Evidence for God from Science

good posting ,great job,pls continue

haidivolume wrote:good posting ,great job,pls continue

Please read the Discussion Guidelines (and note the information about spamming).

Kristoffer wrote:you aren't born believing in anything so those atheists you are talking about are sort of right,

No, actually they are not. You are born ignorant and with knowledge/information as you grow up begin to form beliefs. The default position is therefore ignorance/agnosticism. The atheist is incorrect in asserting that his position is devoid of faith. In fact, his position is more in line with what one would call blind faith but that is another story altogether.

hatsoff wrote:

Jeff Zweerink (off-site) wrote:the fact that so many prominent scientists see it as a potential explanation for the fine-tuning observed in this universe highlights the strength of evidence backing the inference that a Designer fashioned this universe.

I don't see how.

The fine-tuning argument as I have encountered it (e.g. Robin Collins' formulation in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology) has multiple and serious flaws, not the least of which is the multiverse hypothesis. For example, Collins' argument is handicapped by a reliance on the paradoxical and thoroughly unnecessary principle of indifference. Moreover, theism makes a poor explanation even if a prior probability distribution is granted under naturalistic assumptions. And of course life has no a priori specialness.

This post is a prime example of the underlying anti-intellectualism within the naturalistic camp. It’s clear that the evidence for fine-tuning is so overwhelming that this individual simply cannot deny. So instead he assaults the principle of insufficient reason (PoI). The fact is many of the objections raised to the PoI over the years have already been refuted so there is absolutely no reason to reject it. Not to mention that there are other assumptions that can be made in its place. Probability theory is never perfect, but the truth is, no human discipline is. The Theistic argument is sound and no amount of hypocritical selective hyperscepticism can salvage the naturalistic hypothesis seeing how intellectually bankrupt it actually is.
The interesting thing is that when I read Collin’s argument in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology I was a little disappointed at how generous he was to the naturalistic position, so seeing this type of criticism against him is actually ridiculous.
But the problem is more severe for the naturalist as he does not even have a coherent explanation of the fine tuning in the first place. The multiverse is just another desperate attempt by naturalists to worship at the altar of their “god of chance” and nothing more. The trick here is to annihilate probabilities altogether and make the impossible possible. In other words we are now dealing with magic and the materialistic superstitions of our times. Although the multiverse idea has been met with severe criticism it is still propounded as “science” by some despite of the fact that there is no evidence for it, not to mention the practical impossibilities that exist in actually observing such a thing in the first place.
Finally, I would like to point to the irony of the claim that life is not special, given the fact that the person making the claim is a living being. So if there is nothing special about life, then what is so special about the opinion of a living organism? Or a discussion between two? Or an entire enterprise (science) that aims at unveiling phenomena? There are several ways around that objection as well actually, but the reasoning behind that assertion is so absurd that any logical response would only serve to dignify an irrationality. I don’t mean to be rude but I think treating life in this way is an abomination akin to nihilism.

Kristoffer wrote:you aren't born believing in anything so those atheists you are talking about are sort of right,

No, actually they are not. You are born ignorant and with knowledge/information as you grow up begin to form beliefs. The default position is therefore ignorance/agnosticism. The atheist is incorrect in asserting that his position is devoid of faith. In fact, his position is more in line with what one would call blind faith but that is another story altogether.

hatsoff wrote:

Jeff Zweerink (off-site) wrote:the fact that so many prominent scientists see it as a potential explanation for the fine-tuning observed in this universe highlights the strength of evidence backing the inference that a Designer fashioned this universe.

I don't see how.

The fine-tuning argument as I have encountered it (e.g. Robin Collins' formulation in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology) has multiple and serious flaws, not the least of which is the multiverse hypothesis. For example, Collins' argument is handicapped by a reliance on the paradoxical and thoroughly unnecessary principle of indifference. Moreover, theism makes a poor explanation even if a prior probability distribution is granted under naturalistic assumptions. And of course life has no a priori specialness.

This post is a prime example of the underlying anti-intellectualism within the naturalistic camp. It’s clear that the evidence for fine-tuning is so overwhelming that this individual simply cannot deny. So instead he assaults the principle of insufficient reason (PoI). The fact is many of the objections raised to the PoI over the years have already been refuted so there is absolutely no reason to reject it. Not to mention that there are other assumptions that can be made in its place. Probability theory is never perfect, but the truth is, no human discipline is. The Theistic argument is sound and no amount of hypocritical selective hyperscepticism can salvage the naturalistic hypothesis seeing how intellectually bankrupt it actually is.
The interesting thing is that when I read Collin’s argument in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology I was a little disappointed at how generous he was to the naturalistic position, so seeing this type of criticism against him is actually ridiculous.
But the problem is more severe for the naturalist as he does not even have a coherent explanation of the fine tuning in the first place. The multiverse is just another desperate attempt by naturalists to worship at the altar of their “god of chance” and nothing more. The trick here is to annihilate probabilities altogether and make the impossible possible. In other words we are now dealing with magic and the materialistic superstitions of our times. Although the multiverse idea has been met with severe criticism it is still propounded as “science” by some despite of the fact that there is no evidence for it, not to mention the practical impossibilities that exist in actually observing such a thing in the first place.
Finally, I would like to point to the irony of the claim that life is not special, given the fact that the person making the claim is a living being. So if there is nothing special about life, then what is so special about the opinion of a living organism? Or a discussion between two? Or an entire enterprise (science) that aims at unveiling phenomena? There are several ways around that objection as well actually, but the reasoning behind that assertion is so absurd that any logical response would only serve to dignify an irrationality. I don’t mean to be rude but I think treating life in this way is an abomination akin to nihilism.