>1. The physical constants of the cosmos take anthropic values.
>2. This coincidence must have a causal explanation (we set aside for the moment the possibility of a chance explanation through the many-worlds hypothesis).
>3. Therefore, the constants take the values that they do because these values are anthropic (i.e., because they cause the conditions needed for life).
>4. Therefore, the purpose of the values of these constants is to permit the development of life (using the aetiological definition of purpose).
>5. Therefore, the values of these constants are the purposive effects of an intelligent agent (using the minimalist conception of agency).
>6. Therefore, the cosmos has been created.
atheists BTFO
>>454563
>>1. The physical constants of the cosmos take anthropic values
Tell that to all the humans that are now dead
>>454563
I take issue with number 5. Every intelligent agent we know of (humans, maybe chimps and whales) have highly complex central nervous systems, with billions of neurons and quadrillions of connections. A god who is highly intelligent, therefore, most probably has a brain that is much larger and more complex than a human brain. An infinitely intelligent god would seem to require an infinitely large brain. This means that theism involves introducing more complexity, more amazing coincidences and purposively organized structures, than was present in the data it is designed to explain. Consequently, the prior probability of theism is even lower than the probability that the cosmos became organized anthropically by chance, and so the anthropic coincidences do not make theism more likely true than false.
>>454582
lool what? this fucking board mane
>>454583
>God is organic
>God has a brain
>God is a physical being that must abide by the laws that govern complex systems in this reality
>what is divine simplicity
>what is the Many from the One
Also
>In any case, the teleological version of the design argument does not lead to the conclusion that God, the intelligent agent behind the anthropic coincidences, is in any way similar to human beings. In fact, we have good reason to believe that He is radically different from us. This means that we have little grounds for extending a generalization based on finite agents to an infinite agent. For this Humean argument to work, the objector must spell out some reasons for believing that any intelligent agent must have a brain.
>>454595
You know, for a universe that is completely made to please us, it sure has no problem ending our lives in the most horrible fashion around the time we're 80, and those are the lucky ones.
Doesn't seem to be much in line with how wonderfully antropic the universe is supposed to be
>>454615
Anthropic meaning they produce life in the first place you absolute mong
>>454620
And kills it very rapidly as well.
>>454633
So life dying somehow refutes the argument? When its premises aren't even about the suitability of the universe for life? Christ this board
>>454614
Whether or not God needs a brain, the size, number and complexity of God's internal representations would be great, far greater than the complexity of the cosmos His existence is supposed to explain. All the complexity of the universe is duplicated in the form of a representation or plan for the universe in God's mind. The plan in God's mind could explain the anthropic coincidences in the universe, but what can explain the anthropic coincidences realized by the plan itself, qua representation in God's mind?
>>454563
How do you go from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 to your conclusion?
>>454638
>So life dying somehow refutes the argument?
Yes, since your entire argument is based around its production being the sole goal of the universe
Apparently, not so much
>>454563
>This coincidence must have a causal explanation (we set aside for the moment the possibility of a chance explanation through the many-worlds hypothesis)
Chaotic Inflation theory is a reasonable inference from contemporary scientific observations and understanding, and predicts everything we observe. It holds that those properties of the universe that can be different than they are, like the mass of quarks, “froze” into place when the universe cooled, and due to chaotic or quantum indeterminism, different parts of the universe randomly ended up with different features—some with no quarks, some with quarks of a different mass, and so on. Yet the universe inflated so quickly, that once these properties froze in place in each tiny spot, that area grew to a size thousands of times larger than we could ever see. Thus, the universe we observe appears everywhere the same—but if we could see far enough, we would see different parts of the universe with completely different properties. It follows from the same theory that many regions of this multi-faceted universe will collapse and start the whole process over again, causing more multi-faceted universes to emerge from the original one. And so on. There is nothing we know that could stop this process, so it must go on forever—and may already have. So if inflation did occur, and it was chaotic, then nearly every possible universe would exist, including ours.
>>454654
This. Life on earth could just randomly die at any moment. A single, large enough rock could wipe us all out.
>>454654
Actually the argument makes no guarantees about quality of life. You can have a universe that kills its creations an hour after they born and the argument would still hold.
>>454643
since we're just gonna paste the original article back at each other
>This is a serious objection. I think that the best theistic response is to challenge the idea that an infinite mind needs representations at all. I call the resulting model of the divine mind the "non-discursive, non-representational model". Instead of re-presentations, God can make use of presentations, the immediate presence of the objects of God's thought to God's mind. Let us suppose, for the moment, that we all accept the existence of three kinds of things: (i) the actual, spatio-temporal world and all of its constituents. (ii) a space of possibilities, ways the world could have been, some partial and some total in their scope, and (iii) objective, intrinsic values that attach to each possibility, consisting of the degree of goodness or badness that would be realized if that possibility were made actual. Let us suppose further that each of these kinds of things is immediately present to God's mind, as immediately present to God as our own internal representations are to us.
>>454563
>>454646
>1. The qualities of a half-eaten donut allow mold to form on it
>2. This coincidence must have a causal explanation
>3. Therefore, the half-eaten donut has the qualities it does because they allow mold to form on it
>4. Therefore, the purposes of these qualities is to allow the development of mold
>5. Therefore, the presence of these qualities are the purposive effects of an intelligent agent
>6. Therefore the half-eaten donut has been created
>>454666
you're making the erroneous jump of "permitting the creation of life -> taking care of life and giving it lots of snuggles".
this argument is in no way refuted by the impermanence of life. the argument proves an intelligence, could very well be a malign intelligence according to your arguments, but nah.
>>454673
>Actually the argument makes no guarantees about quality of life.
Even worse, it makes no guarantees about life. We could be wiped out at any moment, leaving nothing behind
>>454683
Just stop coming at me with this retarded what-if bullshit and just engage the argument on its own merits for fuck's sake.
You're trying to refute "the universe has an inherent bias towards the creation of life" with the problem of evil. That's not what is being discussed.
>>454676
>Why think that any form of explanation for the anthropic coincidences must suppose that these coincidental values exist because they are anthropic? The reason is this: any other hypothesis will fail to explain why the values are anthropic. If, for example, we were able to deduce all of the anthropic values of the fundamental constants from some very simple, all-encompassing Grand Theory of Everything, we would still be faced with a new form of anthropic coincidence: explaining why the actual laws of nature force all of the constants to take anthropic values.
>Similarly, if the values of the constants are constrained to take anthropic values by the fundamental laws of physics, then these laws themselves are fine-tuned to produce this result. In fact, the coincidence is now greater, in more need of theistic explanation, since it is even more unlikely that the laws of physics would by chance form an elegant system that happens to determine all of the values correctly than that the individual constants should each take the correct value by chance.
>>454690
>You're trying to refute "the universe has an inherent bias towards the creation of life" with the problem of evil.
No, because a meteorite hitting earth wouldn't make life just uncomfortable. It would make life very dead. All of it. There is absolutely zero indication of any inherent bias towards the creation of life.
You're not special. Get over it
>>454690
>Why think that any form of explanation for the anthropic coincidences must suppose that these coincidental values exist because they are anthropic? The reason is this: any other hypothesis will fail to explain why the values are anthropic. If, for example, we were able to deduce all of the anthropic values of the fundamental constants from some very simple, all-encompassing Grand Theory of Everything, we would still be faced with a new form of anthropic coincidence: explaining why the actual laws of nature force all of the constants to take anthropic values.
There's absolutely no difference between claiming that and claiming that the universe has been created specifically to generate pretty nebula clouds. It seems to be much better at generating nebulae than sentient life in fact.
This line of reasoning must have been conceived by some sort of autist who can't accept the fact that the mold on his bread was never meant to look like the face of Jesus, that it's only a meaningless coincidence that it took that shape.
>Similarly, if the values of the constants are constrained to take anthropic values by the fundamental laws of physics, then these laws themselves are fine-tuned to produce this result. In fact, the coincidence is now greater, in more need of theistic explanation, since it is even more unlikely that the laws of physics would by chance form an elegant system that happens to determine all of the values correctly than that the individual constants should each take the correct value by chance.
Pretty sure TalkOrigins had already destroyed the "correct value for life" nonsense argument when I was in fucking middle school.
>>454563
Oh look, another argument for deism
>>454704
>except for the physical laws themselves
You're a fucking idiot. I hate this board I don't even know why I come here. I post a pretty fucking logically sound argument and get this anime-tier shit in response. "Th-there's no inherent bias towards life! except that 6-step fucking argument you posted I'm refusing to engage with! because life needs to be immortal for the creation of life to even matter! you're not special, we are but stardust! I don't even know what I'm arguing! *tips*"
fuck off
>>454708
Oh wow, the site is still there:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
>>454716
>I hate this board I don't even know why I come here.
Then fuck right off, you autistic little retard
>>454563
Here, let's modify it!
>1. The physical constants of the cosmos permit for HIV virus.
>2. This coincidence must have a causal explanation
>3. Therefore, the constants take the values that they do because these values are permit the HIV virus (i.e., because they cause the conditions needed for the HIV virus).
>4. Therefore, the purpose of the values of these constants is to permit the development of the HIV virus (using the aetiological definition of purpose).
>5. Therefore, the values of these constants are the purposive effects of an intelligent agent (using the minimalist conception of agency).
>6. Therefore, the cosmos has been created.
>>454716
The only bias this universe has is for making black holes.
Intelligent design doesn't make sense outside of a literal Genesis interpretation.
>>454563
puddles etc. etc.
>>454722
Yeah, the whole argument basically boils down to "The universe is a certain way, therefore an intelligent being designed to be that way!"
>>454726
>What is it for something to occur for a purpose? In the last thirty years considerable work has been done on this problem by analytic philosophers, beginning with the work of Charles Taylor (Taylor 1964) and Larry Wright (Wright 1976) in the 60's and 70's. The Taylor/Wright account of teleological explanation is known as the aetiological or causal account of teleology. I will give my own version of this account, one that takes seriously the distinction between tokens and types that I have insisted on before.
>First, at the level of types, I will say that type A occurs in context C for purpose B if and only if, whenever a token of type (A & C) occurs, it is most probably caused, in part, by the fact that A-tokens tend to cause B-tokens. This definition brings a causal relation in twice: first, by specifying that tokens of type (A & C) tend to be caused in a certain way, and second, by including the fact that A-tokens tend to cause B-tokens within the first causal connection.
your argument implies a vision of reality more complex than it already is, it doesn't answer anything and requires your definition of a "creator" to work, why do think a creator existing is a explanation for anything is beyond me.
>>454731
>>454726
>>454722
>>454733
>A few examples may help to make the sense of the definition clearer. The purpose of saying 'please pass the sugar' is the actual passing of the sugar to the speaker. In the context of polite, English-speaking company, uttering these words does tend to cause a sugar-passing event.Finally, the wings of a sparrow have as their purpose the sustaining of flight. The wings tend to have this result, and the fact that they do so is part of the explanation of why sparrows have wings. Natural selection has stabilized the gene pool of the sparrows to a wing-producing state because these wings contribute causally to flight.
>At the level of tokens, we need the following definition. A token t of type B-in-the-context-of-C has the non-accidental purpose of B if and only if (i) A in the context of C has the purpose B, and (ii) t was caused in part, and in the usual way, by the fact that A-events tend to cause B-events. A token of type A-in-C is very probably, but not always, a token with B as its non-accidental purpose For instance, the wings of the very first flying bird did not have flight as their non-accidental purpose. In that case, the wings were the product of an accidental mutation, and their contribution to the power to flight did not have any causal role in explaining their existence in this case. Similarly, if a molecule-for-molecule duplicate of myself were to form by chance in a swamp, the resulting creature would have purposive organs, but none of the tokens involved would have non-accidental purpose.
>However, although accidental purpose is possible, it is very much the exception rather than the rule. Whenever we find examples of purpose, it is reasonable to assume that the purpose is non-accidental, unless we can find good evidence to the contrary.
>>454731
Your taking it for granted is a fallacy.
>>454734
Read the argument ffs. How is the many-worlds response any better? Because either we exist in on universe of potentially billions that can harbor life, or just one reality, that magically hit on the right values to create self-aware agents, but don't let me hear you implying the design argument.
Fuck outta here.
>Is there a connection between non-accidental purpose and intelligent agency? I would like to argue that there is a very tight connection: every case of non-accidental purpose is a case of intelligent agency. If some state t exists (non-accidentally) for the purpose B, then there is some intelligent agent that has B as its purpose and has produced t to this end.
>>454734
It's a delegation of the responsibility of knowing, in a way.
"I don't know why the universe was made, but I bet someone does. And that someone is the one who made the universe, so everything that happens in it is his will! We can rest easy now."
I suspect this is how all religious beliefs are born.
>>454563
This is retarded.
It reeks of confirmation bias to say that just because life exists on this single planet, there is some intelligence at work that had to design it all, when you are completely ignoring most of the other planets that are completely void of life.
>>454747
>literally posting logical arguments for design and this faggot's still talking to south park caricatures in his head
>However, what reason do we have to deny intelligent agency, of a kind, to Nature as Darwinism conceives of her? I don't mean to challenge the adequacy of the Darwinian story here but merely to challenge the characterization of natural selection as unintelligent and purposeless. According to Darwinism, nature does seem to act for purposes, crafting a world full of a wide variety of self-sustaining eco-systems. Darwin himself, as well as modern-day Darwinists like Dawkins and Dennett, could wax very poetic about the wonders of the designs produced by Nature, which compare very favorably to the best feats of human engineering. Why deny that Nature is a kind of intelligent agent?
>There seem to be several reasons at work here. First, many point out that Nature consists of nothing but blind, purposeless forces. This is true, but to conclude that Nature as a whole is purposeless is to commit the fallacy of composition. Presumably, each of my atoms is unconscious, but this does not that my body as a whole cannot be the seat of consciousness. Second, there is the fact that Nature does not have anything like a central nervous system, and so is not able to coordinate her actions or calculate consequences in advance. This certainly has implications for the kind of intelligence that Nature has, but it does not seem to demonstrate that Nature has no intelligence whatsoever. Finally, it is a central tenet of Darwinism that Nature has no foresight. She muddles through from one generation to another, progressing only by trial and error. Again, this would mean that Nature lacks certain mental powers that we possess, but no effort has been made to show that these particular mental powers are essential to intelligent agency.
>>454734
What does "reality" boil down to, then, my enlightened pal?
>>454749
Please refute the argument step-by-step if it's so obvious, thanks. But sounds like you can't even grasp its reasoning if you think we're talking about "confirmation bias" lmao.
>>454749
>Notice that at no point does this argument appeal to any supposed similarity between the setting of the values of the constants and any work of human craftsmanship or design. The argument is not based on extending our experience of the origins of human artifacts to the origins of the universe. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that it would be possible for someone to recognize the existence of intelligent agency for the first time by studying the anthropic coincidences, without ever having recognized the phenomenon of human agency. I would like to propose that we could invert Paley's famous analogy of the man who encounters a watch in the desert and infers that it was designed. Let us imagine a person, The Stranger, who lives in Robinson-Crusoe-like isolation, and who is very un-self-conscious. The very ideas of purpose or intelligence or agency have never occurred to the Stranger, who has instead spent all of his time studying the physics and cosmology of the world. One day, the Stranger discovers the anthropic coincidences, and assuming that they must have a causal explanation, finds that he is forced to introduce a new kind of explanation into his science, one in which a state can be caused, in part, by the tendency of that state to cause some further effect. The Stranger calls this new kind of causal explanation "teleological explanation". The Stranger also adopts a term for the underlying cause of a purposive state: "intelligent agency".
>>454563
>1 Physical constants take anthropic values
There is no proof of this statement; I cannot predict what sort of life might emerge in a universe where the coupling constant of the strong force is stronger than that of the electromagnetic force.
And so none of the rest of your argument follows.
>>454763
>this argument that the universe purposively creates life is bunk
>because if we changed the constants around, the life would change, too
>this proves the universe has no inherent drive to life, somehow
>???
>profit
you're retarded
>>454754
The universe is not based on anthropic values just because one planet out of billions have life. That is classic confirmation bias.
So the logic of the argument is wrong before it even starts.
>>454742
i'm not claiming to know the answer, however i can observe some evidence of why life is the way it is, and going back a few steps (that before science people thought it was impossible, such as evolution, DNA, atoms, etc) we are trying to give a logical answer that rely on observable phenoms.
just because we don't know the answers we shouldn't drop everything we know, and worked for just to rely on an answer that doesn't explain anything and raises more questions than the ones we want to answer.
who made the creator, then?
you will define the creator as an infinite being that doesn't need to be created and you'll be stuck in your own argument, by defining something you don't know to fit your narrative.
we try to see logic and evidence in the way things are, and so far it's working.
everything you do relies on a simple belief, defended by poor and flawed arguments to work, and still doesn't try to explain anything.
>>454750
>still talking to south park caricatures in his head
>posting logical arguments for design
That's ironic, because all I see is a manchild who cannot comprehend the world without inventing anthropomorphized characters such as God the Father and Mother Nature to populate his Panglossian fable.
>>454783
>A force strength or a particle mass often seems to need to be more or less exactly what it is not just for one reason, but for two or three or five. Yet obviously it could not be tuned in first one way and then another, to satisfy several conflicting requirements. A force strength or a mass cannot take several different values at once! So, you might think, mustn't it be inexplicable good fortune that the requirements which have to be satisfied do not conflict?.....
>"I suspect that we ought to be thinking in terms of hugely many possible Fundamental Theories. In most cases these Theories would make living things impossible because, alas, the existence of such beings would demand that such-and-such factors be fine tuned in conflicting ways. Perhaps only extremely rarely would any Fundamental Theory -- any Theory of Everything whose equations might be written on the back of an envelope or an elephant --- avoid this depressing result. But some small group of Theories would avoid it, and the Creator would be guided by this fact. (Leslie 1989, pp. 64-5)
>This fact makes it quite remarkable that a single range of values could satisfy more than one anthropic constraint. When the value of a single constant is constrained in more than one way, it would be very likely that these independent constraints put contradictory demands on the value of the constraint. By way of analogy, if I consider several algebraic equations, each with a single unknown, it would be very surprising if a single value satisfied all of the equations. Thus, it is surprising that a single range of values satisfies the various anthropic constraints simultaneously. Leslie argues that this higher-order coincidence suggests that the basic form of the laws of nature has itself been designed to make anthropic fine-tuning possible. In other words, Leslie argues that there is evidence of a higher-order fine-tuning.
>>454789
literally the only word that's been used in this thread is "intelligence" you delusional baboon faggot
also i want to ask, let's say you're right.
what is the implication, all religions are true? or it's just the catholic?
>>454771
Intentionally misreading the post
Ok, the OP's post is that because life exists and we assume that changing the parameters means that it wouldnt, it is improbable that the parameters would be such that life exists.
There are two major flaws in this argument;
Firstly the assumption that changing the parameters means that life wouldn't exist, it might it might not, we cannot tell.
Secondly the fact that if we were on one of the parameter selections where life doesnt exist, we wouldnt observe it. It has a bias towards confirming the prior simply because you are alive.
So no, you're a fucking retard who is trying to push conclusion orientated reasoning.
>>454787
you're projecting all these strawman onto the argument which proves you can never take anything even with slightest insinuation of religion because the scientist overlords just can't have that. literally no one's been talking about "dropping everything we know", the whole point of the argument is to at least logically prove an intelligence is possible.
you're off talking to the wall about God and reason and logic blah blah no one gives a fuck you faggot just work with the argument.
>>454817
>A force strength or a particle mass often seems to need to be more or less exactly what it is not just for one reason
Prove that if it deviated by some small value that things would be that different, prove that if it deviated by a large value that some other form of life might not be able to emerge. In both cases you cannot, and in both cases you cannot prove the alternative, making your argument bunk.
>"I suspect that we ought to be thinking in terms of hugely many possible Fundamental Theories. In most cases these Theories would make living things impossible because, alas, the existence of such beings would demand that such-and-such factors be fine tuned in conflicting ways.
No, they dont, string theory has 10^500 possible fundamental theories that they cant distinguish between and the current universe. This Leslie guy (albeit from the 1980's so I'll give him some slack for that), but what he's saying is either out of date or incorrect
>This fact makes it quite remarkable that a single range of values could satisfy more than one anthropic constraint.
It's not, again it's not possible to demonstrate what would happen if it was a different value, and by assuming it was forced to be this value you're just practising confirmation bias.
>>454825
if we were one of the bizarro universes the laws would still be "anthropic" in the sense that they were fine-tuned to create specifically THAT kind of life, and so the argument in their universe would still stand.
no shit we wouldn't exist if the universe wasn't anthropic you dipshit, but it is and here we are.
>Can the many-worlds hypothesis explain the higher-order fine-tuning. It can , but only if we suppose that the basic form of the laws of nature varies randomly from one universe to the next. If we combine this assumption with the assumption that there is a virtual infinity of alternative universes, then observer selection can explain why the basic form of the laws of the universe is fine-tuned.
>thinking many-worlds is a likelier and easier explanation to swallow
>However, the price to be paid for such a super-many-worlds hypothesis is quite high. It is a fundamental maxim of the scientific method to assume that the basic form of the laws of nature is uniform, that what we observe in our own neighborhood is typical of all of reality. If we abandon this maxim, then all inductive or scientific learning becomes impossible. If the laws of nature vary randomly from universe to universe, then we have good reason to believe that the laws of our own universe are very complex, not at all simple, no matter how much evidence of apparent simplicity we observe. The number of universes with complex laws of nature is much greater than the number of universes with simple laws. No matter how much data we collect, and no longer how simple the curve to which the data can be fit, there are infinitely many more complex curves passing through the data points than there are simple curves. This means that we would never be justified in inferring the existence of simple laws of nature. The super-many-worlds hypothesis would pull the rug out from beneath the scientific enterprise.
>>454817
Tell me, what would demonstrate conclusively, according to you, that the universe doesn't solely exist to produce life?
>>454736
That isn't a response to what I said at all
>>454846
Nigga please, like I'm the one who has the burden of proof. Universe exists to produce life. Life exists. Prove either of those premises false. I'm not saying they aren't, but prove it. I'll be waiting.
>>454832
>the whole point of the argument is to at least logically prove an intelligence is possible.
What an utterly pointless endeavor. That's like laboring to prove that Zeus could theoretically have been behind JFK's assassination.
In fact, allow me to prove your point for you once and for all with this logic:
1. Let's assume an omnipotent creator
2. Since he is omnipotent, he could have created the universe
There. It's much clearer, shorter and to the point. Now you don't have to waste your time copypasting all that useless shit.
>>454861
The universe exists. Life exists. Apparently, there is a purposiveness here. It is not unreasonable to suppose there is an intelligence responsible for this.
What are you getting triggered about faggot? The fact I'm talking about design in the current year?
>>454860
>Nigga please, like I'm the one who has the burden of proof.
You kind of do, since you make a claim that is at best unfalsifiable and at worst demonstrably wrong
>>454840
Ok, let me spell it out for you again because you seem to be retarded.
Either various constants are finely crafted for life, in which case there should be an incredibly small set of universes in which life may arise, vs a purely random distribution where life cannot exist. Both of these statements are non provable and their converse is also non provable.
Given that the statement that the various constants are finely tuned for life is the premise of the anthropic principle and you cant prove or even strongly weight that statement, then the rest of the argument fails to follow.
That is to say that you can't demonstrate that the constants are finely tuned for life and you cant prove the alternative as the only evidence the argument draws on is this universe, which is just providing a confirmation bias in this case.
>>454874
>The universe exists. Life exists. >Apparently, there is a purposiveness here.
Sorry, how did you get from one to the other? You just assumed purpose out of thin air. You went from 'is' to 'ought' without any justification
>>454877
>non provable
>In 1973, astronomer and cosmologist Brandon Carter (Carter 1974) delivered a lecture in which he announced an exciting new discovery: the fundamental constants of the physical world must have been very delicately fine-tuned in order to make life possible. Since that time, literally dozens of such remarkable coincidences have been discovered, the so-called "anthropic coincidences". ("Anthropic" is a Greek word meaning "tending to bring about the existence of human beings.")
>For example, the ratios of the four fundamental forces, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, had to be balanced with great precision in order to make the universe hospitable to life.
>A very remarkable case of fine-tuning has to do with the smoothness of the universe as it emerged from the Big Bang. The universe had to be extremely smooth, or else it would have been packed with nothing but black holes. At the same time, there had to be just the right amount of lumpiness to the early universe, to make the formation of stars and galaxies possible. Mathematician Roger Penrose (Penrose 1981) has estimated that the margin of error permitted here was less than 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power (that is, 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros, more zeros than there are particles in the universe!)
>>454563
>Therefore, the constants take the values that they do because these values are anthropic
Or it is just random chance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
>>454885
Life exists (is), so it ought to exist? What are you even blithering about? I'm starting from the is and assuming there is an intelligent purposiveness behind that is.
>>454665
This is the best answer
>>454894
>Concerning the weak nuclear force:
>If significantly stronger: fusion at the big bang would have proceeded directly to iron, giving us a star-free universe.
>If significantly weaker: an all-helium universe would result.
>The weak nuclear force must be extremely weak compared to the other forces, yet just strong enough to make supernovas possible.
>Concerning the strong nuclear force:
>If 2 percent stronger: this would prevent the formation of protons.
>If 1 percent stronger: all carbon would have been turned into oxygen.
>If 1 percent weaker: no carbon would have been formed from beryllium.
>Concerning electromagnetism:
>if slightly stronger: all red stars, no supernovae
>if slightly weaker: all fast-burning blue dwarves
Fuck off back to reddit
>>454874
>The universe exists. Life exists. Apparently, there is a purposiveness here
It's not particularly reasonable to assume that there is purpose there. At least, not any more than when you assume Jesus' face appeared on your french toast.
>It is not unreasonable to suppose there is an intelligence responsible for this.
I don't know, I've never seen a reasonable person make that supposition.
>>454901
>assuming there is an intelligent purposiveness behind that is
Based on what? You quite literally assume this out of thin air. You never justify your leap from fact to purpose
>>454907
Interesting claims. Do they have any connection to an argument you were going to make?
>>454901
>Life exists (is), so it ought to exist?
That's your argument in a nutshell, in fact. It's fascinating how you can't even recognize it.
>>454890
>1973
String theory gives 10^500 working universes circa the 90's please stop citing old research or I'll start insisting that Aristotelian physics is correct.
>For example, the ratios of the four fundamental forces, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, had to be balanced with great precision in order to make the universe hospitable to life.
Astronomers have next to no basis in biology, this is not a figure of authority to even be making this statement. Carter is a much better figure to discuss Carter-Penrose diagrams or the no hair theorem, both of which I will happily concede are his field.
And Penrose in 1981 is very different to today, we got additional information on universal expansion rates from supernovae dispersions which provides small breaks for the homogeneity condition of the universe and allows us to surmount the "lumpiness" problem. (for reference Penrose got heavily involved in some very esoteric physics and ended up doing strings and things, at which point he dropped the exact arguments you're quoting here)
You're (a) attempting to appeal to authority and picking the a time when there was less information than today, and (b) ignoring the argument; we cannot prove that by changing the constants whether life would or would not emerge and as a result the remainder of the argument fails to follow.
Every "first cause" argument ever:
>we can see that all things (within the universe) have a cause (within the universe)
>therefore the universe must have a cause(from outside the universe)
>not God though, he doesn't need a first cause
fallacy of composition + non-sequitur + special pleading.
>>454955
>fallacy of composition
>it's premature to infer the rest of the universe follows causality
>turns around and applies causality to God
great argument, such rigour
>>454907
So it's really not the "anthropic principle" at all. More like the "different kinds of stars and more periodic elements principle"?
>>454563
Basically the argument from fine tuning. I think the basic flaw in the argument is that the physical constants must inherently have a 'purpose'. The physical constants are fundamental to the universe itself, without them we would not have the universe as we know it. So essentially what you are asking is: what is the purpose of the universe?
To this question there really isn't an answer. Even if you assert that there is a greater purpose of the universe you only open up more questions than you answer. Why must there be a purpose to the universe? Why this purpose in particular and not others?
As others ITT have already mentioned nobody really knows what would happen if these fundamental constants where changed and anybody that claims to seems to suffer from mere conjecture. For example you often here that if you change such and such value by a factor of 100, that life itself could not exist. Generally these claims are baseless and no evidence is given of how they were derived. But even if this claim where true so what? All that is essentially being said is if you change the universe so it is inhospitable for life, life could not exist. By way of analogy I could argue that if you change the fundamental rules of monopoly the game could not be played as intended. Its purpose could not be fulfilled. For example in standard monopoly you start with $2000, the cheapest house is like $60? Well if you decrease the cash you start with and use by a factor of 100 and keep everything else the same. The game becomes unplayable, you can't buy any houses initially and you only get $0.02 as you pass go. If you fundamentally change the 'rules' of the game or the universe of course you are going to get a different game(or universe).
>>454973
we need stars and the elements that make them up to have life you fucking retard. you couldn't have those values pump out stars and not give us life too, because for stars to happen the constants must have been tuned in such a way that life had to happen to. can't have one without the other. it's a 2 for 1 deal
>>454907
>If significantly stronger: fusion at the big bang would have proceeded directly to iron, giving us a star-free universe.
So instead of burning helium we can get large balls of iron with molten cores, given unitarity of symmetry breaking (and electroweak separation being the first breaking event) I can then decrease the strength of the strong nuclear force and the residual strong nuclear force and we get back the rest of the elements via transfer of nucleons in the weakened residual strong nuclear force regime; everything fuses but everything is also radioactive. Once I have a method of generating more elements I can get (short lived) life.
>If significantly weaker: an all-helium universe would result.
Stars can burn helium, this is not a problem, universe develops as normal
> yet just strong enough to make supernovas possible.
We don't know what the instigating factor is in supernovae yet, that's an open field of research; we have some good guesses but the models do not yet match the observations.
>If 2 percent stronger: this would prevent the formation of protons.
Wait, are we discussing the coupling constant here, because that's already 1, you cant meaningfully raise the notion of increasing the strength of the strong nuclear force.
>If 1 percent weaker: no carbon would have been formed from beryllium.
Ok, what are you claiming mediates this transition, I need some sources here
>if slightly stronger: all red stars, no supernovae
Stars dont run on electromagnetism, they're mostly based on degeneracy pressure which does not require EM, also again no reason this should change the action of supernovae
>if slightly weaker: all fast-burning blue dwarves
Once again, primary motivators of stars are degeneracy pressure and gravity, I'm not seeing where you're getting these claims from
Not even the guy you're telling to go back to reddit, but for fucks sakes source.
>>454985
yeah but we need constants, stars, and elements exactly the way they are to produce everything that exists or occurs in this universe...
really it should be the "I took my dog for a walk today principle" because the physical constants of the universe all directly led to that event.
>>454901
Not him, but why would you assume this intelligent purposiveness?
>>454985
>I can't imagine any possible world where only stars exist but not life.
Sigh... no imagination.
>>454997
and if the whole universe led to that it'd be pretty easy to assume there was an intelligence behind it. thanks for supporting my argument
>>454563
>We set aside the multi-worlds hypothesis?
Why?
>>455009
If stars as we knew them only existed they'd still eventually create heavier elements in their cores which would be dispersed upon their death and eventually become life you fucking retard
>>455013
because it doesn't explain shit and isn't a very satisfactory answer?
> instead of one universe, we have to explain existence of octillions, checkmate theism, this is a much simpler answer than god heh
>>455016
Obviously the stars would be a bit different
>>455012
I don't believe in thor, I'm just the guy who got you to admit that the whole universe exists so that I can walk my dog.
If anything, you've just admitted that the physical constants are way over-tuned - to the extent that I don't have free will. After all, the dog-walking was a direct result of the alleged fine-tuning.
>>454966
>it's premature to infer the rest of the universe follows causality
I said nothing about "the rest of the universe", I'm talking about the universe itself. Things within the universe have causes within the universe. The universe itself shouldn't have the same property (can't, in fact, because it can't have been caused/created by things in the universe.)
Deists assume that the universe must have a cause because things in it have a cause, in short it's a thing just like the things in it [fallacy of composition]
But since it can't have quite the same property as the things in it (be caused by other stuff that exists in the universe) they come up with another (be created ex nihilo) and pretend it somehow derives from the initial assumption [non-sequitur]
And while causality is assumed for the universe for no good reason, causality doesn't need to apply to God [special pleading]
>>455022
if the universe's purpose was an intelligent action, we can say it is intelligent in nature. jesus fucking christ
>>455017
The Anthropic principle also doesnt explain shit and isn't a very satisfactory answer
> We have one universe and things are that way because god did it, checkmate atheists science solved heh
>>455032
both are as likely, why you getting triggered again?
>>455031
>the universe was fine-tuned to be the way that is is. If it wasn't the way that it is, it wouldn't have been tuned that way.
Guys I forget, which comes first? the cart or the horse?
>>455040
>universe either blipped into being, fine-tuned and ready for life, but it JUST HAPPENED OK STOP FUCKING ASKING QUESTIONS
>universe is one of trillions and trillions, AND THAT JUST HAPPENED TOO OK STOP FUCKING ASKING QUESTIONS
>>455048
>GODIDIT OK STOP FUCKING ASKING QUESTIONS
>>455053
>an argument for the plausibility of design is GODDIT
nigger stop fucking strawmanning
>>455048
You assume the universe was created, rather than eternal or cyclical.
>>455048
oof, I'm embarrassed for you. You stopped responding to me two posts ago and you're just strawmanning now.
>>455048
>fine-tuned and ready for life
Wouldn't your same argument apply to "fine-tuned for NON-life"?
>>455062
Yes and also fine tuned for the red spot of Jupiter, and for Beauty Pageants and for Yo-Yo's but he doesn't see that. The allure of the argument is in thinking that humans are special precious snowflakes.
You've convinced me OP. Now which religion has the right interpretation of God? You seem like a smart guy so come with some arguments for which is the correct one.
>>455069
>only the existence of a Christian god disproves atheism
literally too reddit to live
>>455068
consciousness is a fundamentally different phenomenon than storms on a gas giant you fucking mong
>>455062
No, because you've got this autistic insistence on constantly having to remind me about the stuff that isn't alive. Yeah, I fucking get it dude, space is kind of empty and there's lots of rocks floating around, why is does that arbitrarily more primacy than life? Because there's a lot of it and it doesn't do anything? Fallacy of composition. Because it makes you feel cool knowing you're championing nihilistic materialism on a Chinese cartoon website? Fuck off already, prove your position that life is a by-product of matter and not the other way around right now. You're starting from as many assumptions as I am.
>>455083
>religion is just like picking out some bracelets on the home shopping network, I have to find the right one!
confirmed for not knowing the first thing about an authentic relationship with the divine
>>455095
>consciousness is a fundamentally different phenomenon than storms on a gas giant you fucking mong
It's also different from yo-yo's but you haven't refuted my point.
>>455095
Only the existence of God(s) would disprove atheism, yes.
>>454563
>>1. The physical constants of the cosmos take anthropic values.
you're putting the cart before the horse. The universe shaped us, we didn't shape it.
>>2. This coincidence must have a causal explanation (we set aside for the moment the possibility of a chance explanation through the many-worlds hypothesis).
It's only a coincidence if you believe that humanity was somehow the end goal of existence, which is bizarre
>>3. Therefore, the constants take the values that they do because these values are anthropic (i.e., because they cause the conditions needed for life).
>>4. Therefore, the purpose of the values of these constants is to permit the development of life (using the aetiological definition of purpose).
>>5. Therefore, the values of these constants are the purposive effects of an intelligent agent (using the minimalist conception of agency).
>>6. Therefore, the cosmos has been created.
see above
This reeks of superstition, not to mention anthropocentrism.
>>455095
>prove your position that life is a by-product of matter and not the other way around right now.
I never made this claim. Simply imagine a universe that has no life. Your exact same argument could be employed to say it was fine-tuned for non-life
>>455098
>relationship with the divine
Your 6th point just concluded that the universe was created. Not that there was a divine being or that I could have relations with it.
>>455100
I have, because consciousness is a fundamentally different phenomenon than [insert arbitrary physical phenomenon like black holes]. It must be accounted for in a system that is only geared to produce non-living phenomena. Either that or we have to accept the whole point was create this life thing in the first place. Prove it wasn't.
>>455108
>you're putting the cart before the horse. The universe shaped us, we didn't shape it.
What? Are you autistic?
>It's only a coincidence if you believe that humanity was somehow the end goal of existence, which is bizarre
>humanity
Jeesuuuuuuus fucking chriiiiiist
we're not talking about just humanity
LIFE IN GENERAL YOU AUTIST
Superstition? Superstition of what? What are you even talking about you fucking dumb faggot?
>>455113
What? Because it would be? so if we have a universe with life, and i employ this argument, suddenly it doesn't count? Yeah okay.
>>455116
Having relations with deities always seemed scandalous/blasphemous/dangerous to me anyway. I don't really know of any other religions that focus on your "relationship with God" either, besides Roman paganism in which you were very literally related to your dynasty's deity and such.
>>455098
As a person who was raised in a irreligious household how would I find out which one is the correct one? You say you cannot choose like if I went like shopping. I was only introduced to the christian faith in my upbringing so should I just accept that as truth or what are you saying? Is there no correct answer as long as you get enlightened by a faith?
>>455126
>what is mysticism
>>455095
>prove your position that life is a by-product of matter and not the other way around
What is the Urey and Miller experiment. If we go by the assumption that life on earth is the only life in the universe (a huge assumption I know and one which I personally don't agree with but one which most religious people support). Then life only began ~3.8 billion years ago at the earliest accepted evidence and therefore life has only been present for at best 30% of the universes existence, so obviously life is a by-product of matter by the most basic of reasoning.
>>455131
As far as I understand, it's not obligatorily about spiritual intercourse with beings that would give Lovecraft nightmares.
>>455118
1. Bonus Points for moving the goalpost back and forth in one post. Are we talking about consciousness or life?
2. You're stating that consciousness is "fundamentally different" than other things in the universe but I don't see what you're basing this on. Is this a dualist position?
If you want consciousness to be special snowflake stuff you should just claim there is a soul. Then we can have a different argument about how consciousness arises.
What is this metaphysics bs?
>>455130
read holy texts of many religions, both exoteric and esoteric, see the overall patterns they all share, their similarities, discard the differences (which are often only doctrinal and superficial), come to a conclusion yourself.
>>455132
even discounting that huge assumption, can you prove that's "slow"? what's your sample size? given the total, predicted age of the universe - which is in the trillions of years - doesn't it seem like the opposite, that life popped up pretty early in the game?
>>454563
Wrong. The universe was made for sunsets
>>455139
Dude what. Because we're humans and we're living in the universe this argument about the anthropic principle is describing. Will you just forget this stupid cartoon of the theist just needing a sky daddy to pat him on the back and think he's special, and get with the program? We're trying to understand reality not get fucking metaphysical kisses for spiritual boo boos. Fuck's sakes.
>>455141
>consciousness isn't special and at least, objectively, very rare
We're done here. I can't believe I have to prove to you that even just an animal is fundamentally different from a pebble, which can only be acted on, and never act.
>>455118
Calm the fuck down, you sperg
there's no difference in the argument whether you use humanity or life in general. There's nothing special about life you fucking retard, it's just a particularly complex structure that's capable of reproducing.moving feeding, etc. Why do you assume that life was the end goal of existence and that the universe "got it right"
By superstition I mean you see something you think is significant and you ascribe it to fate, as if life was destined to happen, and the fact that it did against all odds is evidence that someone wanted it that way.
Sure, life is unlikely, but so is everything else in the universe, so is everything else in every possible universe. The lottery is unlikely too, and the winning numbers are just as improbable as the losers, and everyone who wins thinks fate is on their side. Fucking superstition.
>>455148
Sorry "guy who thinks consciousness isn't self-evidently different from a rock on the ground", you will be missed for the intellectual rigour of your arguments and the penetrating erudition of your insights.
Fuck off back to reddit faggot
>>455159
>Because we're humans and we're living in the universe this argument about the anthropic principle is describing.
But unnecessary. The same argument can be applied to a universe with non-life or the HIV virus. Hence there is a more general version of this argument, and it goes like this >>454731
Once the general form of the argument is revealed, it is entirely unconvincing.
>>455165
>life is just a structure maan
Fucking retard, like the whole thrust of the argument isn't the fact that this emergent property called life exists in the first place. Only a dead inside dipshit like you would look around at the wealth and variety of life in the natural world and just go "BRO LIKE IT'S JUST LIKE LOTTO NUMBERS MAN LMAO"
We're talking about the POTENTIALITY of life in the first place you fucking dipshit. "dude why you bugging about life it was bound to happen sooner or later man i bet you think dreamcatchers are the real deal lmao" the whole point is WHY IS THAT THE CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Fucking STEMfaggot dipshit. Gotta explain and empirically prove the most sensible fucking statements even the guy who mows my lawn would accept without a second thought.
>>455146
Doesn't matter if it's slow or not. Even if life 'popped up early' that still means that matter preceded it and by extension life is a subset of matter. Post the big bang we know that the universe was essentially uniform (ignoring extremely minor variations) in matter for at least 300,000 years, there was certainly not life at this time. Ergo matter preceded life.
>>455184
Hahahahahaha
Oh my god.
Oh my god.
You're a fucking idiot. Stop posting.
Oh my god you really think I'm denying life is made of matter, or something. So I guess because a singularity preceded the universe this singularity still exists and is the only thing that exists, instead of just accepting the infinitely more sensible statement that this singularity, and by extension matter, carry the potential for emergent properties we call life and consciousness and that it is a fact that bears some serious investigation? Fucking retard, no one's denying life doesn't emerge from matter you dipshit
Is the supreme being retarded? This was the best universe it could make for creating life?
>>455159
Rare = Special=Must-have-been-designed? There's only one Horse Head Nebula, so it must be even more special.
I already know how you're going to respond to this too. "Clouds in Space are different from consciousness! and consciousness is super special!"
I'm going to tell you this right now: You are not special. You are an autistic teenager on an anime board.
>Global Rule 3. You will not post any of the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, etc. etc.
Remember to report all of this guy's posts
>>455118
>because consciousness is a fundamentally different phenomenon than [insert arbitrary physical phenomenon like black holes].
It's created by physical phenomenons though, that Damasio explained in his book "Descartes Error"
Emotions and subjectivity are good evolutionary traits. We're just fine tuned animals with the ability to think about themselves and beyond. As well as to make up fairytales in the sky.
>>455180
>wealth and variety of life in the natural world
Finally! We get here again. Your entire argument is based on a value judgement of "human worth." This is a totally abstract and subjective concept - it doesn't fit into a formal argument like OP's. Humans are valuable to humans, not to the universe, kid. One day you'll get it, I'm proud of you this far.
All life is just energy flowing through matter. A physical phnomenon like any other.
>>455201
A mind is not a rock. A rock can never be a mind. A mind can experience a rock as an internal representation. This is fundamentally different from what every rock in the universe is capable of doing. A rock is inert. A mind is not. This is the difference.
>>455203
lmao what a faggot
>r-remember to report the bad man's posts g-guys!!
>>455208
NO ONE'S WONDERING HOW LIFE HAPPENS YOU FUCKING RETARD
WE KNOW HOW IT DOES
IT'S THE FACT THAT PHYSICAL PHENOMONA CREATE APPARENTLY NON-PHYSICAL PHENOMENA IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT'S THE ISSUE
FUCK
>PHYSICAL PHENOMONA CREATE APPARENTLY NON-PHYSICAL PHENOMENA
prove it
>>455212
>"human worth"
nigger you've been talking to the wall this whole time. next time you wanna get in a debate engage with the points presented instead of the faggot shadow puppet play in your head
>>455180
why are you freaking out so much
There's a wealth and variety of fuckloads of things beyond life, why do you think life is special?
>it was bound to happen sooner or later man
except that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. You're saying life was bound to happen and the fact that it did against all odds is proof that it had help. I'm saying that it doesn't matter that life happened, a universe could have been created where there was nothing but rocks, and a universe could have existed where there were 5 dimensional hyperintellegences whipping about at superlight speed.
Again I'll use the lottery example: no matter which number you roll, the result is going to be extremely improbable, so it's foll to look at one of a myriad of extremely improbable results and say "well this is extremely improbable, someone must have used the force"
superstition.
>>STEMfaggot
couldn't be farther from the truth
>>455229
Prove they don't faggot, since from where I'm standing my position is a lot more self-evident than yours. I like how it's self-evident there's no God so I have to prove there is one, but it's not self-evident that consciousness is more than just physical bits, so I have to prove that, too. Yeah okay.
>“I am drawn to a fourth alternative, natural teleology, or teleological bias, as an account of the existence of the biological possibilities on which natural selection can operate. I believe that teleology is a naturalistic alternative that is distinct from all three of the other candidate explanations: chance, creationism, and directionless physical law. To avoid the mistake that White finds in the hypothesis of nonintentional bias, teleology would have to be restrictive in what it makes likely, but without depending on intentions or motives. This would probably have to involve some conception of an increase in value through the expanded possibilities provided by the higher forms of organization toward which nature tends: not just any outcome could qualify as a telos. That would make value an explanatory end, but not one that is realized through the purposes or intentions of an agent. Teleology means that in addition to physical law of the familiar kind, there are other laws of nature that are "biased toward the marvelous".”
>>455218
>A mind is not a rock.
This is a total non-sequitur. Look at you. You're describing the differences between a brain and a rock.
Show me why the fine-tuning of the universe created brains specifically instead of anything else that is unique or complex or rare (or common or red or smelly)?
Pro-tip: you can't. All you can do is go back to waxing poetically about "wealth and variety" like a teen girl.
>>455240
>the universe could have been [implausible scenario], therefore life has no value checkmate
Fucking too retarded for words
There are really no minds, it is just in your head.
>>455251
>“Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the prevailing doctrine—that the appearance of life from dead matter and its evolution through accidental mutation and natural selection to its present forms has involved nothing but the operation of physical law—cannot be regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis.”
>>455247
I don't claim anything. You do, so prove it.
>>455271
No, you're definitely claiming something. Please prove that consciousness isn't non-physical since it's just soooooo obvious.
>>455272
>shackles
Give me a break you embarrassing faggot.
>“A comprehensively reductive conception is favored by the belief that the propensity for the development of organisms with a subjective view must have been there from the beginning, just as the propensity for the formation of atoms, molecules, galaxies, and organic compounds must have been there from the beginning.”
>“Everything, living or not, is constituted from elements having a nature that is both physical and nonphysical--that is, capable of combining into mental wholes. So this reductive account can also be described as a form of panpsychism: all the elements of the physical world are also mental....”
>“Are there any alternatives? Well, there is the hypothesis that this universe is not unique, but that all possible universes exist, and we find ourselves, not surprisingly, in one that contains life. But that is a cop-out, which dispenses with the attempt to explain anything. And without the hypothesis of multiple universes, the observation that if life hadn't come into existence we wouldn't be here has no significance. One doesn't show that something doesn't require explanation by pointing out that it is a condition of one's existence. If I ask for an explanation of the fact that the air pressure in the transcontinental jet is close to that at sea level, it is no answer to point out that if it weren't, I'd be dead.”
>>455276
What is my claim? I am merely asking on what you base your assumptions about the non-physical nature of consciousness.
>>455288
That consciousness is purely physical. Which is implied in the plain-to-see fucking fact that you're asking me to prove it isn't. Prove your claim first, thanks friend.
>>455276
You're quoting things you don't understand. If you came to this thread as a Nagel-ite, you might at least consider understanding Dennett's criticisms.
>>455295
>Dennett
that mega autist? Lmao
nice refutation of his points, by the way.
>h-he's totally w-wrong if you just order and read this book!!
>>455300
I'm going to, in plain English - for your benefit because it's clear you don't understand his ideas - which is why you're copy pasting instead of arguing. Just remember that you were the first one to make that cowardly move. (Daddy Nagel, come help!)
>>455300
Also keep in mind that Nagel pretty much quit the field after "...bat?" and Dennett has basically been tearing him apart ever since. Contemporary dualism... who would have thought we'd regress so far?
>>455325
>Daniel "you're just imagining your mental life lmao" Dennett
Nigga please
>>455291
You seem to have misinterpreted my words. I did not ask you to prove that it is not, I asked you to prove that it is.
>>455325
>In some deterministic worlds there are avoiders avoiding harms.
Therefore, in some deterministic worlds some things are avoided.
Whatever is avoided is avoidable, or evitable.
Therefore, in some deterministic worlds not everything is inevitable.
Therefore, determinism does not imply inevitability.
>Yes, Daniel Dennett is literally arguing that because in some deterministic animations depict things being avoided, determinism does not imply inevitability. (It would seem an obvious corollary that Mickey Mouse has free will.)
Lmao
>>455357
you're pretty autistic if you don't get why I'd post a ridiculous argument to discredit your Daddy you retard. Please, like i give a fuck about non sequitors when this entire thread's argument has pretty much been "nuh-uh! you think life is special, I don't! so there!"
>>455363
YOU keep using that word "special," I don't.
>>455038
I'm not, I'm just pointing out that both are silly arguments to be having (although foundationalists dont see it as multiple universes, they see it as an infinite series of superpositions it is observationally identical to multiple universes)
>4. Therefore, the purpose of the values of these constants is to permit the development of life (using the aetiological definition of purpose).
Could you expand on this? Why is that so?
What about the 99% of lifeless matter? It's just a condition for life? Why does a creator need conditions to create? Why is life the goal of the universe?
Why does a creator add meaning to everything? What if you go to heaven, what will be your purpose then? Just to be with God?
>>455363
>>455369
"Life is Special" is just >muh feels
You're welcome to have feels, kid, we all do. But they just don't fit into a formal argument. Also, be a dualist if you're a dualist.
Don't quote from some hack whose only work in neuroscience is 30 years old, and who pretends not to be a dualist because it's not in vogue anymore.
>>455291
The neutral position is that it is currently undetermined whether consciousness is physical or non physical, if a claim is made that either of these cases is true then evidence must be provided for it.
A similar case may be found by arguing the contents of a closed box; the natural basis is that we dont know what is in a closed box and any suggestion that you do know what is in the box requires some evidence or support.
Given that you posited that consciousness is non physical, and he did not posit that it was physical, burden of proof is on you and not him (up until he does require a physical notion of consciousness for his argument)
Note that proof by contradiction does not hold here, as mixed ensembles are not prohibited and that ontologies of non physical consciousnesses may be mutually exclusive.
>>455390
yeah okay, like life not being special isn't just your feels too. or are you privy to an objective POV the rest of us aren't? and don't say science you faggot
>>455402
Of course life is special TO ME. It's all I've got. I don't pretend that my subjective experience of the worth of human life is somehow shared by the universe at large.
You might not believe it, but life in the universe probably has an end date, and after that, another dozen billion years is going to go by. Will life and consciousness still be the "goal" of the universe at that point?
>>455425
>your intuitions about the nature of life and the universe are wrong because they're not my intuitions about the nature of life and the universe
>rocks can't experience subjective meaning so all abstract valuations are false for some retarded reason
lol
>>455452
these are still mis-characterizations of my statements.
>your intuitions about the nature of life and the universe are wrong because they're not my intuitions about the nature of life and the universe
I don't have intuitions about the nature of life and the universe, as such. We've identified what your intuitions are, and I'm systematically breaking them down into constituent nonsense. You've made a claim "I am special and the Universe exists to make ME!" - we are now examining that claim - the burden of proof is on you
>>454563
Every time I see /his/ attempt to talk about anything remotely scientific, it is just terrible.
>>455468
Yup, any argument for an intelligent cause for the universe is just an elaborate way of claiming the universe revolves around you. All theists are mental teenagers, got it.
You've been strawmanning so hard you don't know what's what
>>454563
Id like arguments supporting premise 1
>>455144
It's a retarded deist trying to make the worst arguments possible
It's funny that I'm a pandeist and I still smell the stupid.
>>455137
It's not? Bummer, there goes my New Year plans :(
>>455153
Misspelled "there" as "their"
Proof their is no God/10
>>455500
>just an elaborate way of claiming the universe revolves around you
I'll bet you thought that school was just for you, and that you were the most important and smartest student ever.
Cause school is designed, both in structure and in curriculum. And that means it's all about you.
>>455218
>NON-PHYSICAL PHENOMENA
What?
Are you talking about life? That shit is pretty physical.
The soul? That shit could be it's own stupid argument.
Fucking hilarious you lack the imagination or thoughtfulness to understand that if the universe had different constants, it'd either self-implode due to instability, or form stars like >>454986
describes, and thus be stable enough for the possibility of life (not as we know it) to emerge.
And all of that would require exactly 0 deities or demiurges.
What would it require tho?
Now THAT is a question we could get answers to, unlike any GODIDIT explanations that are merely unnecessary roadblocks on our way to discovery.
I'm a theist btw. I believe because I like to, but at least I know it doesn't make much sense. What can I say? I'm people, and people are stupid :P
http://youtu.be/qD4eAMrkIlM
You're done.
(3) is blatant question-begging. (4) is established by definition, and doesn't actually follow from the premises. (5) finds you sneaking in the term 'intelligent agent', which is contained in none of the premises. (6) is merely asserted, and does not follow.
(1) and (2) are basically nonsense. The anthropic principle allows for the contingency of our existence given the counter-factual possibility of different 'starting conditions' of the universe. There is also a naive conception of causality at play here that doesn't allow for actual elements of our universe, such as true randomness.
>>458645
>le we exist but there's a chance we couldnt have so there's no reason to speculate about anything ever again except unless it confirms my sterile reductivist worldview that treats life like an embarrassing 'mistake and demeans the human experience to that of a cosmic parlor trick because if I devote my life to studying dead matter I'm entitled to make sweeping philosophical statements about value, meaning and purpose and you're required to agree with me or else you're denying all of SCIENCE maymay
STEM autists will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever fucking goddamn get it
>>458790
You're really stupid and you're betraying your biases with "muh STEM" ranting. I'm not sure if you even know what you are saying. This is your argument:
>1. The physical constants of the universe take anthropic values.
The universe permits life, sure.
>2. This coincidence must have a causal explanation
Not a coincidence, but everything has a causal relationship so w/e
>3. Therefore, the constants take the values that they do because these values are anthropic
This is where you go full retard. "The universe takes anthropic values because these values are anthropic". Begging the question, complete circular reasoning.
>4. Therefore, the purpose of the values of these constants is to permit the development of life
"The universe takes anthropic values because these values are anthropic, therefore the purpose of anthropic values are to be anthropic"
Again I'll ask, do you even know what you are saying?
>5. Therefore, the values of these constants are the purposive effects of an intelligent agent
"The universe takes anthropic values because these values are anthropic, therefore the purpose of anthropic values are to be anthropic, therefore god wanted them to be anthropic"
It's retarded even without god but where the fuck you pull god from?
>6. Therefore, the cosmos has been created.
So god is real lol QED
>>458862
That's awesome, friend, but let's try that again and don't ignore the information in the parentheses because it's pretty obvious this was part of a much larger article
>>458869
>That's awesome, friend, but let's try that again and don't ignore the information in the parentheses because it's pretty obvious this was part of a much larger article
lol ok
>1. The physical constants of the cosmos take anthropic values.
The universe permits life, sure.
>2. This coincidence must have a causal explanation (we set aside for the moment the possibility of a chance explanation through the many-worlds hypothesis).
Not a coincidence, but everything has a causal relationship so w/e
>3. Therefore, the constants take the values that they do because these values are anthropic (i.e., because they cause the conditions needed for life).
This is where you go full retard. "The universe takes anthropic values because these values are anthropic". Begging the question, complete circular reasoning.
>4. Therefore, the purpose of the values of these constants is to permit the development of life (using the aetiological definition of purpose).
"The universe takes anthropic values because these values are anthropic, therefore the purpose of anthropic values are to be anthropic"
Again I'll ask, do you even know what you are saying?
>5. Therefore, the values of these constants are the purposive effects of an intelligent agent (using the minimalist conception of agency).
"The universe takes anthropic values because these values are anthropic, therefore the purpose of anthropic values are to be anthropic, therefore god wanted them to be anthropic"
It's retarded even without god but where the fuck you pull god from?
>6. Therefore, the cosmos has been created.
So god is real lol QED
>>458790
>there's no reason to speculate about anything ever again except unless it confirms my sterile reductivist worldview
This is ironically a very good description of what you're doing right now
>>458885
Oh fuck off, like getting shouted down by the peanut gallery if you so much as imply life is a separate phenomenon from just dead matter floating around (not even "special", not even "rare", none of that) is getting fucking old. Literally dealing with undergrads who think physical sciences can comment on meaning, or lack thereof. Fuck outta here
>>458894
Right, because having the answer to every possible question be 'god dun did it' and telling everyone who even slightly disagrees with you to 'fuck off' is really open minded
>>458894
>Oh fuck off, like getting shouted down by the peanut gallery if you so much as imply life is a separate phenomenon from just dead matter floating around (not even "special", not even "rare", none of that) is getting fucking old. Literally dealing with undergrads who think physical sciences can comment on meaning, or lack thereof. Fuck outta here
>Start a thread about Anthropic values as evidence of a creator
>use it to rant about meaning, consciousness, STEM and more.
It's like when /pol/ pretends to ask a question about african civilisation. They don't even wait to get BTFO before spewing their butthurt everywhere. That's what you're doing. You pretended to make a point so you could rant about something unrelated without your thread getting deleted.
>>458883
lol I think you're slow. drop out of whatever STEM program neil degrasse tyson convinced you to try, you're gonna blow up a fucking lab or something m8
>This is where you go full retard. "The universe takes anthropic values because these values are anthropic". Begging the question, complete circular reasoning.
If you grant the universe's propensity for life is in no way random and is in fact casually derived from the interactions of its most fundamental forces, yes it is not a stretch to say the universe is "anthropic" in the sense that life is inextricably tied up with the very forces that permit its functioning. Don't have an aneurysm you clown, the same word means different things in different contexts.
>Again I'll ask, do you even know what you are saying?
So here's what you're telling me: that this universe blipped into existence with the sole "purpose" (don't have a spergout) of just aimlessly existing for trillions of years before returning to nothingness. Except woops, turns out if you get some prebiological material together somewhere, add a little heat, and shake, and suddenly you get biological material. Well, that wasn't supposed to happen! But whatever, just a bug I guess.
Oh but wait given enough time these little flakes of protein assembled themselves through the very same laws that they are apparently a meaningless by-product of into living, thinking, feeling beings that are utterly the complete opposite of dead, unfeeling, unthinking matter. And we're supposed to believe these same laws that gave us life and consciousness were only "meant" to just give us an empty void with some gas and dust floating around, and to suggest otherwise is scientific heresy. What a load.
>>458932
Why do you keep raging about STEM? I'm not in STEM. You're 6 point argument is retarded but I think I get what you're trying to say, correct me if I'm wrong:
>Life is extremely complex, it is very unlikely that the exact conditions necessary for life should arise, unless they were designed.
If that's your argument, my problem is that you are
1: attaching an undue importance to life as opposed to the many other extremely complex entities in the universe.
2: putting the cart before the horse. You're saying that the universe has certain properties in order to cause life. In reality life has certain properties because of the way the universe is
>If you grant ....... forces that permit its functioning.
Literally everything in the universe is "casually derived from the interactions of its most fundamental forces" and "inextricably tied up with the very forces that permit its functioning"
>this universe blipped into existence with the sole "purpose" (don't have a spergout) of just aimlessly existing for trillions of years before returning to nothingness.
The universe is aimlessly existing, and will eventually return to nothing. Life doesn't change that.
>Except woops, turns .....a bug I guess.
You're acting as if that proves something about the universe. Life forming doesn't give purpose of the universe no more than snowflakes, black holes or crystals forming.
>Oh but .... is scientific heresy.
yes, life is complex, we get it. There are probably things that are more complex, in fact we might even make them. The universe is not "meant" to give us anything, it's just shit happening. It could have been an empty void and it could have been a world more fascinating than we can even imagine, but it wasn't. it was this one. Nothing is "scientific heresy", if you can observe, test it and falsify it it's science.
>>458790
I pointed out the flaws in your reasoning and the dubeity of your premises, that's all. That you drew such conclusions as I am a 'STEMfag' from these rather plain observations tells me you have a propensity to extrapolate outlandishly from nothing.
The failure of your particular argument does not preclude rationality in nature. Your reactions, however, preclude my attributing to you anything resembling such.
>>459055
No, you don't get it all. Marone.
>>Life is extremely complex, it is very unlikely that the exact conditions necessary for life should arise, unless they were designed.
What no you dingus. It's the fact complex molecular structures can cohere and exhibit this property we call "life" in the first place. Jesus fucking Christ.
>2: putting the cart before the horse. You're saying that the universe has certain properties in order to cause life. In reality life has certain properties because of the way the universe is
Are we or are we not a product of the universe? Therefore, life is intrinsic to the nature of the universe. That's all. What a shitty rebuttal, by the way. "Because life exists, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to ask" Lmao this is an explanation?
"How do you guys monitor and regulate air pressure in airplane cabins?" "IDK BRO STOP ASKING QUESTIONS WE'D BE DEAD IF IT WASN'T POSSIBLE LMAO"
>The universe is aimlessly existing, and will eventually return to nothing. Life doesn't change that.
Citation needed, nigga.
>the universe's heat death disproves all notions of meaning, value, and purpose because _______
>a) I'm a stemfag whose extrapolating a whole philosophy of nihilism from cosmological models intended to do no such thing
or
>b) all of the above
>You're acting as if that proves something about the universe. Life forming doesn't give purpose of the universe no more than snowflakes, black holes or crystals forming.
Maybe in your joyless worldview where life isn't any more miraculous than black holes you git. I like how the purpose of "incomprehensibly vast and sublime reality blipped into being just for the purpose of running down and dying" is less offensive to your reason than "incomprehensibly vast and sublime reality holds the seeds for miraculous phenomenon called 'life' which enable said reality to know, love, and experience itself"
the rest of your post is trash.
>>459125
>It's the fact complex molecular structures can cohere and exhibit this property we call "life" in the first place.
Why does that matter. Some complex structures exhibit homeostasis, organisation, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction. These we decided to call life. Others exhibit some or none of these, though they may exhibit other features. What about these things do you not understand, to the point where something having them is proof of a creator?
>"Because life exists, if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to ask"
Except that's not what I said, at all.
>Maybe in your joyless worldview where life isn't any more miraculous than black holes you git. I like how the purpose of "incomprehensibly vast and sublime reality blipped into being just for the purpose of running down and dying" is less offensive to your reason
Your making a fuckload of assumptions about me
>than "incomprehensibly vast and sublime reality holds the seeds for miraculous phenomenon called 'life' which enable said reality to know, love, and experience itself"
This is closer to my view but it's not evidence for god.
Seriously what do you not get.
>Shit happens
>that shit has effects
>effect get more and more complex
>result is life
>life finds things beautiful
where does god fit into that picture?
>>459625
>Why does that matter. Some complex structures exhibit homeostasis, organisation, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction. These we decided to call life. Others exhibit some or none of these, though they may exhibit other features. What about these things do you not understand, to the point where something having them is proof of a creator?
It's not proof but it suggests an intelligent agency behind the universe you doof.
Keep trivializing life with your biology textbook definitions of it.
>Except that's not what I said, at all.
Except it's exactly what you said. You keep feeding me these bullshit scenarios like "Lel the universe coulda just been an empty void or something iunno, checkmate faggot" as if you know what reality could have or could not have been. I could have been born a girl with two dicks but I wasn't. So the fuck do wouldas, couldas, and shouldas have anything to do with this?
>where does god fit into that picture?
Where doesn't he?
And stop acting like I'm trying to literally prove there is a God right now. I'm only proving his plausibility. Also, the whole point is that the shit can even get more complex and wonder why it's shit in the first place fucking christ how many times do I have to say this
>Life is extremely complex, it is very unlikely that the exact conditions necessary for life should arise, unless they were designed.
That's fucking moronic. A rock is incredibly complex in its structure, an the odds of each individual one being the exact shape it is are very small, yet none the less they are. Are you likewise going to argue each rock was crafted by an intelligent hand?
The conditions required for our kind of life are fairly narrow, there's nothing to say that had things happened differently that life wouldn't likewise be different.
I'll never understand this kind of argument "things are complex and wondrous, the only possible explanation could be a God who hates it when you masturbate."
>>459664
Confirmed for not even knowing what the argument is, and falling back on 2006-tier insults like "lmao god like doesn't want you masturbate what a maroon lmao" like the christian god is the only idea of god there is. Back to reddit friend
>>459667
I've been here longer than you, I'd bet my left nut on it. I understand the argument perfectly "things are too complex to have been random chance, ergo a creator." But it's fucking stupid, on every single level. There are lots of complicated things in nature that we can observe forming without the assistance of a creator. Further the designs for live don't show the hallmarks of a creator, like continual objective improvement (no, evolution does not necessarily imply improvement, evolution can actually result in a species being worse off and as a result dying out). Our design is highly inefficient, and built off of blueprints loaded with junk code, how many designs created by humans are built off of blueprints that are composed in large part of random meaningless crap, scraps from other designs, and failpoints that will cripple a design if they ever become active? Our bodies design is as such that its most fundamental process (cell division) can turn against it and destroy it. These don't imply a creator.
As for the insult, I'd bet money you're a Christian, because they're the only religious group that continually starts shit on this board. So, for making an idiotic statement, you earn mockery.
Is the religious guy tired of being BTFO and spitting memes left and right after every post (fedora, reddit, etc) still here?
>>459685
Dude you don't get the argument. Just stop. Go back to r/atheism where you can shoot fundie fish in a barrel all day and never have to think. Fucking idiot, you actually think I'm arguing against evolution itt. Lmao.
>>459689
Actually, I'm assuming you're in favour of evolution. I'm pointing out that there are no hallmarks of a creator on reality, and "lolz it's so complicated" is an idiotic argument.
>>459701
Do you see complexity mentioned anywhere in the OP you fucking git?
>>454563
>1. The physical constants of the cosmos take anthropic values.
No. Anthropic values are shaped by the physical constants of the universe. You're wrong at the outset.
>>459722
holy fucking shit you think anthropic values means stuff like love, justice, and equality lmfaoooooo
are you fucking retarded
>>459733
I'm saying that life itself adapted to the universe. You're claiming that the universe itself was created with its values in place for life. But this isn't the case, life developed in response to the values put in place, that with the available evidence were created without any particular purpose in mind. The very most fundamental part of you argument requires that we take a logical leap, and assume that the nature of the universe was as such specifically for life.
>>459743
Grow up.
>>459647
>It's not proof but it suggests an intelligent agency behind the universe you doof.
no it doesn't
> Except it's exactly what you said.
no it fucking isn't, I did say something like this though.
>Lel the universe coulda just been an empty void or something iunno
The very fucking core of your argument is that the principles of the universe could conceivably be different but were selected by a creator due to anthropic values. If other possibilites are discounted then your arguments about probability are redundant
You fucking mongoloid.
I've said this before but I'll have to spoonfeed you.
The forces that effect the universe have certain values, gravity is a certain strength, light is a certain speed. In our universe these values make it possible for everything we see to exist in the state it does. Some faggot decided that one of these things which they decided to call life was more important than the others because it was more complex, to the point of being able to process information and named these values "anthropic"
these values could have led to an infinity of different existences if they were tuned a different way, meaning that each individual universe is extremely unique.
You think because life exists that this particular set of values was chosen in order to create it, but you're not acknowledging the fact that uniqueness, advancedness or complexity is not evidence of design. If you roll a thousand dice the probability of getting a specific number is really low, but no matter what number you get it will be just as unlikely as the next, so specificness or unlikeliness is not evidence of divine intervention. after you've rolled the dice you can give your number a faggy name like "anthropic values" but it won't change a thing or make it more special than the countless other numbers that could have been rolled.
Like wise, no matter what way the universe is tuned the result will be incredibly unique, Uniqueness is not evidence of design
cont.
>>459764
>the universe has the potentiality for life from the outset
>there's no reason to believe life is anything special because of this because _______
"life adapts to physical laws" isn't an argument you dip. it isn't anything. no shit we adapt to the universe we live in, we don't have any other choice lmao
>The very most fundamental part of you argument requires that we take a logical leap, and assume that the nature of the universe was as such specifically for life.
>the logical leap of assuming it isn't is totally okay though
>>459777
>the logical leap of assuming it isn't is totally okay though
No logical leap required actually, as there's no reason to assume that the universe was created specifically for life.
If the universe had been different, life would either be different (as there is life on earth that adapts to many different conditions) or simply would not exist. Life is not special; it's just another process in the universe.
>>459647
>It's not proof but it suggests an intelligent agency behind the universe you doof.
"It's not proof" you're right
"it suggests" no it doesn't because it raises more questions about how that creator was made in the first place.
>Keep trivializing life with your biology textbook definitions of it.
life trivializes itself
>Except it's exactly what you said. You keep feeding me these bullshit scenarios like "Lel the universe coulda just been an empty void or something iunno, checkmate faggot" as if you know what reality could have or could not have been. I could have been born a girl with two dicks but I wasn't. So the fuck do wouldas, couldas, and shouldas have anything to do with this?
but the universe is 99% empty void though. if the creator wanted life so much, he's doing a poor job.
>Where doesn't he?
everywhere we can observe and experiment
everything we know so far
religion and god have nothing to offer to a sensible explanation of our universe and life.
if it takes "faith" to believe in god, i'm not interested in that god.
>>459776
>no it doesn't
Of course it does you dipshit. You fucking kidding me?
>The forces that effect the universe have certain values, gravity is a certain strength, light is a certain speed. In our universe these values make it possible for everything we see to exist in the state it does. Some faggot decided that one of these things which they decided to call life was more important than the others because it was more complex, to the point of being able to process information and named these values "anthropic"
>life could have not existed
>so it's not special, idk lmao
>also we think life is special because it's complex
>not because it's life
what a bunch of wank.
>You think because life exists that this particular set of values was chosen in order to create it, but you're not acknowledging the fact that uniqueness, advancedness or complexity is not evidence of design.
>you think because life as an emergent property exists there must have been a God, even though emergent complexity doesn't prove there is a God
the fuck? what are you even smoking? I'm not saying complexity proves there is a creator you fucking dunce, I'm arguing the fact that something like complexity gives us life even in the first place is suggestive (if not proof) of an intelligent purposiveness to the universe. Fuck's sake, it's like if I find a fucking lamborghini in an open meadow, of course I'm gonna think it was made by a fucking intelligent being. But you'd be shrieking and sharting about how V-8 engines don't prove a creator. You're incoherent. No one's talking about complexity, no one's talking "muh eyes prove intelligent design", we're talking about what set the conditions for the evolution of life to be possible in the first place. Fucking fuck.
>Like wise, no matter what way the universe is tuned the result will be incredibly unique, Uniqueness is not evidence of design
>the universe could have been x, but it's y, so there's no purpose to y
what a bunch of drivel
>>459800
>but the universe is 99% empty void though.
Oh it's way more empty than that.
>>459804
You remind me of the stories of people looking at those hexagonal geological formations and thinking that they must have been built, simply because they're extraordinary.
>>454563
That is some dumpster-tier logic if I ever damn saw it.
>>459792
>No logical leap required actually, as there's no reason to assume that the universe was created specifically for life.
There's no reason not to either, other than "neil degrasse tyson would approve I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE"
>If the universe had been different, life would either be different (as there is life on earth that adapts to many different conditions) or simply would not exist. Life is not special; it's just another process in the universe.
Says you faggot
>"it suggests" no it doesn't because it raises more questions about how that creator was made in the first place.
why would that disprove a creator? does the fact my parents needed to be born to give birth to me somehow disprove I am a child of my parents? the fuck
>everywhere we can observe and experiment
everything we know so far
>observation of dead matter can tell us about meaning or the lack thereof in the universe
Maybe you're just looking in the wrong place?Back to reddit good buddy good pal
>but the universe is 99% empty void though. if the creator wanted life so much, he's doing a poor job.
>the earth is just 99% uninhabited though, if it made us it's doing a pretty poor job lmao!!
>religion and god have nothing to offer to a sensible explanation of our universe and life.
>reality blipped into being just die is more sensible
Fuck outta here
>if it takes "faith" to believe in god, i'm not interested in that god.
>it takes faith to believe in God but not my convoluted theory of everything i've based on lifeless data
*tips*
>>459817
congrats on completely misinterpreting the argument yet again, sorry i don't got any reddit gold to give you
>>459822
>There's no reason not to either
Lack of evidence.
>Says you faggot
Indeed. Prove life to be something special. Prove that life is more special that the process of fusion going on in our sun, or the intense gravitational processes of a black hole, or the intense energies of a gamma ray burst.
>>459776
>>459776
and before you give me this shit again
>so the fuck do wouldas, couldas, and shouldas
They have to do with probability, which is at the crux of your argument.
>but probability isn't at the crux of my argument
yes it is, right here
>2. This coincidence must have a causal explanation (we set aside for the moment the possibility of a chance explanation through the many-worlds hypothesis).
I even included the parentheses
> but why can we ask questions about the universe if we're part of it (or whatever other bullshit about consciousness you're trying to say)
We don't know how consciousness works, but we do know it is directly dependent on the brain, which is a physical structure so the same rules apply to it as to any other physical structure.
I don't give a shit if you believe in god, I'm just saying your argument is shit
>>459822
>the earth is just 99% uninhabited though
But that's not the case. Just about every single portion of the earth's surface is covered in life.
>reality blipped into being just die is more sensible
More sensible than an impossibly complex creator god somehow created himself and decided to create the universe just so he could judge a bunch of apes.
>>459831
you don't even know the axioms of reality and you're trying to spin some bullshit about how probable it was the universe could have been x, y, and z. sounds like a lot of bullshit conjecturing to me pal.
>Indeed. Prove life to be something special. Prove that life is more special that the process of fusion going on in our sun, or the intense gravitational processes of a black hole, or the intense energies of a gamma ray burst.
>there's dead matter
>there's also matter that can move around and has an inner life where it knows itself as matter
sounds special enough to me dude. sorry you're dead inside
>We don't know how consciousness works, but we do know it is directly dependent on the brain, which is a physical structure so the same rules apply to it as to any other physical structure.
I guess I can predict the movement of individuals in New York City based on just Newton's Laws of Motion then, right? Why assume consciousness has its own higher-order ruleset when guys who study the momentum of balls rolling down a hill can tell me all about it? Nigga please
>>459837
>But that's not the case. Just about every single portion of the earth's surface is covered in life.
Assume that argument was made 5000 years in the past you dunce.
>More sensible than an impossibly complex creator god somehow created himself and decided to create the universe just so he could judge a bunch of apes.
>what is divine simplicity
>he thinks life was created just to be judged because God is bored
literally sunday school-tier
your grasp of the divine is fucking pitiful, please do your homework if you're gonna try and refue it
>>459846
>sorry you're dead inside
I'm very sorry that you can't handle ambiguity and automatically assume something being extraordinary must have been the product of design.
>>459854
I'm very sorry you're fucking dumb enough to understand the extraordinary was created by atoms following physical laws and not seeing the point of the argument is what set those parameters in the first place. Fucking autist. Yeah I'm being a dick but you faggots are. just. not. getting it. You keep coming at me with this "jesus in your grilled cheese sandwich" shit like I think snowflakes were personally handmade by God in his lab before they fall out of the sky. Dipshit
>>459853
>Assume that argument was made 5000 years in the past you dunce.
No, even then it would still be covered in life. Bacterial life is literally everywhere.
>what is divine simplicity
An asspull without any basis.
>he thinks life was created just to be judged because God is bored
Whatever reason given, the universe existing through sheer chance is a more sensible explanation.
>your grasp of the divine is fucking pitiful, please do your homework if you're gonna try and refue it
You remind me of the anarchists on /pol/ that respond to every criticism of anarchism with "READ MORE ABOUT ANARCHY!" Substantiate your arguments.
>>459863
We don't assume that you think that. We assume that you think the laws of the universe were set the way they are by a creator god. We're pointing out that's as fucking moronic as believing that god personally hand makes snowflakes.
People disagreeing with your argument is not a sign that they don't get it. Hopefully you'll someday get that.
>>459864
>No, even then it would still be covered in life. Bacterial life is literally everywhere.
>ancients knew about bacteria
dude you lost this one, give it up.
>An asspull without any basis.
>Whatever reason given, the universe existing through sheer chance is a more sensible explanation.
top lel
>You remind me of the anarchists on /pol/ that respond to every criticism of anarchism with "READ MORE ABOUT ANARCHY!" Substantiate your arguments.
>don't make me learn about what I'm trying to refute daddy waaaaahhh
>>459875
>some faggot on a siberian calligraphy forum knows enough about the universe pre-singularity to tell me just how moronic it is to believe in a creator. fucking moronic, apparently
You don't have shit to substantiate your claims other than "I can imagine the universe randomly happened, so it did!" Fucking please
>>459846
>you don't even know the axioms of reality and you're trying to spin some bullshit about how probable it was the universe could have been x, y, and z. sounds like a lot of bullshit conjecturing to me pal.
"why does this universe exist instead of another one"
"but you're not allowed talk about the possibility other ones lol."
You're original argument got BTFO ages ago and you haven't presented an alternative one since.
> sounds special enough to me dude. sorry you're dead inside
You're such an autist. It's obvious by special he didn't men supercool and interesting and magic and sheeit. He meant why is it different from everything else in existence.
>>459889
>dude why are things like x in country y
>idk bro don't think about it it could have been z lmao!
fucking idiot
>You're such an autist. It's obvious by special he didn't men supercool and interesting and magic and sheeit. He meant why is it different from everything else in existence.
>dead matter
>dead matter coming together to make living matter
I just fucking posted that you dipshit, what do you want, God to open the clouds and say life is special? Not like you're hearing him say the opposite, so fuck off with your absolutist claims too.
>>459902
>Country x has a green flag, therefore god designed the country specifically so that the colour green would be on the flag.
>why is the colour green special, as opposed to all of the other colours you can find within the country, and why do you think god wanted green on the flag and why do you think god exists in the first place?
>because green is really unique and I really think it's pretty.
>The fact you think it's pretty is completely irrelevant and the fact that it's unique is only because there are no other countries. It's conceivable that a country z exists, which has a red flag in country z the red flag would be just as uniquem so the idea that green being unique is evidence that god created country x just so it could have a green flag is completely preposterous, not that it wasn't anyway.
>Dude why are you talking about country z there is no country z
>>459945
>flag colors are chosen randomly
shit analogy, try again
>>459902
>>dead matter
>>dead matter coming together to make living matter
>Why does matter without a property come together to make matter with another property
>Why does non-wet hydrogen and oxygen come together to make wet h2o
Again, why is life different than wetness, in this example?
>>459949
but they're not chosen randomly in my analogy
>therefore god designed the country specifically so that the colour green would be on the flag.
>>459970
>this is so autistic I'm not even gonna fucking dignify it with an insulting greentext
So you have no response? Are you honestly in full fucking damage control mode?
>>life is a random accident but I can't think of an analogy that sufficiently illustrates this randomness without adding bullshit provisos, therefore life is random
He could have just as easily used coastlines.
>>459988
>water's wetness is equivalent to matter being able to become conscious of itself
>differences of degree are the same as differences of kind
Come the fuck on.
>>459970
>>life is a random accident but I can't think of an analogy that sufficiently illustrates this randomness without adding bullshit provisos, therefore life is random
I never said life is random, in fact I don't even believe in randomness. Deterministic does not equal designed.
I was pointing out how you are begging the question.
>Therefore, the constants take the values that they do because these values are anthropic
Do you really not see how retarded this is?
>this is so autistic I'm not even gonna fucking dignify it with an insulting greentext
Please do. I want to know why yo think certain properties of matter are evidence of god and other aren't.
>>460001
>Please do. I want to know why yo think certain properties of matter are evidence of god and other aren't.
>why would you think intelligence is evidence of intelligence I DON'T GET IT MAN I JUST DON'T GET IT FUUUUUUUUUUCK
>Do you really not see how retarded this is?
reading comprehension friendo, try it sometime.
>>460010
>Here are my counter-arguments, laid out plainly, as well as a few notes on fallacious or specious reasoning in your own arguments
>NAH YOU JUST DON'T GET IT MAN FUCKING STEMLORD AUTIST HOW DO YOU THINK INTELLIGENCE IS EVEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT DESIGN AND GODS BENEFICENT WILL LOL WHAT A RETARD
>>460010
>why would you think intelligence is evidence of intelligence
That's not what you said, you said that intelligence exists because the universe was created specifically so that it could exist.
you're still begging the question. It's a trend for you
>why does the universe have intelligence
>because it was designed to
>why was it designed to
>because it has intelligence.
Saying the universe, life and consciousness were created by god doesn't explain anything. How was god created? How does he function? How does he create all these things?
It raises more questions. Your "solution" is harder to accept than a random universe.
>>460047
>That's not what you said,
the whole OP is arguing that intelligence is evidence of intelligence you fucking mook
>>460036
>needs to ask me 3 fucking times why life is different from dead matter like he needs to prove this by logic and not, like, fucking, looking outside or something
>still thinks I think I've proved the existence of God and not just proven his plausibility
you still don't have an argument AT FUCKING ALL besides "well, it coulda been x!" and "nuh-uh, the universe popping into existence with these values just magically being what they are makes more sense!"
You have no fucking arguments. At all. You don't. You really fucking don't. You've been repeating this Dawkins-tier shit since we started arguing. You have no argument. Admit it.
>>460061
That's like saying that water is evidence of water.
>>460061
No it isn't, the argument isn't over whether god created the universe specifically so that intelligence could arise.
Also the OP is hilariously illogical.
>>460070
The only reason anyone has been repeating anything is because you insist on continuing with this insane, circular argument.
I'm done, the rest of you can keep arguing the same two or three shitty points see ya
>>460070
>>needs to ask me 3 fucking times why life is different from dead matter like he needs to prove this by logic and not, like, fucking, looking outside or something
still thinks muh feels matters
>>still thinks I think I've proved the existence of God and not just proven his plausibility
Still thinks I give a shit about god and not his shitty nonsensical arguments
>you still don't have an argument AT FUCKING ALL besides "well, it coulda been x!" and "nuh-uh, the universe popping into existence with these values just magically being what they are makes more sense!"
You're so fucking dumb
>the universe popping into existence with these values just magically being what they are makes more sense!
Either they must be what they are, in which case your whole argument is redundant, or they can conceivably be different in which case
>well, it coulda been x
disproves your nonsensical hysterics
>You've been repeating this Dawkins-tier shit since we started arguing.
Again you think I'm some fedora STEM fag and not a musician and songwriter.STEM fags don't even exist in Ireland, which is where I'm from . It's fucking 5 in the morning here, I need to go to sleep.
Read what I said, try to understand what I'm saying. Try to understand why your position is illogical. If you want to believe in god, fine, but there are better arguments than this bullshit you copy and pasted out of some shitty article.
I'm going to sleep
Oíche mhaith and merry fucking christmas
#1 is retarded. Pi would be pi regardless of numbers used. It could be base 10, base 8, chinese hanzi for numbers, tally marks, some ayy lmao convention, it doesn't matter. The ratio of circumference to diameter is pi. It's not anthropic. It's fixed. The way humans describe it is anthropic, but it exists regardless.
Hell, if you wanted to argue that ratios are anthropic, the value which pi holds is only described anthropically. It exists as a value and is measured similarly to your height in cm vs inches. Many ways can be used to demonstrate and describe your height, but your height itself does not change.
Since your foundation is built upon sand, the rest of the argument falls like a Jenga tower.
>>460159
#3*
My bad.
>>460070
>you have no argument
>besides this I AM SILLY-ized argument
Are you just being deliberately dense anon? Be happy, it's Christmas.
