Is The Universe Finetuned For Life Or Is God Omnipotent?

[raoul]

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood me. An omnipotent God cannot create pancakes by following (say) ratatouille recipe. Then he would get ratatouille and not pancakes. To create pancakes that are not pancakes is not anything to do; it is contradiction. God cannot do anything logically contradictory.

 

 

Like everything else "logic" is a product of the human mind. God, being omnipotent and omniscient, is not limited by the constraints of the human thought process.

 

It is nonsense to limit God in this way. (Everyone please note I am pretending to be a Christian here)

 

I caught what you meant Deva and want to confirm what you've posited by adding something I read in a book titled 'Case against god' in which Smith, the author, says that any attempt to describe a supernatural being (a god) by natural means or logic or anything else for that matter is meaningless because:

 If a person is doing so (as is our misguided theist here) then:

 a. the god is not supernatural or

 b. the person doing the describing is supernatural

 

And if a or b are sound, which I believe they are, then no god or at least none remotely resembling the myths from the bible.

 

That was a very simple explanation of something I had to read several times before grasping.

[Badger]

Omni means all, not max, as in 'all powerful'. That means he has the power to overrule logic, which he supposedly created or he can't, in which case, he is not all powerful.  You're having trouble with the concept because you are defending the indefensible.  It's clearly nonsensical. 

 

You can define omnipotence as you wish. I do not care. Once more. If the act-description is itself incoherent, such as "create a square circle" or "create a married bachelor" it does not follow that God lacks anything at all, since an incoherent act-descriptions does not present a possible candidate for action. You, on the other hand, are saying that maximal power is not maximal power. That is self-defeating and hence indefensible.

[raoul]

 

Where does "logic" come from then, if it isn't from the human mind? Proof please.

 

Proof? You didn't give any proof either. But let me ask this: are logical contradictions possible?

 

The typical xtian dodge - Deva asked for proof regarding your unsupported claim regarding the source of logic and you avoid the challenge by switching topics and/or subjects. Lane Craig would be very proud of you. LOL

[Deva]

Raoul, I am happy you understand what I am trying to convey here.

[Badger]

I caught what you meant Deva and want to confirm what you've posited by adding something I read in a book titled 'Case against god' in which Smith, the author, says that any attempt to describe a supernatural being (a god) by natural means or logic or anything else for that matter is meaningless because:

 If a person is doing so (as is our misguided theist here) then:

 a. the god is not supernatural or

 b. the person doing the describing is supernatural

 

And if a or b are sound, which I believe they are, then no god orat least none remotely resembling the myths from the bible.

 

So what Smith says is meaningless and we can ignore him.

[Badger]

Where does "logic" come from then, if it isn't from the human mind? Proof please.

 

Proof? You didn't give any proof either. But let me ask this: are logical contradictions possible?

 

The typical xtian dodge - Deva asked for proof regarding your unsupported claim regarding the source of logic and you avoid the challenge by switching topics and/or subjects. Lane Craig would be very proud of you. LOL

 

And I asked for proof regarding Deva's unsupported claim. LOL.

[Deva]

OK, animals and beings on other planets might have logic too, so I guess I wouldn't confine it to the human mind. Other than that, there is no source for "logic" other than being one of the products of consciousness as expressed through a human mind.

 

If I would call anything a god, it is consciousness itself. That is my position.

[Badger]

Other than that, there is no source for "logic" other than being one of the products of consciousness as expressed through a human mind

 

I am looking forward to see what is your proof for that.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Other than that, there is no source for "logic" other than being one of the products of consciousness as expressed through a human mind

 

I am looking forward to see what is your proof for that.

 

 

And I am looking forward to your response to me, Badger. 

 

Stop dodging and talk cosmology with me.

 

Gedalia, Jenkins and Perez haven't just altered the weak nuclear force by a few decimal places - they've removed it completely from their calculations and still produced viable, life-bearing universes.

 

How can they do this?

 

How is this possible, if the Fine-Tuning Argument says that even the tiniest adjustment of the fundamental constants MUST lead to 'dead' universes or unstable ones that disintegrate or re-collapse instantly after their birth?

 

Please answer.

 

BAA.

[Badger]

And I am looking forward to your response to me, Badger. 

 

Stop dodging and talk cosmology with me.

 

Gedalia, Jenkins and Perez haven't just altered the weak nuclear force by a few decimal places - they've removed it completely from their calculations and still produced viable, life-bearing universes.

 

How can they do this?

 

How is this possible, if the Fine-Tuning Argument says that even the tiniest adjustment of the fundamental constants MUST lead to 'dead' universes or unstable ones that disintegrate or re-collapse instantly after their birth?

 

Please answer.

 

BAA.

 

I do not have any idea what it is about.

[Ravenstar]

hmmm..... "all things are possible" is a pretty wide statement.. as is "all powerful". (the judeo-christian religions assert that miracles are possible - basically, that their deity is NOT constrained by natural laws. This is inconsistent with asserting that it IS constrained by anything, logic and universal laws included)

 

it doesn't seem to suggest that "all' means "all within the physics of our universe", or within the scientific laws of physical reality.

 

I call bullshit. An Omnipotent being.. an ALL POWERFUL being would not be constrained by ANY limits of ANY kind - that's the very definition of Omni, or ALL - the physical and logical laws that apply to humans would not apply to any kind of OMNI - trait.. because logically the ALL would be that which encompasses the rest.

 

Nothing could CREATE the laws and at the same time be constrained by them. It would need to be META, or beyond the laws. The only other solution I see is a pantheistic one where it would have to BE the laws and all else as well. (space, time, matter, anti-matter, dark matter, everything) which would necessarily negate the ALL powerful thing. (limits again) Which would also preclude miracles.

 

Fine-tuning is ridiculous... even on this little mudball there are environments inimical to life (less and less every day though as we find out how resilient life actually is) Beyond our atmosphere/magnetosphere the universe is positively lethal to life as we know it. Check out gamma radiation... nasty stuff. One of the main problems of space travel is the fact that outside of our very specific environment... it isn't pretty.

 

The fact that the universe evolves through violence almost unimaginable (check out supernovas) seems to me to be a good case that it is not fine-tuned for life, at least not for us. Supernovas explode up to 10 light years in diameter, effectively vaporizing all in their path...(which would include any possible life systems in their vicinity) to expand up to 50 million light years when they become nebulas. (Nebulae are star nurseries - recycling on a cosmic scale!) Supernovae are also how the universe creates heavy elements necessary for life (carbon, etc..). Most stars we see are not from the 'beginning' they are second or third (more?) generation stars... products of violence and recycling on a matter and time scale it's difficult to grasp.

 

and... finally, the appendix. Seriously? Yup.. that's a fine-tuning, all powerful, unlimited move right there.. ayup. (need sarcasm font)

 

The reason why the universe appears to be suited for us is because we are here... the same logic would apply to an ant that finds itself in a perfect loamy hillock... which it evolved to fit... but from the perspective of the ant the environment would appear to have been made for it, and not it for the environment.

 

We FIT our environment... not the other way around. It's all about ego and perspective.

[Badger]

I totally agree, Ravenstar. No omnipotent being could be constrained by created laws, like those of physics. Laws of logic, however, are not (indeed cannot be) created. These are necessary truths.

[mymistake]

 

Where does "logic" come from then, if it isn't from the human mind? Proof please.

 

Proof? You didn't give any proof either. But let me ask this: are logical contradictions possible?

 

The typical xtian dodge - Deva asked for proof regarding your unsupported claim regarding the source of logic and you avoid the challenge by switching topics and/or subjects. Lane Craig would be very proud of you. LOL

 

And I asked for proof regarding Deva's unsupported claim. LOL.

 

 

And a number of people have asked you to show us evidence of your Max Power God.  I guess you are going to leave that as an unsuppoerted claim.

[Vigile]

I totally agree, Ravenstar. No omnipotent being could be constrained by created laws, like those of physics. Laws of logic, however, are not (indeed cannot be) created. These are necessary truths.

 

This makes no sense. 

[mymistake]

 

Not nothing.  Not something.

 

The rules of logic eliminate omnipotence.  You have the rules somehow appear and then magicaly the Max Power Diety appears and eats up all the power that was not blocked by the rules.  What is the mechanism?  Why?  It just is because that is how you dreamed it up.  But having the rules above the omnipotent . . . ah forget it.  If you can't see why this is absurd . . .

 

What you are instisting is that maximal power is not maximal power; that there is power greater than greatest possible power. Do not you see why this is absurd?

 

It's absurd because we are talking about imaginary creatures and magic powers as if they are real.

 

 

 

If you want your God to be real and you want your God's deeds to be real then it all must be physically possible.

 

Why?

 

 

Real and impossible are not compatible.  It's not complicated.

[mymistake]

 

 

If God had the power to make it any way he wanted to then this universe is not fine tuned.

 

 

Why?  If this god made the laws in the first place, he made everything as he intended.

 

I just don't see how this OP video traps a magical god.  It ends up an argument of semantics rather than a slam dunk. Or maybe I'm too dim to see it. That's certainly a possibility. 

 

 

You are right that it's semantics and it doesn't trap a magical god.  It's about IDers not thinking it through.  A magic god could wish a universe into existence.  The universe only changes in the way that the magic god wishes.  It would then be an extra step to "fine tune" the universe so that it cannot exist any other way.  That would involve creating extra rules that are not needed.  Now why would magic god do that?  Of course magic god could be insane but if it's a reasoned choice the possibilities are limited.  Maybe magic god wants IDers to come along billions of years later and admire the fine tuning.  The problem with that is Badger's concept of a Max-Power god.  Max-Power god is not all powerful.  Max-Power god had his powers limited by pre-existing rules that are beyond god.  And magic god creating fine tuning makes himself look a lot less powerful.  Every fine tuning rule that magic god creates looks like a pre-existing power that magic god had to obey.  The more fine tuning that magic god adds the more magic god looks like he doesn't even exist and everything came about by natural means.

 

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."  Einstein

[Badger]

And a number of people have asked you to show us evidence of your Max Power God.  I guess you are going to leave that as an unsuppoerted claim.

 

I am not arguing that God exists.

[Ravenstar]

hmm... logic isn't a scientific law. It's a method of critical thinking. It's a construct of (human) scientific thinking - a framework for deduction and reasoning. It isn't at all related to things like..um... gravity, the strong nuclear force, or the speed of light, etc... it was developed by humans - though I think it came out of our need and ability to try to make sense of our environment - which is a pretty good survival technique actually.

 

Start with Aristotle (born 348bce), considered the 'father' of logic...

 

... go on to quantum physics, where Newtonian physics become nonsensical.. and hence, in our estimation, illogical. The quantum world is anything but logical, at least what we know of it so far. It doesn't make sense to us in many ways. From what I understand, on the quantum level, the entire universe is just mathematical probability waves that collapse here and there, and pop in and out of existence (or our 'reality') - for no reason we can discern.  At the very bottom of quantum physics is the idea that nothing really 'exists' as we think it does. Even matter itself doesn't seem to really be made of anything substantial.

 

Even Einstein saw this with his 'spooky action at a distance' observation of paired particles.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi Ravenstar, surely you don't mean that before Aristotle, something could be A and not-A simultaneously under the same set of relations?  I'm imagining our trying to communicate with other intelligent life in the universe, and I can't conceive how we can do it if our communications, and theirs, aren't governed by basic laws of thought like the principles of identity, non-contradiction, etc.  I don't know quantum physics, so this may be off, but:  aren't the conclusions of quantum physics pretty much "what the math tells us?"  If the math tells us stuff, and math is a tautological system that adheres to basic laws of thought, then paradoxes that come up in quantum physics don't apply to the laws of thought by which we try to discourse about those paradoxes. 

 

??

[Badger]

 

 

Not nothing.  Not something.

 

The rules of logic eliminate omnipotence.  You have the rules somehow appear and then magicaly the Max Power Diety appears and eats up all the power that was not blocked by the rules.  What is the mechanism?  Why?  It just is because that is how you dreamed it up.  But having the rules above the omnipotent . . . ah forget it.  If you can't see why this is absurd . . .

 

What you are instisting is that maximal power is not maximal power; that there is power greater than greatest possible power. Do not you see why this is absurd?

 

It's absurd because we are talking about imaginary creatures and magic powers as if they are real.

 

I am talking about the concept of theistic God. Omnipotence is not absurd.

 

If you want your God to be real and you want your God's deeds to be real then it all must be physically possible.

 

Why?

 

Real and impossible are not compatible.  It's not complicated.

 

It certainly is logically possible to violate the laws of physics. To walk for a long time on water, for example, is not self-contradictory.

[Vigile]

 

Omnipotence is not absurd.

 

It is quite absurd and your arguments are constrained by the absurdity as I've shown you.

 

When you argue his power is limited by the laws of logic you argue he is limited by reality, which in turn means he is not omnipotent.  When you argue that he is unlimited by physical law but not the rules of logic, you are merely trying to have your cake and eat it too, but the argument is a nonsensical one as the rules of logic are largely governed by the laws of physics among other aspects of objective reality.   

[Vigile]

 

It certainly is logically possible to violate the laws of physics. To walk for a long time on water, for example, is not self-contradictory.

 

 

But the claim is not falsifiable. 

[Badger]

When you argue his power is limited by the laws of logic you argue he is limited by reality, which in turn means he is not omnipotent.

 

You mean, God is not omnipotent in your sense of the word "omnipotence."

 

When you argue that he is unlimited by physical law but not the rules of logic, you are merely trying to have your cake and eat it too, but the argument is a nonsensical one as the rules of logic are largely governed by the laws of physics among other aspects of objective reality.   

 

I lol'd. A logical possibility is anything not self-contradictory.

[Badger]

It certainly is logically possible to violate the laws of physics. To walk for a long time on water, for example, is not self-contradictory.

 

But the claim is not falsifiable. 

 

Is your claim falsifiable?

[Badger]

When you argue that he is unlimited by physical law but not the rules of logic, you are merely trying to have your cake and eat it too, but the argument is a nonsensical one as the rules of logic are largely governed by the laws of physics among other aspects of objective reality.   

 

I lol'd. A logical possibility is anything not self-contradictory.

 

One serious question. (And sorry I lol'd, Vigile, that was so immature.) Could the laws of physics have been different?