Bolded Italicized: What does that even mean? 90+ Billion light years across, to have 1% of a planet, 1/1000000th the size of the star it orbits which looks like a dot when viewed from the inner region of the Oort cloud, One star of hundreds of millions of stars in this galaxy alone out of billions and billions to "fine tune" this speck for human life? How incredibly wastefully inefficient for an All-Powerful and Perfect god.
Or how incredibly extravagant a display to show His power and grandeur to those He made in His likeness.
I'm stuck at home with a finely tuned
sinus infection, and catching up, (isn't it amazing how some of the smallest organisms on this planet are so finely tuned
as to be able to kill us finely tuned
beings? Proof of god, no doubt) so I have some time to reflect on your posts. I'm almost ready to jump to theism, but would like to make sure I fully understand the consequences of your devastating arguments. In other words, this is where your arguments tend to lead.
First, life as we know it occupies such a tiny niche and infinitesimally small part of the universe, that this fine tuning
is proof of the existence of your god, Yahweh? We can prove this by attempting to falsify the argument by reversing it. Hence, if almost all of the universe supported our kind of life that wouldn't be fine tuning
, hence god would not exist. Right? But you would argue the opposite then, yes? Basically, the argument by percentage is irrelevant. Your argument is simply "universe therefore god". But, I'm trying to convert, so let's run with that
Second and similarly, we're so finely tuned
in that life as we know it (Jim) is reliant on some the most abundant elements in the universe. Clearly this is proof of fine tuning
because the reverse of that, life formed out of rare elements, would be less probable which would imply less proof of fine tuning
. But again, the theist argument would then reverse and still be claimed as proof
. You know, I'm still not getting this, perhaps you could explain it to me?
Summing up the first two, by sheer numbers alone the universe as an entity is staggeringly unlikely, therefore fine tuning
. Hence any more favourable arrangement would not be fine tuning
, but, of course, the theist would most likely argue "whatever it is, fine-tuning, therefore god".
Third, for such a finely tuned
entity as the universe to exist it simply couldn't happen by "chance". Therefore, this extraordinarily unlikely occurrence was initiated by an even more unlikely, even more complex, even more finely tuned
entity. Because this probability is even less likely than a spontaneous universe, this proves that your god exists, and did it? I'm really feeling it now, I may be convinced. Let's proceed.
Fourth, this amazing finely tuned
entity, that produced this finely tuned
universe, that hosts us finely tuned
beings, exists out of time and space (this is the usual argument, I'm assuming it's your position being as this god is undetectable). We must worship this unlikely being for his deeds. However, from talking to uncle Pascal, I now wonder how can I know that this is the correct god to worship? There are many creation stories and if this finely tuned
universe is so unlikely to exist spontaneously, I could be in deep shit for worshipping the wrong creator.
Please tell me, dear correspondent, would not I be better served to make no choice then piss off one of the other beings that might, slim chance I know, be able to beat Chuck Norris in a fair fight?
What if it was a team of creators? Am I not putting myself in a position where only
a finely tuned
Chuck Norris could protect me from such devastation from not worshiping the correct creators?
Fifth, and I'm so close to believing now, because the universe couldn't possibly be eternal it needs a creator. However, the impossibility of an eternal universe is trumped by the non-impossible existence of an even more improbable, even more complicated now-possible eternal being that can do six impossible things before breakfast, one of which being making a finely tuned
universe. Beating up Chuck Norris though, remains to be proven.
But, please help me overcome my doubt here. How can I know that this creator is
eternal? Perhaps our creator was created by an even more powerful creator and so on. Now I know you are likely to say "infinite regress isn't possible" but what if it isn't infinite but, say, five levels deep? It's as likely, you know.
Now I'm in the position of worshipping our creator but, bloody hell, now I'm ass-kissing the frigging first-line manager and seriously dissing the CEO by denying his existence. That's some scary shit and I'm not sure I can rely on my first-line to protect me on account of his piss-poor performance, For example, witness my finely tuned
Finally, I'm struggling to understand the reason to worship Yahweh when his actual involvement in our time is so minimal.
If we are going with a cosmological argument, then lets agree that time did not exist before the big bang, and use the theist proposition (wild-assed unsupported assertion) of an entity outside of space and time
- whatever the fuck that actually means.
Assuming (absent proof, it seems the theist thing to do) that this god created the big bang, and we insert this god in the 10-43
seconds gap in inflationary theory of a universe of 13.8 billion years, that's a pretty insignificant amount of time for which to command such a high salary. You can do the calculation yourself, but it's an absurdly small contribution. Admittedly I'm ignoring his occasional popping in to part a sea here, burn a bush there, rarely sparing the occasional person during so-called natural disasters, and all the finding of keys, as not even meeting minimum expectations for a being of his ability.
Frankly, this god thing comes over as somewhat lazy, subject to resource action, and perhaps we should be ignoring it as part of a remediation plan.
So, look, I'm really trying to believe but I need help in ignoring the lack of evidence; learning how to use non sequiturs
such as extremely unlikely things being almost impossible but more unlikely things being certainties; using non-falsifiable arguments that can always be claimed to support my position; and turning a blind eye to all the indications that Yahweh and his creation story is simply a tale told by bronze and iron age goat herders intent on amusing their homies.
One more thing. Yes. there's a little (well, a lot, it's Christmas) of snark here but if you are leaning toward arguing that this is disrespectful, you should see how this would look if it were to counter such simplistic arguments with the actual complexity of reality.
Still, seriously, if you can actually tell me how your arguments hold water in the context above, I would love to see that. Until then, I'm just going to have to stick with the position that reality doesn't care about being liked, nor does it need to pander to my ego, or give a shit about my existence. Or, to put it another way, reality just is.
tl;dr. Any danger of something a little more convincing than an argument from wishful thinking?