The Universe is very finely tuned, this shows BIG evidence of God, and whoever thinks the Universe didn't require a creator seriously needs to... think.
That's the problem Shakaib. They refuse to even comtemplate the possibility. Their closed mindedness and their inability to think for themselves blinds them.
The whole idea of this forum is based on a book that somebody else thought up of. Also, I have yet to see one of these atheistic individuals ever dissagree with anybody like Dawkins or Hitchens, because those men are the gods of these folks. Their idols. They do not beleive in God, so they turn to men and idolize them.
The irony is uncanny.
I'll reply to both of these because, well, I might as well nip this in the bud.
The 'fine tuning' argument neither establishes nor falsifies the existence of a divine entity. The simple counter-argument to the 'fine-tuning' argument is this: what alternative
kind of universe, developing according to natural processes, would one expect us to exist in
? It's like the old Zen koan:
"Why am I here?"
"Where else would you be?"
If we were here despite the universe being configured in such a way that we ought not to exist at all
, according to the laws of nature, then that
would be a matter of concern, something that would demand an explanation.
But the problem is, when you start getting down to the question of "why is the universe the way it is?" (which physicists are
attempting to investigate), the obvious provisional rejoinder is simply this: as opposed to what?
A universe that is inimical
to human life? So what? Do you think we'd be able to observe such a phenomenon? How do we know such a phenomenon is possible - because someone's looked at a bunch of arbitrary constants we use to reconcile our own man-made Metric system of measurement with reality, and said 'hey, if these were all different, nothing would work!' That establishes nothing
. Nada, zilch, zero, rien, null, zip. Nothing.
And the thing is, one can posit
a kind of deistic entity that simply "lit the blue-touch paper" and let natural processes carry on for billions of years according to their own devices, which is the most
that anyone might be required to concede from any such 'fine-tuning' argument (if it weren't so horribly flawed), but - and here's the killer - that's not
the kind of entity you guys believe in. It does not back up one iota the position that either of you hold. And it still holds no explanatory power - it still does not explain how some sort of deistic entity got there in the first place; and it is still arguably less parsimonious than brane cosmology or M-Theory or any of the assortment of alternative ideas that people bandy about as putative explanations. All it does is take us back where we started - that attempts at "proofs" of divine existence are just as futile as they ever were. In short, girls, you got nothing.
You may not like the way I think, but please don't insult me by saying I don't. You say we're closed-minded, but if all you offer is arguments that vanish in a puff of smoke when you attempt to analyze them for any real content, maybe you should consider that perhaps it's not our minds that are at fault, but the arguments you present?
Come on, throw us a bone here. Give us something we can actually work with. Surely all those great, open-minded
theists can come up with something somewhat more compelling than this.
And for the record, nihilanth, although I cannot speak for others it is remiss of you to make the blanket assertion that people here 'idolize' the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. I was a non-theist long before I'd heard of either of them. Dawkins is okay, knows his biology, but TGD
wasn't the best material I've read on the subject of God. (Indeed, I'd argue that some of the posts on this forum and its predecessor have been of better quality.) As for Hitchens, he's not really on my radar. Where I come from is simply this: it's the ideas
that are relevant, not the people who came up with them. (And I wouldn't say that Dawkins came up with anything particularly new in TGD