GE .. you kinda skipped my questions, leaping straight to your proofs. I"d appreciate an answer: they're not facetious, and not an attack. They are the counter-questions to the objections you raise; if you're going to target 'philosophical naturalism', then you need to explain how the holes you're going to attempt to plug with 'god' deserve 'god'. Do you understand?
The universe is in no way 'finely tuned to create life'. In fact, the vast majority of the universe is, as best we understand, inimical to life to an incredible degree.
Without fine-tuning, there would be no universe at all. Even the elementary forces are finely tuned. So is the expansion rate of the universe..... The vast majority cannot host life, but our earth can, and that is due to a incredible arrangement , which is finely tuned. The odds this to be due to chance are so big, that chance becomes a bad explanation.
Please explain how you compute these odds? What is the likelihood of life in the universe? How many other planets have life (understanding that we discovered the first extrasolar 'rocky planet' in December of 2010)? Does life exist only in the 'habitable zone', or is that limited to earth-like life? By what presupposition do we assume that we are special?
The odds may be
astronomical, but the truth is simply that we do not know the odds. No one does - we have a sample size of 1, and, until last year, a limited scope of understanding. As our understanding grows, we'll come to understand the odds quite a bit better than we do.
Again, our understanding continues to grow.
Why do we need to leap to 'god' in any sense when we continue to learn?
However, we can safely say that the universe is in its present configuration entirely due to the interaction of natural forces within it.
based on what can you make that claim ?
The sum of human knowledge to-date. Again, we understand the expansion of the universe back to about a picosecond before the big bang until now; every single observable fact points to the truth of the theory we've designed to explain the universe as it is. If a competing fact enters evidence, it will have to be incorporated into the model, which will require rewriting the model.
However, so far, we've accounted for all available facts.
To that extent, the universe itself is explanation of its existence; to-wit: we observe what is, and in explaining what is, we come to understand how it came to be. Thus far, there is no requirement for God as a proximate cause despite holes in our knowledge;
So how can we based on what we do know confidently say, the universe is the result of purely natural forces ?
Not knowing everything is not a bad thing; defining what we do not know is how we know where to look for answers. Putting 'god' into the holes is unnecessary. As far as we know, the universe that exists is as a result of natural processes - if we discover evidence that this is not the case, we'll have to sort that out. So far, that has not happened, and based on the history of human discovery, it is unlikely to happen.
we don't yet understand abiogensis, for instance, but are making strides.
Over sixty years of research have brought us quit far. So we know fairly sure that naturalistic answers do not withstand scrutiny.
Dr. Monty White:
<snip for length>
The fact that one experiment can be falsified is a good thing - falsification is the basis of science. However, using your experiment as an example:
- the experimenter did
generate amino acids, the basis of life, spontaneously.
Scientists will debate the validity of the experiment re: the applicability of it to early earth, and that's fine! That kind of dissent is good in science; it leads to more experimentation, more data, more understanding, and, eventually, comprehension. It causes our knowledge to 'self-correct'.
In the end, however, it's just one study by one researcher.
Do you know the story of the Manhattan Project? When developing 'atomic explosives', do you think the team immediately sprang the bomb, fully formed, straight from theory without intervening failures? Do you think that the first babbage machine (which led to modern computers) went straight from concept to prototype without intervening piles of junk? Do you think that there weren't hundreds of failures by hundreds of men before the Wright brothers flew?
Why must the acquisition of knowledge be perfect immediately or be invalid?
We do more experiments. We learn more. We close more gaps. So far, there is no need for God.
May I ask: Why is it that our lack of understanding immediately predecates a god?
So you admit there is a lack of understanding, therefore you have no solid base to conclude philosophical naturalism is true. Did i understand that correctly ?
Nope. We have quite a solid base - your narrow sphere of abiogenesis (for instance) isn't enough to preclude the truth of the theories that have led us to researching it. That's just one small piece of the puzzle; given that every other aspect of biology has a natural explanation, why do I need God to fill in the spot we don't know yet, but are learning?
Similarly, why should we assume a God when we have a phenomenon we do not yet understand?
I have not brought God into the game in my inicial post, have i ?
You have, in others. You ask this entire question because you want to insert a supernatural cause into a gap in knowledge. I freely admit the gap, but my question remains: why should we insert god (or the supernatural) into it?
Do you posit that we have reached the absolute limits of human knowledge and endeavor?
My initial question has not gone to agnostics, but to the ones, that held that philosophical naturalism is true.
All scientists are agnostic toward science - we know it works, but we also know it can be disproven by additional knowledge at any time. This concept of "philosophical naturalism" - which you have not yet defined - if it exists by evidence, has validity. The idea that the universe is all there is (if that's your definition) is backed up by empirical evidence that is simple: we have yet to find anything that isn't part of the universe.
What's the problem here?
There's no reason to. The universe's existence is prima face evidence of the existence of nature, and natural law.
It seems you do not know the claim of philosophicla naturalism : namely the natural world is all there is ( aka no God required )
that's precisely what I said above: there is no reason to insert God into the current understanding of the universe.