Please Present The Best Explanation For Our Existence

[believeingod]

You are making the, "glass fits the water" argument. Most of those parameters can have a wide range of values. The others are conditions we evolved to survive. Most of these conditions are far from ideal. If our solar system was farther from the galactic center there would be less risk of being wiped out by a supernova or a GRB.

 

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm

 

If the sun were any further from the center of the galaxy, planets could have not formed. If it were any closer to the center, stellar density would interfere with our orbit and we would fall out of orbit

 

 

The Earths distance from the sun falls within a wide range of locations it could be.

 

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-system-design/probability-life-earth-apr-2004

 

DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.

 

 

 

 

If Venus had a thinner atmosphere and mars had a thicker atmosphere both could have liquid water.

 

but misses to have all other properties, needed for life.

 

 

Europa has TWICE as much liquid water as Earth.

 

 

but misses to have all other properties, needed for life.

 

 

 

When life first formed on Earth, the moon was one-tenth its' present distance and a day was 6-8 hours.

 

 

how do you know ?

 

The needed minerals and water are amoung the most abundant substances in the universe.

 

 

So what ?

 

We can detect organic compounds floating in space.

 

Non with homochirality, needed for life.

 

 

 

The compostion of Earths atmosphere has flucuated wildly over its history.

 

 

so what ?

 

 

 

The oxygen was put there by life itself.

 

So what ?

 

 

Unusually thin atmosphere

 

Why is the moon important to life on earth? The collision of the small planet with the earth resulted in the ejection of the majority of the earth's primordial atmosphere. If this collision had not occurred, we would have had an atmosphere similar to that of Venus, which is 80 times that of the earth (equivalent to being one mile beneath the ocean). Such a thick atmosphere on Venus resulted in a runaway greenhouse affect, leaving a dry planet with a surface temperature of 800°F. The earth would have suffered a similar fate if the majority of its primordial atmosphere had not been ejected into outer space. In fact, the Earth is 20% more massive than Venus and further away from the Sun, both factors of which should have lead to a terrestrial atmosphere much thicker than that of Venus. For some strange reason, we have a very thin atmosphere - just the right density to maintain the presence of liquid, solid and gaseous water necessary to life (coincidence or design?).

 

 

The ozone layer is inadequate, if you are outside long enough you get cancer.

[believeingod]

<p> </p>

<div>how about if there were no ozon layer at all ?</div>

<div> </div>

<div>THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer. </div>

<div> </div>

<div>

The magnetic field varies greatly and even reverses periodically.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field. </div>

<div> </div>

<div>

Jupiter doesn't attract all asteroids, in fact it causes most of them. The asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars exist bcause of Jupiter. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs came from this belt.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>The need for Jupiter-sized planets at 5 AU from its star</div>

<div> </div>

<div>We have already discussed the destabilizing effects of large planets in our Solar System. However, these large bodies are required for life to exist on the Earth. A recent study implicates Jupiter as the indirect cause of oceans on the earth. Several studies have concluded that comets brought water to the earth. However, there are problems with this theory. The water on the earth contains 150 ppm deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, which is five or six times the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio found in the sun and in the solar nebula gas. In addition, it's only about a third of the deuterium-to-hydrogen ratio measured in comets Halley, Hyakutake, and Hale-Bopp. However, the ratio of deuterium-to-hydrogen in meteorites is similar to that seen in the Earth's oceans. Scientists have hypothesized that the presence of Jupiter sent large amounts of water-containing meteorites into the inner Solar System soon after it was forming. It is also possible that Jupiter was also responsible for sending the Mars-sized planet that formed the moon. What is unique is that Jupiter-sized planets are not found as far out as 5 AU in other stellar systems. In fact, nearly all large planets have been found to be closer to their stars than the earth is to the Sun (which would remove all rocky planets in the habitable zone from those systems). For more information, see Only Solar Systems With Jupiters May Harbor Life (from spacedaily.com).</div>

<div> </div>

<div>Despite having been responsible for the shower of meteors that pelted the early earth, Jupiter is now our great protector and is responsible for collecting and ejecting a large proportion of the comets that enter into orbit around the Sun (e.g., comet Shoemaker-Levy). Without Jupiter life on Earth at this time would be difficult or impossible due to the large number of cometary collisions (approximately 1,000-10,000 times more collisions) with the Earth (5). There have been many large planets found around other stars recently, but none of these planets are far enough away from their star (most orbit at a position comparable to Mercury) to stabilize the orbits of planets in the zone that can support life or protect these inner planets from cometary bombardment. The presence of Jupiter-like planets in the universe is a rare event. According to Dr. Peter D. Ward of the University of Washington, "All the Jupiters seen today [31 to date] are bad Jupiters. Ours is the only good one we know of. And it's got to be good, or you're thrown out into dark space or into your sun." (See Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, click for review). Is this coincidence or design?</div>

<div> </div>

<div> </div>

<div> </div>

<div>

The tilt of the Earths axis also varies.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>Axial tilt and eccentricity of orbit</div>

<div> </div>

<div>The earth is titled on its axis at an angle of 23.5°. This is important, because it accounts for the seasons. Two factors impact the progression of seasons. The most important is the location of land masses on the earth. Nearly all of the continental land mass is located in the Northern Hemisphere. Since land has a lower capacity to absorb the Sun's energy, the earth is much warmer when the Northern Hemisphere is pointing towards the Sun. This happens to be the point at which the earth is farthest from the Sun (the aphelion of its orbit). If the opposite were true, the seasons on the earth would be much more severe (hotter summers and colder winters). For more information, see Aphelion Away! from the NASA website. <</div>

<div> </div>

<div>

Volcanic activity and earthquakes have also greatly varied.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place. Mars once had such activity, but appears to be inactive now.</div>

<div> </div>

<div> </div>

<div> </div>

<div>

The thickness of the Earth's crust varies all over the planet.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>Unique continental crust and tectonic activity</div>

<div> </div>

<div>Recent evidence tells us that the earth is unique in many ways, even compared to the other rocky planets in our Solar System. In a recent study (2), Dr. Roberta Rudnick says that the earth has a unique continental crust, which is different from any other planet in our Solar System (even Venus, our "sister planet"). The mechanisms which resulted in this unique continental crust is not entirely certain as she stated, "Perhaps the greatest dilemma facing those interested in understanding how the continents formed is their composition." However, the earth's crust is much thinner (4 km) than that of Venus (30 km). Tectonic processes cannot happen with such thick plates. If most of the crust of the earth had not been blown away during the formation of the moon, the earth would have no continents, but would be completely covered by water (see The Moon And Plate Tectonics: Why We Are Alone from spacedaily.com). The tectonic processes which recycle the crust are extremely important in maintaining life on our planet by recycling minerals and nutrients (coincidence or design?).</div>

<div> </div>

 

[believeingod]

<div>

Since there could never have been absolutely nothing...<br />

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Unsupported assertion: We have no data from before the Big Bang

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is really funny. Do you believe, something could arise from absolutely nothing ?</p>

</div>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<div>

, but I think it quite likely that some form of proto-matter already existed.

</div>

<p> </p>

<p>where is the evidence ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

 

[mymistake]

 

Why is the moon important to life on earth? The collision of the small planet with the earth resulted in the ejection of the majority of the earth's primordial atmosphere. If this collision had not occurred, we would have had an atmosphere similar to that of Venus, which is 80 times that of the earth (equivalent to being one mile beneath the ocean).

 

Yes our planet does have unusually good conditions for the type of life that adapted here. But what does that mean?

 

Next time you are outside and you realize it's about to rain because you were hit by a raindrop consider this. The probability that particular raindrop was going to hit you exactly on that spot is astronomically low. If we were to calculate it there would be a lot of zeros in the number. But when there are enough raindrops falling you will get hit. That is because the probability that a given raindrop will land somewhere is 1. The same principle would apply to planets. With billions of stars and thousands of galaxies - the probability that each will have some kind of form is 1. Enough chances and strange things will eventually happen. On top of that our universe might be just one in an endless cycle or chain of universes. In the big picture rare situations will happen just like a raindrop hitting you during a rain storm.

[Astreja]

Unsupported assertion: We have no data from before the Big Bang

This is really funny. Do you believe, something could arise from absolutely nothing ?

Well, *you* seem to manage it quite well... With your causeless, eternal god existing for no reason other than you want it to be there.

 

Me, I don't have to believe because 'something arising from absolutely nothing' is already observable at the quantum level.

 

And if your god actually existed... That's a "something," not a "nothing." Creation ex nihilo is a myth, because creation is an action; actions require energy; and energy and matter are two sides of the same coin.

...but I think it quite likely that some form of proto-matter already existed.

where is the evidence ?

The Big Bang itself. The singularity had high pressure, temperature and energy density. "Nothing" doesn't appear to have those particular qualities.

[Ouroboros]

We have already discussed the destabilizing effects of large planets in our Solar System. However, these large bodies are required for life to exist on the Earth. A recent study implicates Jupiter ..

Dude. That's cut-n-paste from another website without giving them credit. That's plagiarism (or a form of stealing).

 

Here's the website for anyone interested: http://www.godandsci...s/designss.html

[Vigile]

We have already discussed the destabilizing effects of large planets in our Solar System. However, these large bodies are required for life to exist on the Earth. A recent study implicates Jupiter ..

Dude. That's cut-n-paste from another website without giving them credit. That's plagiarism (or a form of stealing).

 

Here's the website for anyone interested: http://www.godandsci...s/designss.html

 

That's why his responses completely ignore points that have already been debunked. For example, he continues to insist that he's not special pleading with god, when it has already been pointed out to him that the universe and matter/energy are observable, whereas god is not. This is why I have refused to go point by point with the guy, he's going down rabbit trails as I predicted.

[sdelsolray]

The best explanation for our existence is cause and effect subject to physical laws

 

how did these physical laws come into exstence ? beyond our universe, they did not exist.

 

 

 

and constants operating with uniformity upon matter and energy. Of course, this explanation is tentative, and based on current empirical evidence. Feel free to falsify it utilizing the same intellectual rigor and honesty upon which it is based.

 

you've not said nothing concrete, really......

 

So, you require a "concrete" explanation.

 

I stated the following as an explanation:

 

"The best explanation for our existence is cause and effect subject to physical laws and constants operating with uniformity upon matter and energy."

 

Seems pretty concrete to me. Try reading it again.

 

As to your other portion of your response:

 

 

 

how did these physical laws come into exstence ? beyond our universe, they did not exist.

 

That's a good question. I do not know. Current scientific theory suggests the physical laws (as they presently exist) arose from the Big Bang. But that claim is based on mere mathematics and scant empirical evidence. Nevertheless, I am not offended by that explanation and I would not be surprised if it is correct.

 

As to your claim "beyond our universe, [physical laws] did not exist," how could you possibly know this? This seems to be a mere assertion. Do you have evidence and reasoned argument to support such a claim?

[Ouroboros]

We have already discussed the destabilizing effects of large planets in our Solar System. However, these large bodies are required for life to exist on the Earth. A recent study implicates Jupiter ..

Dude. That's cut-n-paste from another website without giving them credit. That's plagiarism (or a form of stealing).

 

Here's the website for anyone interested: http://www.godandsci...s/designss.html

 

That's why his responses completely ignore points that have already been debunked. For example, he continues to insist that he's not special pleading with god, when it has already been pointed out to him that the universe and matter/energy are observable, whereas god is not. This is why I have refused to go point by point with the guy, he's going down rabbit trails as I predicted.

And he also used a quote that argued evolution to support his point. He's all over the place because he doesn't even think about what he's quoting.

 

Oh, and plagiarism is also lying, which is a sin and a breach of one of the commandments (as everyone knows), but it doesn't bother him...

[bornagainathiest]

All probabilities are dependent on the volume in question.

]

 

why so ?

 

(Facepalm!)

Why so........?

 

Ok B.I.G.

Scratch what I said about grade school. Make that kindergarten.

 

Here's why so.

 

Any Fine-Tuning argument is a statistical one, yes?

So, with apologies to all good Nebraskans, I'm going to pick that state as an example of how statistics requires hard information to derive meaningful results.

As of 2010, the population of the Cornhusker state was 1, 826, 341. So if I say that 5% of all Nebraskans are dyslexic, how can I find out the quantity of dyslexic Nebraskans? Simple,

I divide the population (a known quantity) by the percentage in question (also a known quantity) and the result is 91, 317, rounding down. Catch?

So, I need to know the population number of Nebraska to say how many (5%) dyslexic cornhuskers live there. Without that number I can do NOTHING and without that number I can know nothing MEANINGFUL!

Q. Can I add people from Maryland, Ohio or Alaska into the population number of Nebraska?

A. No. Only true Nebraskans count in this exercise.

 

Q. Do I know the full extent of Nebraska?

A. Yes. The state lines are well-established and I know that it is bounded by Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa and

Missouri.

 

Do you see it now, B.I.G.?

I can give you an accurate statistic on the number dyslexic Nebraskans because I know the following details.

1. What constitutes Nebraska.

2. The exact population of that state.

 

Q. Does anyone have any idea of just what constitutes the Universe?

A. No. We can only see so far. There is no guarantee that what we see is all that there is. (Sound familiar?)

 

Q. Does anyone therefore have any idea of just what the exact population of anything in the universe is?

A. No. All we have to go on is estimates and speculation, based upon those estimates.

So, any Fine-Tuning Argument (a statistic) cannot by definition be an anything else than an estimate.

Are you there yet?

 

you have ignored my answer in regard of the fine tuning of our solar/earth/moon system. It has nothing to do with the dimension and volume of the universe.

 

Yes, I've ignored that question because the solar system cannot be taken out of the greater context it's sits within.

To separate it like this and treat it as an "Isolated system" is wrong, because it is not isolated from the rest of reality. The solar system is constantly interacting with the rest of the universe and to dismiss this interaction is to introduce a severe and false bias into the equation. If you didn't know that before, you know it now. If you did know it before, you shouldn't have made that kind of biased argument. Such a maneuver is profoundly dishonest and lacking in integrity.

 

So, you're wrong here B.I.G.

The solar system has everything to do with the dimension and volume of the universe. Just as the number of dyslexic Nebraskans directly relates to the total population of that state and this number relates directly to what constitutes Nebraska, so the status of our solar system relates directly to the total population of solar systems in the universe and what constitutes the universe.

Since we cannot accurately say just what currently constitutes the universe (see your next sentence, below) we cannot therefore make an accurate population count of anything. Not knowing the population of anything, we therefore cannot say anything that is statistically meaningful (like a Fine-Tuning argument) about the population. Is that clear now?

Because the radius, diameter, circumference and therefore the volume of the universe are unknown, anything we try to say about it's contents is an e-s-t-i-m-a-t-e, not a certainty. Capiche?

An estimate, not a proven value.

An estimate, not an absolute truth.

An estimate, not a bona fide certainty.

 

And : since the universe is expanding, how could someone calculate its volume ? its not static, its expanding......

 

Exactly!

Yet another reason why we have no fixed, proven, absolute values to work with. Everything is an estimate. Btw, thank you for once again for confirming that the volume of the universe is unknown.

 

Here's the formula for calculating the volume of a sphere. V = volume, r = the radius and Pi is .3.141.

 

Q. Do we know the value of r, the radius of the universe?

A. No.

 

Q. Without knowing r, can we perform the above equation to find out the volume of the universe?

A. No.

 

Q. Without knowing the volume of the universe, can we therefore make any meaningful statistical claims about it's contents.

A. No. The volume determines the population of anything within it. (Think about the state lines of Nebraska!)

 

When the volume is unknown, no reliable probabilities can be assigned within that volume.

 

i still don't understand why you think its necessary to relate the over 120 fine tune constants to the volume of the universe.......

 

Because you mistakenly think that stacking up the numbers and raising the bar ever higher is a meaningful exercise.

I've just shown you that it isn't. It would be meaningful if we could assign a certain value to the volume of the universe and therefore accurately know the populations of anything inside it. Knowing these populations, we could then make accurate statistical statements about them.

I could ask you how many dyslexic, left-handed, color-blind, tone-deaf, vegetarian, diabetic Nebraskans there are. I could keep on stacking up more and more conditions, raising the bar higher and higher. But what would be the point of that?

If you don't know...A. What constitutes Nebraska, or...B. What the population of Nebraska is, all you can do is to speculate and hand me estimates.

But, as you've already said (more than once) in this thread, the volume of the universe is unknown. Therefore, with such an unknown all we can do is to present estimates.

 

Now, please, please, please tell me that you finally understand, B.I.G.!

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

The best explanation for our existence is cause and effect subject to physical laws

 

how did these physical laws come into exstence ? beyond our universe, they did not exist.

 

Since you've been telling me that you don't even know the full extent of our universe (it's radius and volume) B.I.G., how can you possibly know about anything 'beyond' our universe, if such a condition exists at all?

 

Is that you method of argument, say one thing to one person and then the exact opposite to another?

 

Hardly consistent!

 

and constants operating with uniformity upon matter and energy. Of course, this explanation is tentative, and based on current empirical evidence. Feel free to falsify it utilizing the same intellectual rigor and honesty upon which it is based.

 

you've not said nothing concrete, really......

 

Maybe you have nothing concrete to say, yourself?

All I can see from you is an uninformed, stubborn, stonewall, dogmatic defiance of the evidence.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

The universe is expanding, and could expand infinitely.

 

 

based on what scientific evidence do you base this idea ?

 

Why are you asking for this evidence, B.I.G.?

You've been agreeing with me that it is expanding, so why would you want the Agnosticator to present you with evidence you've already accepted?

 

Stalling for time, maybe?

Simply venting your stubborns, perhaps?

 

Whatever the reason, you certainly aren't presenting a consistent position in this thread.

As Ouroboros has already remarked, you've all over the place here.

 

BAA.

[believeingod]

 

Why is the moon important to life on earth? The collision of the small planet with the earth resulted in the ejection of the majority of the earth's primordial atmosphere. If this collision had not occurred, we would have had an atmosphere similar to that of Venus, which is 80 times that of the earth (equivalent to being one mile beneath the ocean).

 

Yes our planet does have unusually good conditions for the type of life that adapted here. But what does that mean?

 

Next time you are outside and you realize it's about to rain because you were hit by a raindrop consider this. The probability that particular raindrop was going to hit you exactly on that spot is astronomically low. If we were to calculate it there would be a lot of zeros in the number. But when there are enough raindrops falling you will get hit. That is because the probability that a given raindrop will land somewhere is 1. The same principle would apply to planets. With billions of stars and thousands of galaxies - the probability that each will have some kind of form is 1. Enough chances and strange things will eventually happen. On top of that our universe might be just one in an endless cycle or chain of universes. In the big picture rare situations will happen just like a raindrop hitting you during a rain storm.

 

http://www.reasons.org/physics/constants-physics/exotic-life-sites-feasibility-far-out-habitats

 

 

The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 10140 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros).

 

http://www.reasons.org/philosophyreligion/worldviews/anthropic-principle-precise-plan-humanity

 

In the 1960s the odds that any given planet in the universe would possess the necessary conditions to support intelligent physical life were shown to be less than one in ten thousand.5 In 2001 those odds shrank to less than one in a number so large it might as well be infinity (10173)

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

You do not know that. It's just one of your many assumptions.

 

No, its obvious. If beyond the universe nothing physical existed, than the physical laws did not exist as well.

 

Correction!

It's not obvious, it's a logical fallacy on your part.

 

It's a logical fallacy for the same reason you couldn't make the Kalaam work - the failure of your language.

If all of Time and Space were created in the Big Bang event (which you've said they were) then there is no Time and no Space anyWHERE or anyWHEN else. Therefore, there is no 'beyond' the universe. Such a description is meaningless.

 

Also, since you've told to me that you have no knowledge of the universe's size (radius and volume) or if there's anything 'beyond' it, how can you claim to know anything at all about the absence or presence of these physical laws?

Simple answer - you can't.

 

BAA.

 

 

I

[believeingod]

 

Well, *you* seem to manage it quite well... With your causeless, eternal god existing for no reason other than you want it to be there.

 

Me, I don't have to believe because 'something arising from absolutely nothing' is already observable at the quantum level.

 

 

it seems you don't grasp what absolutely nothing means. It means the absence of any thing.

 

once again :

 

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/smith.html

 

John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

 

 

 

 

The Big Bang itself. The singularity had high pressure, temperature and energy density. "Nothing" doesn't appear to have those particular qualities.

 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/science/bigquestions/s460625.htm

 

Beyond the point is nothing. The balloon – space – has simply disappeared. Play this scenario in forward time and it represents the coming-into-being of a universe from literally nothing, with space itself appearing. So it’s not an explosion in a pre-existing space. Space itself appears. And so, for that matter, does time.

[pratt]

absence ofbanything=absence of creator?

[believeingod]

We have already discussed the destabilizing effects of large planets in our Solar System. However, these large bodies are required for life to exist on the Earth. A recent study implicates Jupiter ..

Dude. That's cut-n-paste from another website without giving them credit. That's plagiarism (or a form of stealing).

 

Here's the website for anyone interested: http://www.godandsci...s/designss.html

 

That's why his responses completely ignore points that have already been debunked. For example, he continues to insist that he's not special pleading with god, when it has already been pointed out to him that the universe and matter/energy are observable, whereas god is not. This is why I have refused to go point by point with the guy, he's going down rabbit trails as I predicted.

 

http://thechristianwatershed.com/2009/04/27/does-god-exist-part-3/

 

 

 

Does God need “special pleading” to avoid the arguments against naturalism?

 

Me:

 

 

It is necessarily true that in any universe where matter decays it must also have a beginning. Thus, even if we say there was something prior to the universe, we’re still left with the problem of infinite regress – at some point, there has to be something beginning everything.

 

Atheist:

 

 

Except for God right? He gets a special pass.

 

That would be the Special Pleading Logical Fallacy i think

 

Me:

 

I thought I did a good job explaining why God is not subject to the problems listed in the original post. As I stated:

 

If the universe requires a beginning, then it requires an immaterial, eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful mind to bring the physical world about. All of these would be part of the nature of the being that caused the universe, thus satisfying the requirement of premise (1). The universe, as it is, fits none of the above descriptors, thus requiring an explanation.

 

The special pleading fallacy only occurs when an object is put under the same circumstances, but is not held to those circumstances. Thus, as follows:

 

1) Joe accepts standards S and applies them in other circumstances C

2) Joe is in circumstance C

3) Therefore, Joe is exempt from S

 

A better example is if you believe that everyone who speeds, regardless of reason, deserves a speeding ticket. You get caught speeding and get a ticket. You turn around and say you don’t deserve the ticket because you can’t afford it right now. That isspecial pleading.

 

Special pleading deals more with ethics than it does metaphysics. Regardless, even if we apply this to a metaphysical application, it still doesn’t work in the case of God vs. naturalism. The reason is God doesn’t meet premise (2). God doesn’t fall under C, therefore He is not subject to S. Naturalism has certain rules to follow (rules you didn’t contest), one of which being that it simply cannot be an infinite series of events. Since God is not found in C, He is not subject to S.

 

We know this because the naturalistic universe is (i) material, (ii) subject to decay, (iii) finite, (iv) impersonal, (v) unintelligent, etc. That would constitute the first circumstance (C1). God, however, is (vi) immaterial, (vii) incorruptible, (viii) infinite, (ix) personal, and (x) intelligent. This would constitute the second circumstance (C2).

 

S will differ depending on the circumstance. Thus, S1 corresponds to C1 and S2 corresponds to C2. It is illogical to take S1, show that being A violates S1, all the while knowing that A is in C2 and not C1. In order to properly show that A is violating S1 (thus, begetting the special pleading fallacy), one must first show that A exists within C2.

 

For our debate then, you would have to show that God is under the same circumstances as the naturalistic world. If you accomplished this, however, you would have to use a definition other than God, in which case you’re using a straw man fallacy. In other words, the only possible way you could justify “special pleading” when it comes to God being eternal and the universe not being eternal is if you were to commit a logical fallacy yourself; two logical fallacies don’t make a right.

 

In all of this, however, you didn’t address the attacks against naturalism. Even if all of the above were false and these were a case of special pleading, this would lead us into extreme skepticism about God and the natural world. We would be in a worse situation than before, so your arguments really accomplish nothing for the case of naturalism. It’s simply a red herring.

[believeingod]

 

 

 

So, you require a "concrete" explanation.

 

I stated the following as an explanation:

 

"The best explanation for our existence is cause and effect subject to physical laws and constants operating with uniformity upon matter and energy."

 

Seems pretty concrete to me. Try reading it again.

 

Yes , now you answered concretely.

 

Matter and energy were created at the Big Bang, and so physical laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a good question. I do not know.

 

Then your answer is not valid. And you can follow logically : if they were not in place , and got in place at the Big Bang, than something caused them.

 

 

 

 

Current scientific theory suggests the physical laws (as they presently exist) arose from the Big Bang. But that claim is based on mere mathematics and scant empirical evidence.

 

 

There is lots and lots of evidence the universe began with the Big Bang.

 

As to your claim "beyond our universe, [physical laws] did not exist," how could you possibly know this? This seems to be a mere assertion.

 

How could physical laws get into action, if there were nothing physical in first place ?

[bornagainathiest]

absence ofbanything=absence of creator?

 

Or...

 

absence of anything = absence of any information that can be known by B.I.G.

 

BAA.

[pratt]

i like his

 

If the universe requires a beginning, then it requires an immaterial, eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful mind to bring the physical world about. All of these would be part of the nature of the being that caused the universe, thus satisfying the requirement of premise (1). The universe, as it is, fits none of the above descriptors, thus requiring an explanation.

 

why must it be immaterial, eternal, all-knowing, all powerful mind,,,

 

why can't it be a creator that create the big bang and dies,,,, he one and only job,,,,

 

why must be all knowing? he created and don't give a flying fuck to his cration and dies,,,,,,,

 

all powerful mind?

 

are these characteristics absultely require? says who? you? BIG?

[believeingod]

Because you mistakenly think that stacking up the numbers and raising the bar ever higher is a meaningful exercise.

 

The chance of even ONE of the parameters being finely tuned to life is so small, that chance can be discarded as reasonable answer.

 

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/finetuning.aspx

 

 

When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely

 

 

I've just shown you that it isn't. It would be meaningful if we could assign a certain value to the volume of the universe

 

 

how could we do that, if it is constantly expanding ?

 

and therefore accurately know the populations of anything inside it. Knowing these populations, we could then make accurate statistical statements about them.

 

I could ask you how many dyslexic, left-handed, color-blind, tone-deaf, vegetarian, diabetic Nebraskans there are. I could keep on stacking up more and more conditions, raising the bar higher and higher. But what would be the point of that?

If you don't know...A.

 

you would have no point at all. thats what i am saying......

 

 

 

Now, please, please, please tell me that you finally understand, B.I.G.!

 

I know that i do not need to know the volume of the universe to make the fine-tune argument.

[believeingod]

Why are you asking for this evidence, B.I.G.?

 

You've been agreeing with me that it is expanding, so why would you want the Agnosticator to present you with evidence you've already accepted?

 

 

your assertion is that it will expand forever. I would like to see evidence for this assertion.

[Vigile]

i like his

 

If the universe requires a beginning, then it requires an immaterial, eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful mind to bring the physical world about. All of these would be part of the nature of the being that caused the universe, thus satisfying the requirement of premise (1). The universe, as it is, fits none of the above descriptors, thus requiring an explanation.

 

why must it be immaterial, eternal, all-knowing, all powerful mind,,,

 

why can't it be a creator that create the big bang and dies,,,, he one and only job,,,,

 

why must be all knowing? he created and don't give a flying fuck to his cration and dies,,,,,,,

 

all powerful mind?

 

are these characteristics absultely require? says who? you? BIG?

 

He's being completely disingenuous. He just makes bold, unsupported claims and argues he has slam dunked his opponent. It's ridiculous to argue the premise in this case demands such a being even if one accepts the premise, which isn't cut and dry. It's ridiculous to argue the premise demands any being or any single cause. What's wrong with "we don't have enough data to answer"? It's certainly better than making up an invisible, unknowable, unpercievable being.

[bornagainathiest]

Because you mistakenly think that stacking up the numbers and raising the bar ever higher is a meaningful exercise.

 

The chance of even ONE of the parameters being finely tuned to life is so small, that chance can be discarded as reasonable answer.

 

http://www.geraldsch...finetuning.aspx

 

 

When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely

 

 

I've just shown you that it isn't. It would be meaningful if we could assign a certain value to the volume of the universe

 

 

how could we do that, if it is constantly expanding ?

 

and therefore accurately know the populations of anything inside it. Knowing these populations, we could then make accurate statistical statements about them.

 

I could ask you how many dyslexic, left-handed, color-blind, tone-deaf, vegetarian, diabetic Nebraskans there are. I could keep on stacking up more and more conditions, raising the bar higher and higher. But what would be the point of that?

If you don't know...A.

 

you would have no point at all. thats what i am saying......

 

 

 

Now, please, please, please tell me that you finally understand, B.I.G.!

 

I know that i do not need to know the volume of the universe to make the fine-tune argument.

 

How do you know that

Why are you asking for this evidence, B.I.G.?

 

You've been agreeing with me that it is expanding, so why would you want the Agnosticator to present you with evidence you've already accepted?

 

 

your assertion is that it will expand forever. I would like to see evidence for this assertion.

 

It's not an assertion of fact.

It's the logical conclusion of the math and the evidence that supports the BBT, which you claim to support too.

The difference is that you are cherry-picking from that data set and not carrying it fully thru to it's logical conclusions - as you should.

 

If you did the right thing and accepted all of the BBT, then you'd be constrained to accept that the theory says that once started, inflation continues, not just for a fraction of a second, but for billions of years and possibly forever. The fact that we cannot see it happening now doesn't mean that inflation has stopped. Just as I can't say what's happening over the horizon from my boat, so we can't say for sure what's happening elsewhere, in regions of the universe that are beyond our view.

 

You simply refuse to accept accept those parts of the BBT that don't suit your agenda - that's all.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Because you mistakenly think that stacking up the numbers and raising the bar ever higher is a meaningful exercise.

 

The chance of even ONE of the parameters being finely tuned to life is so small, that chance can be discarded as reasonable answer.

 

This chance is a statistical probability derived, how? From which fixed set of data? Please explain.

 

http://www.geraldsch...finetuning.aspx

 

 

When Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be, in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely

 

 

I've just shown you that it isn't. It would be meaningful if we could assign a certain value to the volume of the universe

 

 

how could we do that, if it is constantly expanding ?

 

and therefore accurately know the populations of anything inside it. Knowing these populations, we could then make accurate statistical statements about them.

 

I could ask you how many dyslexic, left-handed, color-blind, tone-deaf, vegetarian, diabetic Nebraskans there are. I could keep on stacking up more and more conditions, raising the bar higher and higher. But what would be the point of that?

If you don't know...A.

 

you would have no point at all. thats what i am saying......

 

Then you have simply misunderstood or missed my point entirely. Perhaps you could tell me why I should put in any more effort on this when my point is beyond you?

 

 

 

Now, please, please, please tell me that you finally understand, B.I.G.!

 

I know that i do not need to know the volume of the universe to make the fine-tune argument.

 

Please explain how you know this B.I.G? I'm all ears.

 

BAA.