Caveat Lector

Page 11 of 12 [ 188 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

waltur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

15 Dec 2010, 7:23 pm

91 wrote:

@ Waltur

I dealt with the maximally great pizza on page six... whoever thought I would have to say that... :oops:

As an extra by Dr Craig:

Obviously, defining X as something like an all-surpassingly great island doesn’t work, since, as you and others rightly point out, islands are, amongst other things, inherently material (and are therefore contingent on the existence of space and time); moreover, it’s far from clear as to what properties make an island great (for some it might involve plenty of palm trees; for others, it might involve no palm trees at all). So defining X in such a way doesn’t seem to work.

ah, yes. page 6.

waltur wrote:

91 wrote:

Ok, I will respond.

I have stated that the universe has a reason for its existence. That purpose is to being people into a relationship with God for salvation. The fine tuning of the universe must only exist up to the point at which it brings human life into existence. The universe clearly is fine tuned to that extent.

As to the use of the word optimal. The problem is, optimal to what? How can you possibly show that God cannot have reasons for the universe exists as it does. The universe could exist in a different way, but it does not necessarily follow therefore that it could do so in a better way. How can you possibly show that if the universe or world was designed in a different way that more souls would come to know God? I have asked this question repeatedly and so far you have given me nothing other than the presupposition that he could do better, how can you know that? . It does not seem to follow that if God has sufficient reasons for the universe existing the way it does, then he should have designed it differently. I am not sure we are in any position to tell what an omnipotent being could or should do when he do not have any grasp of many of the reasons such a being would have. What your argument does wrong is that it presupposes to know what both what God is like and what his intentions are.

As to your use of the word, imperfect. Imperfect in relation to what? To sin, then the Christian is with you since this is a fallen world and this is caused by our own nature and our free will. In relation to physics or geology, the question then follows again, based on what and how could you demonstrate better? Backing yourself behind a massive burden of proof (since you would have to make the same case that you do in relation to optimal) does not validate the argument you are making, in fact it makes it less possible that your view could be valid, since for it to be so the presupposition must be granted and there is no reason to do this.

As to your argument in relation to free will. The simple fact is that it is self-refuting. If you believe that all actions are determined by vague laws then I have no reason to derive truth from anything you say or believe. Those same laws could cause you to believe any number of impossible things regardless of truth or fact. Stating that free will does not exist, is self contradictory (since if it is correct, then it would require you to be able to choose to believe it and that such a belief could possibly be objectively correct) in and of itself and I see no reason to place any validity in your statement.

You state that anything that is logically sufficient may be possible. As I have repeatedly indicated to you, all that is required to prove God exists from the possible is the ontological argument.

1. It is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. It is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

It is in relation to this argument that you have demonstrated the least understanding. You have claimed that it can disprove God and some have claimed it could prove a maximally great pizza. The problem is that the argument logically collapses when the object you place into the formula is not maximally great or an objective certainty. For the example of the maximally great pizza, it may exist possibly, but a maximally great pizza would not exist in every possible world, if it existed in any. As to the disproof of God, I have already explained that the ontological argument can only disprove God when that argument is based on a certainty. Since if it is not argued as certainty it is still possible and the negative feedback from this possibility cancels out the argument. Since you have as good as admitted to the posibility I can say that the ontological argument therefore proves the existence of God. It is not just you who does not understand this argument, but the vast majority of atheists; this is why Christian apologists have been using it a great deal more in the last few years.

You also stated ‘ Just the fact that there is ongoing academic dispute seems sufficient.’ This is the same argument that people who put forward intelligent design use, ‘teach the controversy’. Despite this, the Penrose position does not represent anything other than an attempt to reintroduce an infinite universe and considering that I can pick holes in it, I cannot wait for Dr. Craig’s response.

in what universe was your maximally great being created?

who/what created it?

if your maximally great being == the creator, and needs no creator, how is this less difficult to prove than the position that reality lacks a beginning point?

do you even care about these questions?

i'd accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, but i think keet really said it best when he said:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I think that intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. I think that somehow mental barriers are built to make it so that what is already accepted remains protected, subconsciously, and all things to the contrary are then perceived as necessarily false.

that was a good page. i liked the part where you said "The problem is that the argument logically collapses when the object you place into the formula is not maximally great or an objective certainty. For the example of the maximally great pizza, it may exist possibly, but a maximally great pizza would not exist in every possible world, if it existed in any." i don't see why a maximally great pizza doesn't qualify as a "maximally great" "object."

I propose that a pizza has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W.

this is, of course, a ridiculous proposition and is, rightly, ridiculed. replace "pizza" with "being" and suddenly, it becomes less ridiculous? i don't think so. tell me about this world you call "W." are there lesser beings there? is your "maximally great being" descended from them? created by them? did he always exist?

no. i'm sorry. you have not "dealt with the maximally great pizza." there's no need to worry about this as omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent pizzas don't exist.

nor have you dealt with my questions from page 6.

feel free to just ignore them again. you can probably make up the points in the essay section.

_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

15 Dec 2010, 7:31 pm

The basic divide between religious and non-religious people is not in outward facts but in inward desires. Religious people are afraid to face the possibilities of a universe that is without concern over the values living things hold as valuable. Aside from the obvious social function of established religion as an institution of control over the population functioning at the behest of those in political power the roots of religion are deep in the human desire to not feel totally ignored by the obviously not conscious basic forces of the universe. The mere size of the universe alone is pretty horrifying compared to even our total planet which is less than a bit of dust in the furious theater of the dynamic energies of the stars. That we simply do not register in all this violent activity is taken as some sort of personal insult to the hubris of much of humanity so religion keeps trying to re-arrange this unmanageable diffidence into some kind of direct loving concern and even a reasonable glance at reality indicates pretty absolutely the insignificance of humanity and all its efforts and accomplishments.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Dec 2010, 7:49 pm

91 wrote:

Well its not so difficult. Take the value of divine moral perfection for example. If we take that God in his nature is as such then we can work from there. For the purpose of this illustration I will discuss the matter as if it is a given. Now suppose God chose to act on that value, he would do so in highly complicated ways, in any given situation the perfect moral response is such that it may require mercy or justice, to varying degrees (this also applies to Sand's statement about contradictory properties). The outcome may be highly complex, Gods actions within the world may be complex. This is what is meant by God's existence being complex in this way. No matter how convoluted the action, the essence remains simple.

The same is true in relation to how God manifests his mind, and through all the divine attributes. Plantinga made a valid point when he conjectured that God should logically exist in this way, since he posited that if God simply was his nature he would simply be a property rather than a being. The problem with being simply a property is that it is essentially non-causal. Mathematics as a concept exists in this way, it is objectively true but cannot cause anything.

Well, honestly, I am not sure we really get anywhere.

1) We can't know God's nature, as even though we can say "God says X", we don't have direct knowledge. We also lack inferential knowledge, because we can't understand why the world is the way it is. I mean, I would think your point about worse worlds would tend to fall prey to the same logic that you used to hamper the notion of better worlds, in that we can't really know that these worlds are worse at achieving God's objectives. (perhaps random things popping into existence, furthers our recognition of our epistemic limitations, and furthers our absolute dependence upon Him).
2) If justice and mercy are traded off, but both are relatively absolute ideals, then how can we say that any trade off is more moral than any other trade-off? Wouldn't there be a bit of ad hocness that prevents us from calling such a being maximally great, or even morally perfect in either case. After all, failing to uphold justice is an injustice, even if the failure is chosen. If a judge just arbitrarily suspends the moral rules to forgive someone, then we have an injustice to other members of the system, who do not receive these favors. If a judge just dispenses justice without concern though, then such a judge is hard-hearted. Finally, if a judge dispenses mercy to everybody, then justice goes out the window. The problem is that all of these lines are morally questionable, if not flawed, there does not seem to be an objectively right choice, but at the same time, the tension between justice and mercy is necessary for satisfaction atonement theology, for without that tension, there is no need for a satisfaction, and no need for atonement.

I think that similar problems with morality tend to abound, and to a degree where if we accept God as morally perfect, we have to also accept that we are very significantly lacking in moral knowledge. The same point ends up existing for Hanna's logical problem of evil, because moral luck is in part a result of our intuitions, but God cannot be morally perfect in regard to moral luck unless this is the best of all logically possible worlds. (which it really does not seem to be to an obvious extent, as the non-existence of hell is clearly imaginable) The same point emerges in terms of global scale behavior and trade-offs, as theistic ethics are often deontological, but global scale planning of outcomes tends to have to be utilitarian, especially with uncreated persons and with many theological defenses... and the possibilities seem to go on.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

15 Dec 2010, 7:54 pm

Honestly, I'd have to agree with Waltur about the pizza and the island. The logic works just as well if we insert both categories of objects. This point was made earliest by Gaunillo and has persisted for all the time the ontological argument has persisted.

Even further, I am not sure that "maximally great island" is worse than "maximally great being", as many of the attributes of God can be questioned on maximal greatness. After all, God is not the prettiest being, as God, being a spirit, has no physical form to evaluate as pretty. God is not the tastiest being, because without physical form, there is no flavor. God is not the happiest being, because emotions, being cognitive processes, demand temporally based cognition. And well... the list goes on of things that God cannot do or is not, and many of these things that God cannot do or is not are incompatible with other properties.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

16 Dec 2010, 12:08 am

@ Waltur

Waltur wrote:

I propose that a pizza has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W.

Well you just described God, you just gave it another name. The only way the argument really works is if you grant additional properties to the item being described such as omnipotence, omniscient and moral perfection. Thankyou for making my point though.

@ AG

As to your trade-off argument; essentially justice and mercy are rooted in the same value, that of moral perfection. What your are describing is a moot point if God in his moral perfect, can choose the optimal option. This is the essence of divine simplicity that you are not really grasping. That God in his nature is simple, he is morality perfect, his actions may manifest as just or merciful but they essentially draw from the same point. This point can be proven true by simply looking at the chair you are sitting on: God could manifest creation in that chair but he did not make a car. Saying that a car and a chair are two different things is simply stating the obvious and proves nothing in relation to the root creative power. God's moral choices become essentially true because objective morality is grounded in his being, his decision need not be both car and chair it is simply required that it is true and correct.

AG wrote:

God is not the happiest being, because emotions, being cognitive processes, demand temporally based cognition

This position is based on the assumption that emotion requires temporal cognition. Now I would agree that we have no evidence of emotion existing anywhere other than with a brain but it does not follow that this is the only way that it can occur. For example, we only have examples of complex life existing on this planet, this fact is not enough for us to therefor conclude that it cannot exist elsewhere.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Last edited by 91 on 16 Dec 2010, 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Dec 2010, 12:15 am

91 wrote:

@ Waltur

Waltur wrote:

I propose that a pizza has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W.

True and correct are again cloudy nonsense. Again and again there is this eagerness to spread generalities over concepts like some glutinous goop to mystify a situation. True and correct are words applicable to specifics, not broad generalities.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

16 Dec 2010, 12:19 am

^^^ If your comment were true, it would also apply to yours.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Dec 2010, 12:32 am

91 wrote:

^^^ If your comment were true, it would also apply to yours.

I am restricting the terms to specific situations. Your reply is unresponsive.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

16 Dec 2010, 12:41 am

Sand wrote:

91 wrote:

^^^ If your comment were true, it would also apply to yours.

I am restricting the terms to specific situations. Your reply is unresponsive.

Well you didn't really address my point, I don't really see the need to address yours. On the subject though we deal in generalities all the time, one must when discussing God, who is by his nature a higher being. When you accuse me of a having a limited definition you are not really saying anything of any value. If I could define God with specific terms or mathematical concepts then he would not be God by definition. As to whether this proves anything about the subject, it does not, you cannot tell me in any really non general terms what the future will be, but it is no impediment to its existence as both a useful concept and a reality.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Last edited by 91 on 16 Dec 2010, 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

16 Dec 2010, 12:49 am

91 wrote:

Sand wrote:

91 wrote:

^^^ If your comment were true, it would also apply to yours.

I am restricting the terms to specific situations. Your reply is unresponsive.

Well you didn't really address my point, I don't really see the need to address yours. On the subject though we deal in generalities all the time, one must when discussing God, who is by his nature a higher being. When you accuse me of a having a limited definition you are not really saying anything of any value. If I could define God with specific terms or mathematical concepts then he would not be God by definition. As to whether this proves anything about the subject it does not, you cannot tell me in any really non general terms what the future will be, but it is no impediment to its existence as both a useful concept and a reality.

In other words you are confessing your incompetence to examine and comprehend this being you claim exists. I wonder about this hierarchy of beings. No doubt, if there is a God it is different, but neither you nor I have any scale on which to measure this difference. So you continue to plod through the muck of vague generalities helpless to realize that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Dec 2010, 9:03 am

91 wrote:

As to your trade-off argument; essentially justice and mercy are rooted in the same value, that of moral perfection. What your are describing is a moot point if God in his moral perfect, can choose the optimal option. This is the essence of divine simplicity that you are not really grasping. That God in his nature is simple, he is morality perfect, his actions may manifest as just or merciful but they essentially draw from the same point. This point can be proven true by simply looking at the chair you are sitting on: God could manifest creation in that chair but he did not make a car. Saying that a car and a chair are two different things is simply stating the obvious and proves nothing in relation to the root creative power. God's moral choices become essentially true because objective morality is grounded in his being, his decision need not be both car and chair it is simply required that it is true and correct.

AG wrote:

God is not the happiest being, because emotions, being cognitive processes, demand temporally based cognition

Well, the problem is that if mercy and justice are both just moral perfection, then there cannot be a tension between mercy and justice, both are just expressions of moral perfection. Moral perfection cannot express itself in imperfect moral acts. If there are conflicts between the two, and if God has to mediate between these two ideals, then these moral ideals cannot be simple, as they cannot just be God's simple nature. This pushes us towards the idea that morality is not grounded in God in the Euthyphro problem. I suppose we might step back from saying "God is just", or "God is merciful", and rather say "God is morally perfect", but.... there cannot be a tension between these ideas for them all to be bound up in a simplicity, otherwise, we have to admit both ideals to exist outside of God, because they would have to be considered not-perfect, which means that they are not-God.

I don't think it is the "essence of divine simplicity" that I am not getting, but rather I am critical of the idea. Frankly, given that the criticism was towards moral perfection, the fact that it impacts divine simplicity is an outside issue. The car and chair issue seems like an analogy fail. I don't even follow it, and I would guess the issue is that I have a lot of intuitive objections.

As for "emotion requires temporal cognition", well, the issue is that emotion is a thought. Unless you want to invoke an "essence of happiness", it requires temporal cognition. Even if you want to push back to subjective experience, we still need temporal cognition, because experience, being a verb, requires action over time. You might deny that verbs entail this, but they most assuredly do. This kind of means that God cannot feel anything, think anything, or be involved with any verb. (Note: I will also deny that God can be described as "creating the universe", but rather that it is more correct to say that "the world/creation event is contingent upon the existence of God", if we want to be specific. This point (on creating the universe) is brought up by Greg Koukl on the issue of timelessness. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5272 . I'd say that the issues I bring up are just also logic on the matter.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

16 Dec 2010, 10:04 am

I have to poke in enough to say:

I put in a lot of time on timelessness, which is both, I intuit, crucial and for obvious reasons about as easy for us to work with as it is for one born blind [even with access to technology that converts light frequency to other signals] to know what color feels like.

Some tackle eternity by rejecting timelessness - of COURSE there must be time. Others say, well, there is something else that is NOT time but works like time.

Me, I say, when you don't have enough data to know what the thing IS, don't rescript it as something we can be pretty sure it ain't.

"I will also deny that God can be described as "creating the universe", but rather that it is more correct to say that "the world/creation event is contingent upon the existence of God", if we want to be specific. "

Yes, fitting a created time-bound pocket into a timeless continuum is a problem from where we sit. Of course so is infinitely cycling Bang - Crunch or Multiverse. There will always be the problem of infinity or, if we reject infinity and assume a bounded cosmos, what is outside.

But I am not [I am a Linguist, after all] convinced we can say "verb implies change implies time ergo no workwords in eternity". MOST {I will not here discourse on stative verbs, though they are a particular study of mine] of our [human, not English] verb-like objects involve change - but we are timebound and change is a lot of what we talk about. We are NOT in a great position to specify what verb-like components of "language" out of time might do.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

16 Dec 2010, 10:07 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Well I take the Plantingan model which separates out the properties of God that exist by necessity and those that exist by contingency. Now in relation to divine simplicity, those that exist by necessity would obviously form the basic essentials of Gods existence (in that he could not exist without them, or would not be God); such values as moral perfection and omnipotence. Others exist contingently though the manifestations of other values, such as justice and mercy. These values are obviously complex and are so since they are separate from God's nature. All sorts of properties can exist in this complex manner without impinging the simplicity of God.

As to the Euthyphro dilemma. The moral perfection that you are implying falls into the dilemma is solved by the divine simplicity; by grounding the moral perfection in God (by stating that objective morality exists because God is good) one can show the dilemma (through the demonstration of a third option, thus showing it to be a false choice) to be false and create a logical case that the argument that separates existence from necessity is correct. The end result of this is that the properties are not ‘bound up in a simplicity’ in the way that you have implied; rather the criticism creates the case that the Plantinga model is logically correct.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

As for "emotion requires temporal cognition", well, the issue is that emotion is a thought. Unless you want to invoke an "essence of happiness", it requires temporal cognition. Even if you want to push back to subjective experience, we still need temporal cognition, because experience, being a verb, requires action over time. You might deny that verbs entail this, but they most assuredly do. This kind of means that God cannot feel anything, think anything, or be involved with any verb. (Note: I will also deny that God can be described as "creating the universe", but rather that it is more correct to say that "the world/creation event is contingent upon the existence of God", if we want to be specific. This point (on creating the universe) is brought up by Greg Koukl on the issue of timelessness. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5272 . I'd say that the issues I bring up are just also logic on the matter.

Well the problem with Greg Koukl’s argument is that is quite simplistic. Now I have a great deal of respect for Greg and his work; his argument on time does not reflect the total work on the subject within philosophy. I can think from the top of my head of a half dozen arguments that are logically sound that put forward opposite contentions in relation to the temporal nature of God, so I am simply left open to either possibility and remain to be convinced.

Though the issue of the temporal nature of God remains unsettled several truths can be derived from both arguments in relation to the cognition of God. On this subject I am familiar with two completely logically sound arguments for cognition that do not require the physical grounding that you are suggesting is a necessity. The first is the perceptualist model and the other is the conceptualist. Now I don’t really need to go into those arguments, only state that if God existed apart from space and time at some point, as both arguments put forward, then God’s mind necessarily exists in a nonphysical sense. Basing my response on that I can use works of Plantinga on the subject. Plantinga considers the argument for God’s mind needing to be like a human mind to be flawed. Since for a and b to be the same, what is true of a must be true of b. Using this sort of logic one can argue that since the human mind is necessarily existent within space and time, and God’s mind is not, then there is no reason to suppose that the rules relating to a should also relate to b since a and b are the same. He also made the same contention that I did in my last post: that the fact that the only minds we have encountered so far exist physically is no basis for stating that therefore all minds must exist in this way. In your most recent post you have changed the word emotion to thought, the argument however still holds.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

17 Dec 2010, 9:57 am

91 wrote:

01001011 wrote:

multi-universe is expressed in rigorous mathematics and might at least give some testable predictions.

Well your presupposing that the teleological argument is not based in rigorous mathematics. This is not the case when one starts to look at the components of the argument. The teleological argument is simply based upon cosmological discoveries relating to the characteristics of our universe.

Nonsense. You are confusing the problem that is based on the observed values and your explanation which is nothing but asserting god did it.

Quote:

Well this is simply not the case. The basic theist response is that the variables exist in a way that is due to design. One need not establish the design plan in order to prove this.

Then define what is design and give a rigorous criterion to distinguish what is designed and what is not. For example,

One item in the picture above is a Palaeolithic stone tool - a designed object. Can you tell which?

Quote:

If one removes the other two possibilities all that is left is design and it therefore becomes logical to imply such. Requiring the explanation of the reason and the nature as you do in your post is once again invoking infinite regress and does nothing to discard the evidence that the universe exists in a way that is vastly contrary to that of probability.

You are simply repeating your fallacy of ignorance. If you think god does not need to be explained, there is no reason to think the universe need to be explained as well.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

17 Dec 2010, 10:33 am

And THAT is an important point - not mine - it comes from Spitzer.

The universe does NOT need to be explained. It is. There is no obligation to sort out where it comes from, where it is going, or even if it exists outside my field of vision.

Even if we postulate scads of races of beings we [talk about arrogance] would define as intelligent, and assume [on no basisz whatever] that 90% of them have drives and interests kind of like ours, there is a vanishingly small amount of matter in this universe [forget the multiverse for now] to which explaining the universe is an issue.

It does not matter to the universe if we explain it - not as much as it matters to me if an ant can make out the expression on my face.

Explaining the universe matters to US - and maybe to other hypothetically extant and by some definition intelligent beings.

Are we going to explain WHY he have that need to explain it?

Don't mind me. Spitzer is a tough read but does it better.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

17 Dec 2010, 11:10 am

Another take at the fine tuning problem.
In view that life is nothing but a subset of ordinary physical interactions. There is no essential difference between a universe that support life from one that dosen't. It follows the fine tuning problem simply doesn't exist.

Page 11 of 12 [ 188 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Jump to:

Caveat Lector Post Reply New Topic

Caveat Lector