Thus, it has always been

The fine-tuned universe

I’m a bit surprised that the anthropic principle or universal constants haven't been mentioned. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the universe appears to be designed and resorts to multiverse theory to explain it away—not exactly science but maybe he’s trying to be a philosopher or just miffed that there’s no rational reason for the laws of physics to be what they are. Change any one of a number of constants just a little and pffft….no universe, no life, and no Dawkins.
 
Spidergoat said:
Any life form that exists will tend to find itself in an environment suitable for that life, otherwise there would be no life to observe it. This is called the anthropic principle, or anthropic bias.
I just did.
 
Something that has an order beyond our ability to comprehend is called chaos. Chaos is unpredictable order.
 
A sportscar can be made of, say 13,566 parts one year, and 14,500 parts the next year. Parts can not only appear in one year that didn't appear in another, the entire design can change. It can suddenly get full-wheel independent suspension.

Living things only change proceeding from previous stages. Animals do not suddenly grow different numbers of bones, and eyes don't suddenly appear in a species that had no eyes. This tells us that there is a different kind of design process going on. Never entire design concepts rethought, but gradual improvement. When examined, such improvements are seen to emerge from selection of advantageous traits from a body of variations through environmental and other factors.

Someday, we may design products such as sportcars using the same method, simulated on computers, something that is already done with software.
 
I agree that science alone cannot explain everything we experience, infact all the great scientists through the ages have pointed this out.
What i dont understand however is why you believe religion should take the default position in balancing science out.
Why not philosophy? it makes much more sense to embrace philosophy as a paradigm to my mind as it isnt a closed-system (unlike religion).
Its an open-system which runs along side and occasionally merges with scientific thought, im not quite sure what we actually need religion *for* anymore to be quite honest.
If the only thing religion has going for it is as a moral guidance system then again i would state that as a closed-system its hopeless at delving into modern ethical problems such as ecology, animal rights, euthenasia.
Religion simply doesnt tell us anything about these things as it pre-dates these moral problems, and even if religion was upto date enough to incorporate them we wouldnt be permitted to play around with the moral framework since it would be offered up as the final word of god.
I personally see ethical philosophy as being the most relevant and Malleable system to deal with morality, and again this being the case i really find it hard to see what exactly we still need religion for.
 
helio, I mistakingly posted this somewhere else, but was as appropriate there as it is here:

I should have made it clear from the first that even though I’m a theist, I greatly resent the traditionalized and institutionalized dogma that organized religion is rightly associated with. While I’m sure there are exceptions, going to church has more to do with community than worship. Faith, to me, is the living of a supreme ideal that is only represented by ideas. I mean, how does a temporal and finite being fully and completely get their mind wrapped around what is, by definition, infinite and self-existing? Our concept of God never be more than relative to the actual. If I may, let me quote from one of the books in my library: religion “would rehabilitate itself if, in addition to its moral mandates, it would give equal consideration to the truths of science, philosophy, and spiritual experience, and to the beauties of the physical creation, the charm of intellectual art, and the grandeur of genuine character achievement.” (I never, ever, quote something as an appeal to authority, but only because it actually reflects my own beliefs.)


Religion does 3 things an ethcal philosophy does not: it unifies the religionist with the cosmos; corroborates his moral values rather than rationalizes personal likes and dislikes; privides him with an experience of companionship with the Divine (however it is conceived).
 
Something that has an order beyond our ability to comprehend is called chaos. Chaos is unpredictable order.

actually something beyond our ability to comprehend is called something beyond our ability to comprehend - something that ultimately (as opposed to 'apparently') has no order is called chaos.

For instance I think you would be hard pressed to accept that a television is chaos (of course a television tends to screen chaos, but thats a seperate issue) simply because a jungle tribe doesn't know how they are constructed
 
My original point was to ilustrate that there is a secular equivilent of everything religion claims to do along with the added bonus of being about to work within an open framework that fosters evolution of attitudes and ideas. I wasnt *just* talking about ethical philosophy per se. :p
Anyway i'll address some points you raised.

Religion does 3 things an ethcal philosophy does not: it unifies the religionist with the cosmos; corroborates his moral values rather than rationalizes personal likes and dislikes; privides him with an experience of companionship with the Divine (however it is conceived).
I believe there are a variety of means to experience unification of the cosmos, in fact ive experienced it first hand myself and i didnt even have to attend church to get there. It is quite possible to experience a more holistic universal vantage point without bringing religion into the equation.
In terms of morality im not quite sure why you believe religion puts forward a non-personal value system, all value systems are by their nature personal. Again the problem with religious value systems is that beyond the golden rule theyre bound up in tradition and local custom. Offen what is put forward as moral in religious works is simply what passed as moral in the time and place that is was written.
Check out God's attitude to slavery and the place of women in society in the old testament if you dont believe me!
This is where we need modern ethical dialouge since antiquated religious texts dont help us in working out what is and isnt moral in a world of animal experimention, genetics and euthenasia.
It seems to me that we have a greater diversity of availale systems today to deal with all the moral and intellectual problems that life throws at us.
I would put forward that there is greater potential to learn about ourselves and others using these open systems than the closed systems of religion in which we are bound from meddling with the core ingredients since they are 'divine' and therefore cannot be modified or played around with.
 
Knowledge originates in science and science deals with facts, and I love it—but only a fool does not recognize its limitations.

Yes we know the limitations of science, however if you are talking supernaturalism, then that's not science, that's superstition!

I am not a fool. Religion—real religion—is not a primitive belief in something imaginary followed by corresponding values that end up being borrowed by secularists, but emerges from experiences alluded to in my first posting: the early realization that things are caused and need a sufficient cause.

No but your an arrogant know it all who still doesn't answer simple questions! ;)

All I ask is that people talk intelligibly about religion or not at all—to learn something about the centuries-old premise of self-existent reality as opposed to emergent properties before likening belief in God to belief in fairies or Zeus

See we all ready hear this BS, what I want to know, however is how the hell can you explain a self manifested entity? That you have failed to answer several times, and how the hell is it not different then Zeus? If the Greek religion would have survived till today, you be plainly explaining here, that Zeus is a self manifested entity!

I am afraid, however, that this is asking too much. Atheist Bertrand Russell said, “Someone living comfortably in a make-believe world has neither reason nor desire to escape.” This is true no matter what the person’s worldview—atheist or religious. When a person’s comfort zone is threatened, they tend to erect defensive barriers rather than taking up the challenge to adapt or create an entirely new worldview.

Actually you had a new world view when you changed from theistic dogma, to objective secularism, however you claim that you changed your mind and reverted back to theistic dogma, sounds to me you were, are simply confused! :rolleyes:

I should have made it clear from the first that even though I’m a theist, I greatly resent the traditionalized and institutionalized dogma that organized religion is rightly associated with.

Oh! I see so we are now a deist! got ya!

I mean, how does a temporal and finite being fully and completely get their mind wrapped around what is, by definition, infinite and self-existing? Our concept of God never be more than relative to the actual.

With that said, how does a mere finite being come up with scriptures mandated by certain gods? Like I said, if Greek mythology would have survived till today, most would be praying to Zeus still!

religion “would rehabilitate itself if, in addition to its moral mandates, it would give equal consideration to the truths of science, philosophy, and spiritual experience, and to the beauties of the physical creation, the charm of intellectual art, and the grandeur of genuine character achievement.”

Nice quote, however reality has shown us that the above has not been the case! Religion was and is nothing more than a tool to control the masses. The shamans, witch doctors, oracles, popes, etc... leaders of these religions found a simple way to make a living, off the backs of who believed their BS, if one was not to believe, they pulled out the unknown to manipulate.

In the past, those who did not believe, were killed, jailed, maned, ridiculed, or burned! and today it happens in Islam.

With a past like that, there's very little religion can do rehabilitate, the damage done to humanity, is incomprehensible, an undeniable that religion has stagnated humanity, as it's still doing today!

Godless
 
Self-manifested deity? Where did I say that? Deliberately misconstruing what a person says is a sure sign of a lack of a cogent argument.
 
Self-manifested deity? Where did I say that? Deliberately misconstruing what a person says is a sure sign of a lack of a cogent argument.

It would stand to reason that he is referring to your "self existant reality" statement that you made in your opening post. I am quite sure you already knew that though.

As far as arguments go, I am still waiting for you to return a debate from some points I raised/questions I asked on this thread, (and others for that matter). Of course it's your choice, you could just spend all your time telling people what constitutes a decent argument, while not making a decent argument.
 
When any normal, rational human being couples that with the appearance of everything from the finely tuned universe to the complexity of a living cell, awe and reverence toward the underlying Cause is to be expected;
Fine tuned?

Please explain how this Universe is "fine-tuned" - and for what purpose?

And then please prove it.:rolleyes:


RS said:
...and “God” is the ideal toward which the awe and reverence is directed.
Really? :eek:
By whom?

My awe and reverence is directed the universe itself, merely for being what it is - no more, no less.

RS said:
... before likening belief in God to belief in fairies or Zeus;
Excuse me, but wasn't Zeus considered a deity for a thousand years or so? And it was only the fact that an unprovable deity came along (in many guises, including Christianity) that put an end to it before science could.

So you are saying it is ok to jump onboard any scientifically unprovables as truth?
 
Self-manifested deity? Where did I say that? Deliberately misconstruing what a person says is a sure sign of a lack of a cogent argument.

It was not said directly but certainly implied.

i.e.
Religion—real religion—is not a primitive belief in something imaginary followed by corresponding values that end up being borrowed by secularists, but emerges from experiences alluded to in my first posting: the early realization that things are caused and need a sufficient cause. When any normal, rational human being couples that with the appearance of everything from the finely tuned universe to the complexity of a living cell, awe and reverence toward the underlying Cause is to be expected; and “God” is the ideal toward which the awe and reverence is directed.

This in essence is the first cause argument. Hence a self manifested deity/entity, caused the first cause, and the first cause was to create the universe. My question as it still remains unanswered: How can a deity self manifest it self out of nothing? Hence theist claim a superior consciousness, this superior consciousness supposedly is eternal, my query is; how that they observe this superior consciousness? I'm prepared to show you, that it was imagined! They wrote down what they imagined, and called it the word of god.
 
I'm not going to waste time showing that the universe is finely tuned. It is so well-documented and so well known that anyone interested in science should be aware it.

And godless, there is no implication at all. There is a difference between "self-existent'" and "self-manifested." You habitually underestimate my arguments and my logic.

Linguistically, "First Cause" is not necessarily "first" in the sense of a long series of event. It can also be "First" in the sense that there is nothing more fundamental. You are indeed correct to state that "self-manifested" is illogical...it is as illogical for God to self-manifest as it is for the universe to self-manifest. Self-existent, however, is not illogical. And that's the problem: how do you get order, consciousness and the like unless it was already present in some state, potential or otherwise?

And Sarkus...please. You are falling into the same trap as a lot of others, like Godless. Equating a self-existent Deity with a deity? An infinite God, by definition, is not a being at all, but being itself.

The Hindus have a saying that goes something like this: In the beginning God was one; being one he became lonely and so he became many. The notion that God is a self-differentiating One in which consciousness is predominant is a lot older than 19th century science and allowable in 20th century science.
 
I'm not going to waste time showing that the universe is finely tuned. It is so well-documented and so well known that anyone interested in science should be aware it.

Too bad, I could have used some of this info, cause the way I see it the universe is quite a chaotic place, unless you would call thousands of asteroids hitting earth "finely tuned" tuned for what? When life on earth nearly got destroyed by a comet 65 million years ago, there's quite lots of evidence of debris falling to earth from space, is this finely tuned to happen in a place that supports life? Finely tuned for whom? It certainly couldn't be for life on earth, since it has been battered so often! :rolleyes:

Linguistically, "First Cause" is not necessarily "first" in the sense of a long series of event.

Well then you better inform just about every damn theist out there! As they all point out the first cause to be god!

The first cause argument tells us that the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence.

Buy from Amazon UK

This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.
http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-cause-argument.html

*Now, it is not possible that in this finite world this pattern of cause and effect should have no limit and should be infinite. We are compelled to acknowledge that it must terminate with some ultimate cause. The ultimate cause is God. These verses set forth this argument very concisely and affirm that the system of cause and effect terminates in God. One may ask that if this the case, then what is the cause of God? Well, asking this question would be illogical and would nullify the very meaning of First or Ultimate cause. Ultimate cause means that a cause which was caused independently and it was not the effect of another cause. In a logical sense, we can say;
a. Every created thing has a cause
b. Every effect is the indication of a former cause.
c. All causes finally indicate a single cause
d. This ultimate single cause is the act of God.
Speaking in scientific terms, we know that our whole phenomenal Universe is an effect of a cause. The creation of Erath is the effect of Sun, the cause of Sun is the effect of Galaxies, the cause of Galaxies is the effect of Nebulae, the cause of Nebulae is the effect of Big Bang, the cause of Big Bang is the effect of a single Nebula and the cause of single Nebula is the effect of act of a Unified force (i.e. God). http://www.skepticatheist.com/articles/firstcause.php *

You are indeed correct to state that "self-manifested" is illogical...it is as illogical for God to self-manifest as it is for the universe to self-manifest. Self-existent, however, is not illogical. And that's the problem: how do you get order, consciousness and the like unless it was already present in some state, potential or otherwise?

Oh! I disagree that the universe didn't manifest itself, why would this be illogical? When you have particles that manifest into existence and then out of existence in an instance, then why would it be illogical to have a universe self manifest?

Atomic particles such as electrons can spontaneously form within space and then dissolve back into space being annihilated by anti electrons (positrons)
http://www.supraconsciousnessnetwork.org/DPSpacetimesuperstring.htm

Didn't these atomic particles self manifest?

Self-existent, however, is not illogical. And that's the problem: how do you get order, consciousness and the like unless it was already present in some state, potential or otherwise?

I suppose it's all on perspective, while our brains are naturally designed to see order, it's easier for us to determine order in the universe, however it's not entirely true, as shown by some physicists the universe is quite a chaotic place. Consciousness exists in every living species on earth, however only humans can reason, and also "human consciousness" is an invention of human initiative towards survival.

Going back to the the earliest writings and studying particularly the many early civilizations of the Near East, Jaynes came to the conclusion that most of the people in these archaic cultures were *not* subjectively conscious as we understand it today.

Jaynes provides extensive illustrations--ranging from Sumer, Ur, Babylon, Egyptian, Early Mycenean, Hebrew, and even Mayan and Asian cultures--that support his theory of the bicameral mind. But he mainly focuses on Mycenean (Greek) material--and it is this material which we will examine mostly in this post.

Jaynes bluntly declares "There is in general no consciousness in the ILIAD." Analyzing Homer's great epic, Jaynes came to the conclusion that the characters of the Trojan siege did not have conscious minds, no introspection, as we know it in the modern human. [Julian Jaynes, THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976, p. 69]
http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/conscious/conscious3.html

I suggested once to you, however I suppose your arrogance impeded to even take a look at it! :(
 
Congratulations Godless!
Too bad, I could have used some of this info, cause the way I see it the universe is quite a chaotic place, unless you would call thousands of asteroids hitting earth "finely tuned" tuned for what? When life on earth nearly got destroyed by a comet 65 million years ago, there's quite lots of evidence of debris falling to earth from space, is this finely tuned to happen in a place that supports life? Finely tuned for whom? It certainly couldn't be for life on earth, since it has been battered so often!
You have single-handedly destroyed your credibility as a science-minded person!
 
You better take some lessons in logic, Godless, "particles that manifest into existence and then out of existence" is a self-existing state.

You are quickly becoming irrelevant to any discussion
 
Congratulations Godless!

You have single-handedly destroyed your credibility as a science-minded person!
enlighten us as to how he has, or shut the f**k up.
You better take some lessons in logic, Godless, "particles that manifest into existence and then out of existence" is a self-existing state.

You are quickly becoming irrelevant to any discussion
this is a discussion forum, so enlighten us as to how he's wrong, let's hear you side of the arguement, instead of saying he's illogical, show how he is, or shut the f**k up.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to waste time showing that the universe is finely tuned. It is so well-documented and so well known that anyone interested in science should be aware it.
I repeat...

Finely tuned BY WHOM?
Finely tuned FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

If it is so well documented, please put forward, in easy-to-understand terms, how you have come to the conclusion that it is finely tuned.

If you can not support even this supposedly simple claim then maybe you better revisit your thinking.

So please, just answer the question. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top