-->
@Stronn
puddle thinking bad
The Universe Is Fine Tuned by God
Posts
Total:
85
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hypothetically if we had a universe where 100% of it was habitable for human life would that be good evidence that said universe was created just for humans?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
coincedence?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It is a yes or no question. I just want to hear your answer.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
sure, the universe is made for humans, but atheists say we are just one spec
-->
@Dr.Franklin
sure, the universe is made for humans,
As I just said I am not referring to our universe. I am referring to a hypothetical one where 100% of it is liveable for human life.
This hypothetical universe, if such a thing existed, is it reasonable to conclude it was made for the purpose of human habitation?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
sure, whats the point
-->
@Dr.Franklin
sure
Okay cool that makes sense I'll take that answer. No argument here.
Of course that is just a hypothetical universe we have not observed and probably doesn't exist. We know our universe isn't like that because of, you know, Antarctica... Pluto... Mercury... Saturn...
Let's take another hypothetical universe, let's call it universe HU-2 (hypothetical uniniverse number 2). Let's say that 1% of HU-2 is habitable for human life and if humans travel to any of the rest of the 99% of it without complex, specialized, and expensive gear then they will die within a few seconds at most.
Just like last time I won't argue with your answer, just curious if you can give a quick yes or no on this one - Is it logical to conclude that HU-2 was specifically created for the purpose of human habitation?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
if we are talking about theoretical possible universes, that is possible and not logically inchoerent
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Okay, 'technically possible' and ''not incoherent'. Sounds simple enough.
Of course HU-2 is significantly more habitable than our own universe. Most of the trillion or so cubic kilometers of the earth is magma or solid rock so if a human were to teleport to anywhere within the area our planet takes up the odds of them being alive at the end of the trip is much lower than winning the lottery.
So let's take a look at HU-3, it is much closer to being like our own universe than HU-2 is. 0.0000000002% of HU-3 is habitable for human life. That is still a lot more than our universe, what with the void of space and all, but this is almost my last question so I will be generous. 0.0000000002% it is.
Is it logical to conclude that HU-3 was created specifically for the purpose of human habitation?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
maybe
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The problem with this is that you cannot make general statements with a sample size of one.
maybe
Okay so we take HU-3, a universe that is much much better suited for human life than our own universe and it 'might' have been created for the purpose of human habitation? okay, sounds like you aren't completely sure though. Yet when we look at the less-suitable-for-life universe you say 'definately yes'. Okay.
Well here is the penultimate question then. If I take a petri dish filled with E. Coli bacteria and put a few drops of iodine in it I will kill off most of the bacteria. I remember doing this in highschool biology class, we would use iodine for the purpose of killing off bacteria in a petri dish. Let's say that I kill off all but .00001% of them, orders of magnitude more survivable than that 0.0000000002% figure from HU-3 which is in turn orders of magnitude more survivable than our universe.
So, is it reasonable to conclude that this iodine-sterilized petri dish was optimized for E. Coli habitation?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
One ratio point off.
So, they are not one point off.
And so, that's the way it is.
-->
@zedvictor4
do you know the odds sir
-->
@PressF4Respect
well guess what, 5000000000 ubniverses dont exist because god didnt create them
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Sure, I mean WTF
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Hypothetically if we had a universe where 100% of it was habitable for human life would that be good evidence that said universe was created just for humans?Okay so we take HU-3, a universe that is much much better suited for human life than our own universe and it 'might' have been created for the purpose of human habitation? Yet when we look at the less-suitable-for-life universe you say 'definately yes'. Okay.
Suitable for life does not necessarily equate to human life or human bodies, God creates more than one kind of form or embodiment that corresponds with its planets environment and so the soul can exist anywhere in the universe where there is a formation inhabitable. There are countless galaxies, solar systems and planet arrangements we have no way of observing to testify if there is life elsewhere within the universe so to believe or assume it's all vacant is somewhat absurd (not saying that you do).
What happens is when God sets up an environment like say Earth so that there can eventually be inhabitants, the forms on that planet evolve and adapt to their surroundings. So while human bodies are sustained on Earth they are also limited to that particular planet. Likewise any forms that exist within our universe elsewhere they also are adapted in accordance to their environment and limited to their solar system.
Most people (Theists) assume that God made the entire universe for human forms no, that is a misconception even by believers.....actually God sets up the environment and then creates form, many kinds. The universe was not created just for human bodies...the universe was created for galaxies, solar systems and planets and then God develops the appropriate bodies so that the soul can experience through. So the forms created through processes vary according to the physics and arrangement of what part of the universe they are in.
If I were a non-believer I wouldn't be looking at how most of the universe is uninhabitable for human form, I would be looking at the planetary systems and how it could be inhabitable to another kind of form and why they even appear at all. Does it ever cross anyone's mind why on earth planets form in the first place (not how, but why)? I mean really look at it....you have a solar system where you find a light and heat source, you have the formation of planets....PLANETS for God's sake, planets that orbit and spin so everything stays put! then you have the appearance of life through embodiment, sentient beings. I mean it should be so obvious to anyone that there is a Creator and a Creator that utilizes intelligent processes everything from energy, the Big Bang, the arrangement of galaxies and planets and then evolution of embodiments.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The soul already exists, it just needs a place to have fun. But the forms that appear through evolution need to be specific, and specific to its surroundings so they can be sustained within that environment. The universe itself is a giant molding pot where all things can be experienced, people are going to be shocked when they realize we are not alone here lol. It is estimated that there are one to two TRILLION observable galaxies within the universe and anyone thinks or assumes that it's all vacant lol? I mean why would anyone assume that including believers? God is not limited to creation on Earth, God can produce anything in any number of galaxies and planets. That's why they exist.
When you leave this world it's actually the same deal, you have a parallel universe (or multiverse) stocked full of planetary systems, heavens, hells, paradises, ghettos, societies ect ect and things you could never dream of. God is a fun God and the journey of the soul is a long one.
-->
@PressF4Respect
It's more of an interpretation I believe. Taking into account everything that is happening and all the processes involved from the beginning to what we observe currently. More like stepping back and observing the whole picture instead of focusing on the steps. But even the steps and process should ring a bell for anyone TBH. Processes are associated with mind and intelligence....
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That's quite comprehensive Dr.OneWord.
-->
@Paul
Mr.oneword
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hey, that was fourish words!
-->
@Paul
wow very much cool
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Wow four words, your moving up in the world.
-->
@Paul
The third argument for God, a philosophical argument, is the Ontological Argument first written up by Saint Anselm in the 11th Century. It follows like this:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
This argument is very simple and true. If an MGB(Maximally Great Being) could exist, then an MGB would have to exist because it is maximally great. The MGB here is God. Let’s go through this argument with each premise.
First, it is certainly possible that an MGB could exist. An MGB would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and morally perfect. However, only a maximally great being could exist instead of a maximally great pizza for example because it is an object and objects have no intrinsic value to rank it whether it is great or not. With a being who has a soul and a state of mind, we can conclude that it is maximally great. It is the greatest being ever. Next, if it is possible that a MGB exists then it has to be in a possible world. A possible world meaning any other world that includes different things that is logically coherent. A unicorn or a leprechaun exists in a possible world because it could exist. However, a Married Bachelor or a circle does not have pi as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
We know an MGB could exist and is logically coherent, then it has to exist in every possible world. To illustrate this,let’s say we have 100 possible worlds. It is better to be in 56 of those 100 possible worlds than 14. It is better to be in more possible worlds than not. So, a maximally great being would have to maximally great in the fact that it exists in every possible world. Now, if God existed in every possible world, it would logically follow that God, an MGB, would exist in the actual world. Finally, if God existed in the actual world, it would exist now. God exists.
God is then defined as a necessary being then. In Philosophy, there are 3 different types of beings:
1.Contingent being: A being that could exist, but may not necessarily exist (such as a unicorn)
2. Impossible being: A being that is impossible, such as an invisible pink unicorn or a married bachelor.
3. Necessary being: A being who exists necessarily and whose non-existence is impossible (such as numbers, logic, etc).
God is a Necessary being because, in order to be maximally great, it has to be necessary. It is not an MGB if it is impossible to be formed or a Contingent being that could exist. Follow logically, and if an MGB could exist, which is most certainly can, then it has to exist.
This argument only applies to God. If you were to say that a maximally great pen could exist then it has to exist, couldn’t you say that anything in your imagination could exist? No, there are no definitions that could define a maximally great pen or cheeseburger, but there are real parameters for a MGB. However, even a pen could not be maximally great in the first place even if it was defined. You could always find a better pen and if you try to Think of the best possible pen, you can always think of one which is better. Until, eventually, you arrive at an all-powerful, all-knowing, all good, sentient pen which can change its form if desired and only appear to those it seems fit, etc, etc etc. in other words, you get God, choosing to take the form of a pen. Yet, if the pen was all-powerful and all-knowing and all good, and capable of taking any form, the question remains why it should stay a pen. God exists because of this classic 942-year-old argument.{LINK}
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
We know an MGB could exist and is logically coherent, then it has to exist in every possible world. To illustrate this,let’s say we have 100 possible worlds. It is better to be in 56 of those 100 possible worlds than 14. It is better to be in more possible worlds than not. So, a maximally great being would have to maximally great in the fact that it exists in every possible world. Now, if God existed in every possible world, it would logically follow that God, an MGB, would exist in the actual world. Finally, if God existed in the actual world, it would exist now. God exists.
This argument only applies to God. If you were to say that a maximally great pen could exist then it has to exist, couldn’t you say that anything in your imagination could exist? No, there are no definitions that could define a maximally great pen or cheeseburger, but there are real parameters for a MGB. However, even a pen could not be maximally great in the first place even if it was defined. You could always find a better pen and if you try to Think of the best possible pen, you can always think of one which is better. Until, eventually, you arrive at an all-powerful, all-knowing, all good, sentient pen which can change its form if desired and only appear to those it seems fit, etc, etc etc. in other words, you get God, choosing to take the form of a pen. Yet, if the pen was all-powerful and all-knowing and all good, and capable of taking any form, the question remains why it should stay a pen. God exists because of this classic 942-year-old argument.{LINK}
I wrote that
-->
@Dr.Franklin
WOOOOOW. Danky franky turning it up a notch! Damn.The third argument for God, a philosophical argument, is the Ontological Argument first written up by Saint Anselm in the 11th Century. It follows like this:1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.This argument is very simple and true. If an MGB(Maximally Great Being) could exist, then an MGB would have to exist because it is maximally great. The MGB here is God. Let’s go through this argument with each premise.First, it is certainly possible that an MGB could exist. An MGB would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and morally perfect. However, only a maximally great being could exist instead of a maximally great pizza for example because it is an object and objects have no intrinsic value to rank it whether it is great or not. With a being who has a soul and a state of mind, we can conclude that it is maximally great. It is the greatest being ever. Next, if it is possible that a MGB exists then it has to be in a possible world. A possible world meaning any other world that includes different things that is logically coherent. A unicorn or a leprechaun exists in a possible world because it could exist. However, a Married Bachelor or a circle does not have pi as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.We know an MGB could exist and is logically coherent, then it has to exist in every possible world. To illustrate this,let’s say we have 100 possible worlds. It is better to be in 56 of those 100 possible worlds than 14. It is better to be in more possible worlds than not. So, a maximally great being would have to maximally great in the fact that it exists in every possible world. Now, if God existed in every possible world, it would logically follow that God, an MGB, would exist in the actual world. Finally, if God existed in the actual world, it would exist now. God exists.God is then defined as a necessary being then. In Philosophy, there are 3 different types of beings:1.Contingent being: A being that could exist, but may not necessarily exist (such as a unicorn)2. Impossible being: A being that is impossible, such as an invisible pink unicorn or a married bachelor.3. Necessary being: A being who exists necessarily and whose non-existence is impossible (such as numbers, logic, etc).God is a Necessary being because, in order to be maximally great, it has to be necessary. It is not an MGB if it is impossible to be formed or a Contingent being that could exist. Follow logically, and if an MGB could exist, which is most certainly can, then it has to exist.This argument only applies to God. If you were to say that a maximally great pen could exist then it has to exist, couldn’t you say that anything in your imagination could exist? No, there are no definitions that could define a maximally great pen or cheeseburger, but there are real parameters for a MGB. However, even a pen could not be maximally great in the first place even if it was defined. You could always find a better pen and if you try to Think of the best possible pen, you can always think of one which is better. Until, eventually, you arrive at an all-powerful, all-knowing, all good, sentient pen which can change its form if desired and only appear to those it seems fit, etc, etc etc. in other words, you get God, choosing to take the form of a pen. Yet, if the pen was all-powerful and all-knowing and all good, and capable of taking any form, the question remains why it should stay a pen. God exists because of this classic 942-year-old argument.{LINK}
Unfortunately, my dude, this argument employs special pleading to avoid the problems that Gaunilo points out with the original ontological argument.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
well guess what, 5000000000 ubniverses dont exist because god didnt create them
1. How do you know that 5000000000 ubniverses[sic!] dont exist?
2. How do you know that if one of the variables (say, the ratio between the mass of an electron and the mass of a proton) was different than it is in our universe, that the universe could not exist?
-->
@PressF4Respect
we tested protons and electrons, boooom
WOOOOOW. Danky franky turning it up a notch! Damn.
HAHAHAHAH
what are the p[roblems with anselms argument