same topic in the Philosophy forum (linked below), but it crosses into religion and I'd like the opinions of those who dwell in this forum to the exclusion of the Philosophy forum. Thanks!

Main thread: http://www.debate.org...

I disagree with P2 in a fundamental way and your more than welcome to visit the first chapter of Genesis to see why. Theres a reason living creatures in the ocean, winged animals of the air, beasts of the field and then man is the last thing formed on the earth and thats because the stage has been set for all these organisms to be fruitful and multiply. This means life cant exist without these laws in play at least as we understand it. We are alluded to the fact some event happened in history before the earth was formed into what we know it as now and you can see my thread about biblical creation for more on that. Our understanding is just extremely limited scientificaly as how to form creatures out of base componets which is why we havent been able to do so. It may one day even be possible further shedding light on how God did it.

P2 is extracted and placed at the end of this post for easier reference.

I don't see how your objection pertains to this premise, exactly. I'll ask a couple of questions to try to get a better idea:

1.) Is it possible for God to violate, change, or modify the natural laws that are currently established?
Possible? Yea but allow me to elaborate. Only in the way if God wanted to manipulate something he could however I dont think that it ever happens. Even miracles imo are God using laws he set up before we appeared such that he can do things beyond our understanding. Just as I mentioned there is a reason the world was once already destroyed and became tohu wa bohu. Also theres a reason God used a flood instead of just vaporizing everyone who disagreed with him.
2.) According to these currently established natural laws, is it possible for life to arise naturally?
Not without a guiding hand no. Its just like an earlier thread I established some guiding hand is neccesary because scientist have created bacteria. The bacteria in the lab didnt assemble itself, a master of that bacteria assembled it. Your agreement with #1 (that it's possible) is enough to invoke the statement. It's fine if you don't think it happens that way, that's not a concern to this premise.

I understand you, but the consequent of this implication statement deals specifically with necessity. As long as it's possible for God to create and sustain life, then it's merely not necessary that those laws permit it, in of and themselves. In other words, the laws don't absolutely have to be just so in order for life to somehow exist, and that's because God could make things occur that violate the current natural laws.

According to your understanding of possible then no. It wouldnt make any sense anyway to set up a bunch of laws and not have them do the work for you. This is what him resting on the 7th day alludes to because it doesnt actually mean he took a nap it just means everything was complete with no more work to do.

At 7/12/2016 7:37:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Primary Argument:
...
P2) If it's possible for God to violate natural laws to permit the existence of life, then it's not necessary that the natural laws, themselves, permit the existence of life.
...
Premise elaborations:
...
P2) If God is powerful enough to perform actions or enact events that violate the laws of nature, then it follows that the laws of nature would not prevent God from creating and sustaining life in any possible world regardless of what natural laws are established.
...