For the last time, entropy did not exist before the big bang, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics didn't apply before the big bang and there are many hypothesies about what caused the big bang.

If nothing starts from nothing why is god an exception and if god always existed why can't the universe always existed?

Given that 1. We know life exist and those events could have been the beginning.

                 2. Those events needed to happen only once

                 3. The conditions that existed on earth at that time could have easily caused those events

                 4. The other alternative is life was made by a being that there is no proof for.

I'd say It's pretty likely that it happened like that.

This argument is one that has always baffled me (and I'm not suggesting you're making it). We know how watches are made, and we know that it's people who make them. To say that watches are made by any other creature would be silly. Even the statement "all watches are made by people" is easily falsifiable by a single instance of a watch created by anything non-human. I would feel safe in the practical assertion that all watches are made by humans, but accept that I could be proven wrong by any inhuman watch that might happen to come my way. That, and there are lots of watches.

Only one universe, though. So it's not even close to the same scenario. The odds can't be calculated in the same way at all. Let's say we have a billion watches ever made worldwide (obviously not a real number, but just say). That means that I could roughly say that there's a 1 in a billion chance that the next watch made would be made by a non-human.

What are the odds for a deist universe? A magically appearing universe? Who knows? With just one universe, the odds can't be calculated.

What's really odd is the idea that people who are not well versed in the mechanical complexities of intelligence can argue as if knowing what intelligence is all about. It's very difficult to get evidence for something you don't understand, but that doesn't seem to stop creationists. Their understanding of intelligence is apparently "good enough" that they know it when they see it.

That just blows my mind.

Indeed it does imply possibilities. You manage to ignore them and jump straight to "(my version of) God did it"

Man is also one of the most poorly designed beings on the planet. If you want to claim your God created man, you've just admitted he's a moron.

False. Energy was created together with all other elements , that exist.

The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere.[20]

This event that marked the beginning of the universe becomes all the more amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, as Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all."[21] Thus, what the Big Bang model of the universe seems to require is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing.

I have not made a research of all hypotheses science gives as possibility of the origin of the universe.

But some, like multiverse , big crunch etc. i have given a closer look, and all are pure speculation. No evidence at all to support these claims :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/

but the BigBang theory finds a big consensus amongst Science, and therefor beggs a answer, what was the cause of it.

 

The only thing that makes sense to be discussed is which model and explanation is more rational, and makes more sense : the hypotheses which claims there is a creator and designer of everything  that exists, ore the model that denies this hypotheses. To ask for proves, is senseless, since nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God.

For me, it not only makes much more sense rationally , and philosophically, to believe in God, but i base my faith and believe also in personal experiences ( but since these are entirely subjective , it would not make much sense to discuss them here ) In my introduction post, i have mentioned only 3 reasons, that evidence God. But there are actually many more :

Arguments for the Existence of God

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-t5.htm

 

 

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. 
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. 
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

What other cause do you suggest ? you haven't yet suggested anyone that has scientific support.

this is fun reading :

Was there ever nothing ?

http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/nothing.html

 

Again jcgadfly you suffer from a misunderstanding. I explained an argument I didn't make one. An important distinction, if you figure out what it means. 

 

 

http://is.gd/2IsOR

The first law of thermodynamics affirms that energy is conserved, that it can neither be created or destroyed, that it can only be transformed in other types. This  well verified law of nature does not imply that mass/energy existed everlastingly and necessarily throughout a everlasting or infinite past. Standard BigBand Cosmology affirms that all mass/energy of creation came into being with its laws through the BigBang event. As a law of science, the first law of thermodynamics says energy, once created, energy is conserved, and that we do not know any way how to destroy it.

 

God is in my opinion the ONLY viable option, since chance as answer of the question of the finetuning of the universe can be discarded.  The multi-verse hypotheses can be discarded as well.

You would not repeat the same argument, if actually read the links i have posted here.

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

 

If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
Its important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.


Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy the heat death of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.

So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.


Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.

Also, the universe cannot be self-caused nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

IN SUMMARY

The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.

It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.

The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.

God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

 

What other cause do you suggest ? you haven't yet suggested anyone that has scientific support.

this is fun reading :

Was there ever nothing ?

http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/nothing.html

Scientists can suggest inumerous hipotheses. I have seen already someone else mension Bojowald. What however he himself admits , is :

Bojowald also figures some knowledge of the past was irrevocably lost. For instance, the sheer size of the present universe would suppress precise knowledge of how the universe changed in size before the Big Bang, he said.

So why should we consider this not just one more of many speculations without any hint of evidence ?

 

 

It seems you don't make a difference between proves, and evidence. In fact, as said before, nobody has proves in regard of the existence or non - existence of God. But evidence, there is plenty, and i have given you already a good number. Another question is of course if you think these are compelling, or not. The main question however is if you WANT there to be a God, or not. This wish influences and directs all your thinking. If you wish no God to exist, you will search all reasons and evidence that confirms your wish. In this case, even the best argument will find its way only to death ears, and blind eyes.... 

 

 

 

 

Again, on the contrary. I've already won. You lost by failing to refute or even address the refutations of your claims. Failing to address them was also rude, so my response likewise degenerated into rudeness; though you'd already lost by then, so technically the debate was already over.

You can try to ignore me if you want, but you are clearly an anti-intellectual troll. I will treat you like one. If you'd like to grow up and have an actual discussion, let me know. I won't hold my breath. Neither will I ignore you.

False.
The law of conservation of energystates that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

um the singularity would have been there, again assuming the singularity hypothesis is true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity of course the issue now is trying to prove that hypothesis true, the math seems that it would have been there, with the observation regarding the big bang, however there are other ideas, and energy is always been there, it has taken different forms that its, the energy did not come from nothing, if again you understood what the singularity was your would realize your statement is one of complete ignorance, never at one point was there nothing, only thesis truly believe the universe came from nothing.

yet again there has to be some form of evidence for god, mere speculation without the math to back it up means squat, which is why god is not a variable in science. You have a massive comprehension problem it seems. Multi-verse theory, string theory, loop quantum gravity all have some mathematical evidence, now if they are true or not is a different issue, god does not even have that, it's mere speculation at it's greatest, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the universe to suggest god exists. On the contrary, the quantum mechanics can so causes that are completely random. NO GOD REQUIRED, until you can show me otherwise the argument really is mute, and mere speculation on your part.

 

http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N48/47hawking.48n.html wow, lecture from hawking himself states the following:

Although the principle may seem like a tautology at first, it opens up a very interesting question. When physicists ask themselves why a certain property P of the universe is such, there are two kinds of answers. There could be an underlying theory, which explains P based on more fundamental quantities, or P could be just an accident. In particular, Hawking’s “Anthropic Principle” is the latter answer to a number of problems along the lines of , “isn’t it amazing that the values of the fundamental physical constants are just such that life is possible in the universe?”

Similarly, or so Hawking claims, the dimensionality of space and amount of matter in the universe is an accident, which needs no further explanation. I think that the fact that the accident was such that life is possible is irrelevant here.

so Hawkings is trying to advocate a god? Are you kidding me?

except time is a property of space, not energy. again read up on a singularity, space-time in our universe began, energy always was there.

The universe is not fine-tuned, it just is what it is.  There is only one universe that we know of.  To what are you comparing it to conclude that it is fine-tuned?  How do you know that it is?  Our existence, the existence of this universe, does not appear to necessitate an intelligent agent and it is mere equivocation to claim that it was created in any way recognizable (like a computer is created). 

How can you commit such obvious intellectual dishonesty?  You're claiming much more than any non-believer might safely and you're attributing it to (I assume) a magical creature that can't be objectively verified to exist (even granted you were able to form a coherent definition of the thing so that we might know what to look for).

Sure.  It had a 'cause'.  No problem here, unless you're actually trying to sneak a different use of cause past.

The universe exists.  That is all we know.  There is only one universe for comparison.  It is nonsense to claim that it is fine-tuned and it is further nonsense to speak of chances of any sort unless tautologically.  The exact chances of this universe existing as it does are currently 1 in 1, due to the fact that it exists.  It is not more rational to believe that the universe happened by chance.  It is rational to believe that we are ignorant of the causal chain before the inception of the universe (if it is even necessary that there be a causal chain); further investigation is needed.

Abiogenesis.  The investigation of the origins of life.  For the matter of it, RNA and amino acids have been formed in laboratory settings not far removed from naturally occurring conditions.  It is by no means impossible that the building blocks for life could have formed naturally.  In fact, it appears to be the only way; life is composed of 'unanimated' (sic) (by which I assume you mean inanimate) matter.

I assume you're referring to the Christian god.  The concept itself is flawed; there is no reason to believe that the Christian god is required for the existence of this universe or for life on Earth; there is no reason to believe that the Christian god does or could exist (the concept is flawed and even in practicality it is not falsifiable); there is no reason to believe Christians' word (there is no way to believe that they have access to special knowledge without committing a fallacy).

(I'm assuming you mean to ask if an atheist is more rational than a theist.) Not universally or completely, but on the matter of belief in magical beings absolutely yes!

That is not what science says. I don't need to compare it to anything else, to get this conclusion. http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe-aug-2006 Based on what do you come to this conclusion ? Shure, i can do that. Who God is - the essence of God : http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-is-god-essence-of-god-t79.htm

 

Do you have any mathematical evidence to back up Macro-evolution ? Does only something constitute evidence, if you can back it up with math ? http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html (Psalm 19:1-4) “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: (Psalm 14:1): “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’”

 

I guess you do not have a massive comprehension problem. But first of all, probably, a strong wish God NOT to exist. Can you answer a very simple question, without a " but" afterwards ? Do you wish God to exist ? Please answer only Yes, or No. afterwards i answer your point.

 

 

Atheists use the quantum fluctuation to prove matter can pop up from nothing. But i don't see a valid argument in this scenário.

 

http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics

 

The second is the Copenhagen Interpretation’s fundamental measurement problem. Quantum indeterminacy is only resolved through observation (called ‘collapsing the wave function&rsquo. Hence an outside measurement apparatus must always exist. But cosmologists started to run into a problem when they began to consider the whole universe as a quantum object. What or who, outside the universe, collapses its wave function? An infinite regress problem develops that can only be resolved by recourse to a necessary being!

 

 

That is the ostrich behaviour. Just stick with your head into the sand, and ignore the surrounding facts.... That makes it a complete waste of time to argue with someone, that comes up with that kind of completely nonsense, irrational answer....

 

 

You simply continue to ignore the second law of thermodynamics. If energy would be eternal, the universe would already be in a state of thermal death.

 

 

Are you really interested to understand my standpoint ? It does not seem so, since you repeat your same arguments over and over. I've answered you already, why the creator does not need to be created.

 

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

 

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be.

 

 

You can sustain that argument only by completely ignore the fine-tune argument. I think our discuss will come to a end sooner than expected. You have no rational arguments whatsoever to sustain your belief system.

 

*clap, clap*

Of course, isn't it enough that this particular band of this particular world in this particular orbit round this particular star, ad nausea is well-suited to our existence?  Doesn't that prove that it's fine-tuned!?

I can't imagine such gaping holes keeping the light out ...or obscuring vision.  How do people buy such crap?

Life has adapted to it's environment, the universe did not adapt for life, it's the other way around, and much in the universe is actually harmful to life, which is why most living organisms develop outer layer of skin to protect the cells from solar radiation, which is extremely harmful to cells. Thanks to evolution we have arrived to this point in time in our present form.

However as much fun as this has been, it's getting to be quite boring repeating myself. You like to use Stephen Hawkings as a compelling scientist that say god must have created the universe, and then say that he has his head up his ass when it's actually shown he doesn't. But hey ignore all the other everything else science says about the universe, life, and how it all began and just keep repeating god did it, i need no evidence for god, I AM RATIONAL YOU ARE NOT BECAUSE YOU WANT EVIDENCE. But hey, it's seems to be your tactic, avoid the real problem you have, you make a massive exception for god, no energy, no creator for god, no nothing, yet can create everything and everything needs a designer except god. this is special pleading and you have been doing it from the beginning.

Maybe someone else can show you the fallacy your making, but to ask three questions, to get many answers to those three questions and then pretty much ignore all the answers to say god can only do it, well your not really rational at all.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090829091049.htm

By working with the simplest amino acids and elementary RNAs, physicists led by Rockefeller University’s Albert J. Libchaber, head of the Laboratory of Experimental Condensed Matter Physics, have now generated the first theoretical model that shows how a coded genetic system can emerge from an ancestral broth of simple molecules

gee and you said science couldn't answer this question, at least it shows it can occur naturally. Like most questions science answers it takes time to find the answer, using your god of the gaps examples do not answer questions.

Wow, that's corny. It's an argument from "I feel strongly about it?" Or, an implicit naturalistic fallacy?

 

thats the argument of poor design.

 http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/intelligent-design-f4/argument-from-poor-design-t161.htm#418

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

 

Several generic philosophical criticisms can be directed towards the first premise of the argument - that a Creator God would have designed things 'optimally'. The argument hinges on an assumption that the human concept of 'optimal design' is the same as those of God, but there is no proof that this is valid. This is, in effect, the argument of the Book of Job:

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?[5]

 

Well, you say there is no mathematical evidence for the existence of God. You can make this assertion only, disregarding completely what science has discovered.

http://www.faithhelper.com/astrophysics1.htm

We come face to face with the fact that the Earth is an extremely unique environment in that it can supports life. Scientists discovered that less than 1 chance in 10x282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. And here it is: the Earth. Earth is not an accident, nor are we.

 

I recommend also the following reading, which is VERY enlightening :

 

http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/finetuning.pdf

 

Stephen Hawking agrees , when he writes:

 

http://hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65

 

We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth.

 

 

I fully agree. Repeating the same empty, senseless, irrational arguments must be quite boring....

 

 

you do stick words in my mouth, which i did not say. I look as mutch for evidence, as you do. And i have found inumerous reasons to believe in God. You can repeat thousand times, that i do not have any evidence. That makes your assertion not being more true.

 

 

Sorry, no. I have no problem at all. I am completely in peace with my reasoning, it makes completely sense to me. I just don't know how you handle your problem of not want to admit any God exists, and the overwhelming evidence that says the contrary.

No. Its not special pleading. http://thechristianwatershed.com/2009/04/27/does-god-exist-part-3/ the naturalistic universe is (i) material, (ii) subject to decay, (iii) finite, (iv) impersonal, (v) unintelligent, etc. That would constitute the first circumstance (C1). God, however, is (vi) immaterial, (vii) incorruptible, (viii) infinite, (ix) personal, and (x) intelligent. This would constitute the second circumstance (C2).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2HgzRMN-TM

 

So much backwards thinking. Nothing but fallacy. Fail.

Are you talking about a temporal or a causal beginning?

For this to work, you'd probably need something like premise 1 from the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Also, why do you say things that have a beginning to have a cause?

Hume pointed out that talking about a fined tuned universe from within the universe is at worst question begging and at best a fallacy of composition.

Not having an explanation for some thing's origin does not mean that there is not an explanation for its origin. This is at best an argument from silence...a god of the gaps argument if one wants to use that sort of language.

Also, how does one determine if DNA is and is not code? Again, this seems like question begging.

I don't see Hume's point. Fact that we can observe the universe from where we actually are, does not hinder at all to find out the hard facts, to examine the data, and from that point on, make our observations. You can turn it the way around you want. Fact is, that the fine-tuning of the universe remains maiby the strongest evidence that the universe was designed. to put chance into the game, is not rational. Chance is zero the universe could have formed through pure naturalistic mechanisms. 

We have no idea what practical limits there might be on those 'fine-tuned' constants, as that would require knowledge we simply do not have, so we have absolutely no basis to to establish a probability that they would randomly lie within a range allowing for life-as-we-know-it. That also does not allow for assessing the existence of regions of possible life-friendly combinations of values. So the fine-tuning argument is pretty much an argument from ignorance.  At best it is might show that a 'life-friendly' universe is of low a priori probability, not that any external agency is required.

Any argument from 'watches' to life-forms misses the major attribute of life which watches do not possess, namely the ability to self-reproduce, which allows evolution to act.

No matter how you interpret the evidence, there is certainly none that points to the probability of the Universe forming from natural processes being zero.

The process of evolution thru natural selection is so fundamental, given observed mechanisms of genetic variation which can ultimately mutate any known genome into any other by a finite series of steps, and the fact that some mutations are going to produce more descendents that others, plus the genetic studies which show how all life is related, in a logical inheritance tree, it is the burden of the denier of 'macro-evolution' to show what additional mechanism, so far not detected, that would stop any given lineage from changing more than a certain amount beyond some hypothetical reference 'type'.

The standard models of energy balance in the Universe put the total energy at zero, since gravitational potential energy is negative, starting at zero for infinitely dispersed masses, and becoming increasingly negative if it falls back to a more concentrated state, so conservation of energy is not a show-stopper.

So while there are many gaps in our current ideas of the plausible origin of the Universe and life, there are no 'in principle' contradictions, just the gaps. All the science is extrapolated from the more well-established observations and theories of other areas of science.

To argue for an 'alternative' which involves a hypothetical being whose attributes are beyond logic and all observation and experience is infinitely irrational.

 

 

ubuntuAnywhere's point stands. It's begging the question if you start with the idea that anything unlikely must have been designed. Even more damaging to your argument is that you fail to actually show that the universe is unlikely. The unlikely part seems to only be an assumption, along with the design assumption. Does that make two begged questions?

But you haven't demonstrated that at all. Given one universe, there's no way to work out the chance that this one universe would come into being. So it's not a good argument.

 

Simply not true. What do we physics need for ? True is, we actually have all these constants, they are well known. There is no doubt about these constants, and the limit range, between the constants need to stay, so that the universe and life could form.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/bigbang-inflation-requires-fine-tuning-t151.htm

Skeptics like to say that fine tuning cannot be proven by science, since we have only one universe to study. However, the discovery and quantification of dark energy has puzzled a number of scientists, who realize that its extremely small value requires that the initial conditions of the universe must have been extremely fine tuned in order that even matter would exist in our universe. By chance, our universe would have been expected to consist of merely some thermal radiation.

There has been speculation , if other life forms, non carbon-based could exist. That is very improbable. But that doesn't change the fact, that our universe could form also only, if the inflation rate at the very beginning remains in a very tiny, fine tuned range.

http://www.reasons.org/where-cosmic-density-fine-tuning

In addressing audiences about the fine-tuning of the cosmic expansion rate, I have used the illustration that adding or subtracting a single dime to the mass of the observable universe would be enough of a change to make physical life impossible. This word picture helps to demonstrate a number used to quantify that fine-tuning, namely 1 part in 1060. Compared to the total mass of the observable universe, 1 part in 1060 works out to about a tenth part of a dime.

No. It shows that the odds are so small, that chance as a possible agent can be discarded.

what does the watchmaker argument have to do with the fine-tune argument ?

why do you not make a study by yourself. ? you will change your opinion, if you are honest to yourself. its after all not so difficult to understand....

Let's consider a universe that contains only matter. If the matter density is sufficiently large, gravity will overcome the expansion and cause the universe to collapse on itself. If the density is sufficiently small, the cosmos will continue to expand forever with negligible slowing. If the density is just right, the universe will expand forever, but continually slow down its expansion rate until it becomes static at an infinite time into the future. In a universe that contains only matter, this corresponds to a "flat" geometry for the universe. Life and flatness are related because only a flat universe meets two life-essential requirements. First, a flat universe survives long enough for an adequate number of generations of stars to form that will make the heavy elements and long-lived radiometric isotopes that advanced life requires. Second, a flat universe expands slowly enough for the matter to clump together to form galaxies, stars, and planets, but not so slowly as to form only black holes and neutron stars.

Until the mid-1990s, astrophysicists found it remarkable that the universe was so close to a flat geometry because such flatness is unstable with respect to time. Even though they could detect only about 4 percent of the mass required to make the universe flat, this required the early universe to be exquisitely close to "flat" to within one part in 1060. The previous statement holds true even given the uncertainties that existed twenty years ago (and to a lesser extent still do) in measurements of the cosmic mass density. Thus, in the absence of dark energy, the expansion rate would have changed so dramatically that the galaxies, stars, and planets necessary for physical life would never have formed.

That is a assertion without any empirical evidence. Random mutations , and natural selection, cannot form new genetic information, required to form new limbs, and organs. Evolution cannot explain, how wings of birds evoluted, amongst many other things.

a few examples :

Birds and creatures that defy evolution

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-f3/birds-and-creatures-that-defy-evolution-t111.htm

but if you want to discuss evolution, you might open a new topic.

I understand things a little different. I believe, the creator gave already right in the beginning the possibility of genetical change for adaptation to the environment, but always within the same taxonomic group of animals. upward genetic evolution ( like formation of new limbs ) does not occur.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-f3/has-macro-evolution-been-proved-observed-t80.htm

We do just not know, what happened in the first fraction of second of the BigBang. This does not eliminate the question, why something exists, rather than nothing. And what is the origin of motion in the Universe.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#2

Featured Writing
Featured Audio
Books
About
FAQs
Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God
More Featured Writing
The Argument from Change
The Argument from Efficient Causality
The Argument from Time and Contingency
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
The Design Argument
The Kalam Argument
The Argument from Contingency
The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
The Argument from Miracles
The Argument from Consciousness
The Argument from Truth
The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
The Ontological Argument
The Moral Argument
The Argument from Conscience
The Argument from Desire
The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
The Argument from Religious Experience
The Common Consent Argument
Pascal's Wager

In this section you will find arguments of many different kinds for the existence of God. And we make to you, the reader, an initial appeal. We realize that many people, both believers and nonbelievers, doubt that God's existence can be demonstrated or even argued about. You may be one of them. You may in fact have a fairly settled view that it cannot be argued about. But no one can reasonably doubt that attention to these arguments has its place in any book on apologetics. For very many have believed that such arguments are possible, and that some of them actually work.

They have also believed that an effective rational argument for God's existence is an important first step in opening the mind to the possibility of faith—in clearing some of the roadblocks and rubble that prevent people from taking the idea of divine revelation seriously. And in this they have a real point. Suppose our best and most honest reflection on the nature of things led us to see the material universe as self-sufficient and uncaused; to see its form as the result of random motions, devoid of any plan or purpose. Would you then be impressed by reading in an ancient book that there exists a God of love, or that the heavens proclaim his glory? Would you be disposed to take that message seriously? More likely you would excuse yourself from taking seriously anything claimed as a communication from the Creator. As one person put it: I cannot believe that we are children of God, because I cannot believe there is anyone to do the adopting.

It is this sort of cramped and constricted horizon that the proofs presented in this chapter are trying to expand. They are attempts to confront us with the radical insufficiency of what is finite and limited, and to open minds to a level of being beyond it. If they succeed in this—and we can say from experience that some of the proofs do succeed with many people—they can be of very great value indeed.

You may not feel that they are particularly valuable to you. You may be blessed with a vivid sense of God's presence; and that is something for which to be profoundly grateful. But that does not mean you have no obligation to ponder these arguments. For many have not been blessed in that way. And the proofs are designed for them—or some of them at least—to give a kind of help they really need. You may even be asked to provide help.

Besides, are any of us really in so little need of such help as we may claim? Surely in most of us there is something of the skeptic. There is a part of us tempted to believe that nothing is ultimately real beyond what we can see and touch; a part looking for some reason, beyond the assurances of Scripture, to believe that there is more. We have no desire to make exaggerated claims for these demonstrations, or to confuse "good reason" "with scientific proof." But we believe that there are many who want and need the kind of help these proofs offer more than they might at first be willing to admit.

A word about the organization of the arguments. We have organized them into two basic groups: those which take their data from without—cosmological arguments—and those that take it from within—psychological arguments. The group of cosmological arguments begins with our versions of Aquinas's famous "five ways." These are not the simplest of the arguments, and therefore are not the most convincing to many people. Our order is not from the most to the least effective. The first argument, in particular, is quite abstract and difficult.

Not all the arguments are equally demonstrative. One (Pascal's Wager) is not an argument for God at all, but an argument for faith in God as a "wager." Another (the ontological argument) we regard as fundamentally flawed; yet we include it because it is very famous and influential, and may yet be saved by new formulations of it. Others (the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience and the common consent argument) claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. We have included them because they form a strong part of a cumulative case. We believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, demonstrate the existence of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes); but all twenty taken together, like twined rope, make a very strong case.

1. The Argument from Change
The material world we know is a world of change. This young woman came to be 5'2", but she was not always that height. The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.

As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.

Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.

Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.

Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.

The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by "God."

Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.

2. The Argument from Efficient Causality
We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.

But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.

This post demonstrates that you clearly have no understanding of the fine-tuning argument. The equality of the charge on the electron and proton is not one of the issues - it follows automatically and directly from the way positively and negatively charged particles are assumed to form from the decomposition of neutral particles.

"I don't see Hume's point. Fact that we can observe the universe from where we actually are, does not hinder at all to find out the hard facts, to examine the data, and from that point on, make our observations."

You just get everything backwards, don't you kid?

The fact that we are in the universe means all of our observations are biased. To give an example even a 5 year old could understand, we don't know what, if anything, is outside the universe. It could very well be that there is, and that all of it would be hospitable to life as developed on Earth. Which would mean the universe was fine tuned to kill us, by your reasoning. Even the Earth isn't particularly hospitable, and can kill you in an instant. From all accounts, 99% of the universe is simply fatal to human life. Perhaps 90% fatal to all life we've ever observed. Fine tuned for us my left nut.