jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (187 posts)

The Intelligent Design of Fine tuning the Universe

  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago

    An article on National Geographic, in discussing "The Multiverse" stated  it simply this way: "One can best get a sense of the fine-tuning problem by thinking about the gravitational force. If this force were much stronger than it actually is, the big bang would have collapsed soon after it began, simply because the stronger gravity would have ended the expansion before it really got it started. Similarly, if  the gravitational force were weaker, it would not have been enough to gather matter together into stars or planets. So the gravitational force has to be fine-tuned i.e.  restricted to certain values,  in order for life to develop. The same kind of argument can be made for other fundamental constants, such as the charge on the electron and the force holding the nuclei of atoms together."
    "This fine-tuning of the forces and constants of nature has always been a problem for scientists. Why should we be in a universe where all of these numbers are exactly as they are. Some theologians have even advanced the fine-tuning as proof of God's existence."

    I read somewhere that  Stephen Hawking, the renowned theoretical physicists and author,  when asked if he believes in the existence of God, replied: yes I do, but one which  is an impersonal god i.e. Gravity.  Was he suggesting that an impersonal entity like gravity could regulate or fine-tune itself so as to allow the expansion of space after the big bang, that  lead to the formation of  matter, that ultimately resulted in earthly life (and maybe some other planetary life out there) billion of years later?

    Which then begs the question: Could an impersonal entity be perspicacious enough and have the temerity  to  design intelligent life? As far as I am concerned,  impersonal and intelligent, are as they should be ....oxymoron  in the above discussion.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I saw the show, too, and it brought a question to my mind, specifically about the gravitational constant G.

      When the big bang went "BANG" was there any option as to what G would be?  Could it have been anything else, or was that specific number "programmed" into the BB just as the acceleration of a falling object on earth is?

      If yes, what was the range of possibilities?  If more than one possibility, were there only two options?  3?  infinite?  Can you support your answer, whatever it was?

      Bottom line - it is entirely possible that there was only one "option", meaning that there was no need for any intelligence to force the figure that resulted in our universe.  We cannot tell as we don't know what the singularity was or what happened "before" (poor choice of words but all I have) the BB.  Just one more thing we have to assume, it appears, if we wish there to be a necessity for a design.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        .



        "Bottom line - it is entirely possible that there was only one "option", meaning that there was no need for any intelligence to force the figure that resulted in our universe.  We cannot tell as we don't know what the singularity was or what happened "before" (poor choice of words but all I have) the BB.  Just one more thing we have to assume, it appears, if we wish there to be a necessity for a design."

        I'm kind of leaning towards the camp that "THIS" is really just about the only way a material universe could have been made, created or "just happening". Everything works together too well. Each thing depends on the other, in a circular fashion. When you break things down, All we seem to be left with is "energy", or maybe energy and fields. Or even just fields. But I don't understand physics enough to even know if that could be true or not.

        It could go either way, for me anyway.

        A created universe, or just one that came into being (for whatever reason, accident, whatever).

        I used to think it HAD to be designed, but I'm not so sure anymore. Still believe in God of course, but don't know how that fits in.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          @janesix:
          A very perceptive astrophysicist once said: "The Universe is not fine tuned for life; life is fine tuned for the universe."
          I fully agree with this statement. I have always thought that the Universe was created and fine tuned by a  Supernatural Being (call him God), but for  what purpose? If his creation existed, without any sentient life to perceive, and experience and interpret and be a witness to that creation, what good would his creation be? Certainly,  if no sentient being knows that it exist, the universe would indeed just be a "cold, dead" space....an existence so meaningless and purposeless. What kind of a Supernatural Being would He be, creating something that just is lying out there, occupying space and nothing else?

          Another astrophysicist, also said, rather nonchalantly, that Life is just a tiny blip....which I agree to some extent if he is referring to non-sentient life. But the fact is the Universe has sentient Life in it, and that  makes a heck of a lot of difference.

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            While I'm not saying I know, I think of it this way (and for no other reason than it feels right to me)

            The universe is created for God himself to experience life (a separate life, one apart from himself), through atoms, amoebas, plants, animals, humans, and possibly beyond, as I believe we are still evolving. I think intelligence is evolved specifically so God can understand himself, and the Universe he created.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              @janesix:
              I find your last statement problematic. God, if He is  the all knowing and all powerful entity we think He is, already understands Himself and the universe He created. He did not need,  I don't think, to create  intelligent life  for Him to understand Himself and the universe. What is assuredly true on the other hand is, He created intelligent beings, for those beings to understand Him and the universe He created.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Who says God is all knowing and all powerful? I personally know next to nothing about God.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That's because you are honest.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank you Rad Man. I try to be. Wasn't always the case though. I often cherry picked my facts to fit my theories. I've been spending a lot of time trying to work out my faults. I try to look at things from all angles now.

                    Currently though, I'm working on my hubris problem;)

                2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  @janesix
                  Introspection could lead you  farther than honesty....although honesty should be good starting point in any kind of journey, be it self-discovery, or trying to unravel  your place in the cosmos.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes I know, thank you.

                    I am big on introspection (maybe too much even, as I have a giant ego and I'm extremely self-centered to the point of being an obnoxious twit;)

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Confusion.  It sounds very much like you are saying the universe was not fine tuned for life, but that God made it for life.  Can you clarify?

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              @wilderness: No confusion on my part.
              God did not have to fine tune the universe, if  he intended for it not to be populated by sentient beings, and thus not to be perceived and interpreted that his creation do exist. Philosophically one could argue that He created and fine-tuned the universe because His intention was for sentient beings to evolve and therefore discover him through His creation.

      2. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        @Wilderness:
        Quantum mechanics makes it  fundamentally clear that there is no such thing as "just one option"  probability in nature/cosmos whether that be in the subatomic realm or in the astronomical realm. Even Scroodingers cat has to be either dead or alive (2 options), or if a quantum event is not observed subjectively, then the cat would be both dead and alive (third option). Options, means choices and who decides on  those choices, but an intelligent entity... not an impersonal entity like gravity.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          lol Invoking Schrodinger's cat and quantum mechanics is even more ridiculous than invoking fine tuning. You really have no idea what you're talking about and are grasping at arguments that have long been debunked. Try something new for a change or go back to bashing atheism.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            @encephalo:
            I was really not that surprised to read the above post... coming as it does from you. The discombobulation continues.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              If "discombobulation" is your only response in defense, you really should go back to just bashing atheism.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                @encephalo:
                  Bashing  you today  is just not in the cards for you my friend. So enjoy  the reprieve while it lasts.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Quantum mechanics played no part (that we know of) "prior" to the big bang, and thus could not have dictated how many possibilities there were.

          And even in the first few nanoseconds after the BB, when the laws were being formed, there is absolutely no indication that quantum mechanics had a part in setting those laws and constants  In fact, it would seem more likely that the new laws had a part in creating quantum mechanics, not the other way around..  We simply do not know how or why either one came about, in spite of your insistence there was an intelligence involved.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            @Wilderness:
            In cosmic terms, nanoseconds are just not the way to look at the Big Bang. As you know the Big Bang was not an explosion (in the usual way we associate explosion with), but a rapid expansion of space. As I understand it,  before the universe was approx. 3 minutes old, matter existed in the form of free protons, neutrons, and electrons...sub-atomic particles all. If a proton and a neutron came together to form a single nucleus; at three minutes, the temperature had fallen off to the point that collisions were less energetic, and free protons and neutrons could start to survive as nuclei. This process is called quantum fluctuation. So you see, at 3 minutes after the space expansion was initiated, quantum mechanics was already operative.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry - missed this post.  Perhaps you'll find it again.

              But nanoseconds are exactly how to look at the BB.  Far too much going on far too quickly for any other view to be reasonable.  Just think of all that had happened by that 3 minute time period - all the energy of the universe, included that in all the matter, produced.  All the laws and physical constants produced.  Both matter and antimatter produced, with most of it destroying each other.  The expansion of the universe to a trillion trillion times what it was.  Temperatures from the trillions down to the billions or even millions.  And quantum mechanics relationships began to happen.

              All that before your three minutes.  Yes, nano seconds are exactly how we should be looking at the BB, trying to figure out just what was going on then instead of waiting until circumstances were nearly what they are now.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                @Wilderness:
                Astrophysicists   and theoretical physicists have come to a general agreement that during the first 3 minutes after the initiation of the BB, the temperature was still very hot... too hot for any quantum fluctuation to occur. Cooling did not start until after the 3 minute period   when  enough expansion of space have occurred to have neutralized the gravitational force, but not too expanded enough, for sub-atomic particles to not  interact and coalesce (via quantum fluctuation) to produce matter that now fills the visible part of the universe. A very small, however visible, part since most of the universe is composed of the non-visible dark energy and dark matter.

    2. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The response to this argument is interesting, because it results in anti-theists asserting that improbable things happen all the time.

      It's interesting because anti-theists also assert that the existence of god is improbable (technically the existence of god cannot be disproved, hence improbable). So we have well known anti-theists saying things like: "This argument as I shall show in the next chapter, demonstrates that God, though not technically disprovable, is very very improbable indeed" (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.109).

      If anti theists argue that god is very improbable, but also argue that improbable things happen all the time, then they have turned improbability into a poor argument against the existence of god. In other words, asserting that improbable things happen all the time, defeats the object of asserting the existence of god is improbable. Both assertions may well be true, but if so, they do nothing to further the cause of anti-theism.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        How so?  If a weighted coin has a .49 probability of coming up heads, it is improbable but will happen "all the time".

        But if a god has a 10^-3984582395485482345 probability of existing, it is not likely to happen in the (projected) life of the universe.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Although (for the sake of accuracy) I think it's reasonable to make a distinction between a small probability, as in your first example, and a miniscule one, as in your second; the assertion "improbable things happen all the time" does not make that distinction. Even if it did, it would not help.

          If your reasoning is correct, then that assertion "improbable things happen all the time" only applies to small probabilities, not miniscule ones. Theists assert that the probability of natural constants being what they are is miniscule, not small. If so (big "if" because that assertion has not been demonstrated) then responding to the argument about fine tuning with that assertion is 1) inaccurate, and 2) a bit of semantic misdirection; it doesn't address what is actually being claimed, but it looks as though it does.

          When applied to what theists are claiming, the assertion "improbable things happen all the time" is an ineffective counter argument. The same reasoning used to assert god does not exist based on minuscule probability, can be used by theists to assert that fine tuning didn't happen by chance, based on minuscule probability. It's a bit of a no-win situation. It would be better, in my opinion, to challenge the validity of using probability in the argument at all, as such probabilities have not been established.

          Do you have any evidence to support the very exact figure for the probability of gods existence you use, or was it just an example to illustrate your point?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It is absolutely exact, down to the 50th decimal place, of course! big_smile

            No, it was but a point being made, and I fully concur with the idea that probability should not be used until it can be found.  I have seen people try to do that in reference to life being created from the primordial soup, but it very quickly fails.  No real idea of what the "soup" was, what the environment was and even if it was all known those trying to prove such a silly thing quickly bog down in the math and simply declare it is minuscule.  Without having any idea of whether it is or not, but the "proof" must be made, after all!

            So yes, leave probability out of the debate.  It is useful, somewhat, in determining our own belief, but that's about it.

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Life probably arises out of "primordial soup" a lot easier than people imagine. Nature self-organizes all the time. Water and plasma are two things I know of that do pretty easily. I bet life is easier to cook up than expected.
              http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Self-organization

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I don't doubt that a bit, assuming the soup is anything like what we think it was.  The building blocks have been created in lab simulations several times; from there it is simply a matter of multiple tries until something works and a self duplicating molecule is constructed.

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  This sounds interesting, but it is too technical for me to really decipher.

                  http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/ … 30156.full

                  I also didn't check it for validity, etc. BUT, on the surface, it might have some keys for the forming of life in a rather easy way.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't see that in my skim, but did see where the probability "calculations" were based on guesswork instead of hard fact, and most of even that left out of the equation.

                2. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  @wilderness:
                  "...until something works..." are the operative words. So you are now proposing that life could be initiated from building blocks i.e. amino acids mixed with carbon, and some phosphates and sulfates, maybe..."until something works" that can then... "until something works",,, self-replicate itself. "Until something works"... just does not give me the definitive "probability" that it in fact will work.

                  1. Dr Lamb profile image61
                    Dr Lambposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    We are talking about billions of years.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Nor will you find a "definitive probability".  We simply do not have enough information about conditions when life began on earth to be able to make a reasoned guess, let alone a mathematically correct probability.

                    So you might look at how many times per second it might happen per cc of primordial soup per hour and take a guess at the probability of that "might" actually happening.  Then multiply that by the number of cc's of soup in the seas times a billion years worth of hours. 

                    So far the only thing I've ever seen is a theist wandering around saying it is impossible when we know it is not.  Chemicals can come together, can form chemical reactions.  They can form such things as DNA and RNA molecules.  And that means it is NOT impossible.

                    So take your own guess, just make a reasonable effort at truth and reality instead of simply saying it can't happen because the bible says goddunnit.  If you're honest, using best guesses at the constitution of the primordial soup, the influx of energy from all pertinent sources and the math is correct people will listen.  At least I would - I've looked at several attempts already.

  2. 0
    Emile Rposted 2 years ago

    The odds of reality, as we know it, just happening does seem far fetched. Everything seems to fit together too perfectly. We have no examples of anything of grandeur rising without a collective effort. And, i know of no example of a grand project rising to mega proportions where the force behind the initial idea is aware, or appears to be concerned with the welfare, of the workforce which brought the dream to fruition. So, when you put these two together, an impersonal image emerges.

    The problem is reality is as we know it. Our level of knowledge has to increase before either a fluke of good luck, impersonal creativity or intelligent design makes perfect sense.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      @Emile:
      Interesting thought this: "A universe with  sentient life  implies the existence of God. A universe without sentient life, implies the non-existence of God."

      The truth of the first statement is self-evident; the  validity of the second statement rests on the assumption that whoever created and fine tuned the universe (call Him God)  did not give much of a hoot about whether his creation  could and should and would be perceived, interpreted, experienced,  witnessed, and curiously examined/uncovered  by a sentient being, who then conceptualizes that this creation would not have existed on its own, but was created by Him(God)

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What different does sentient life make? Our sun will come and go wether we get to acknowledge it or not. The universe like everything else had a beginning and will have an ending. We are irrelevant to any of it.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        LOL  The first statement is indeed self-evident - as long as you want there to be a god that made you, consider yourself sentient, have an ego as big as the universe and don't care one whit whether it is actually true or not. 

        Otherwise there is no "self-evident" about the statement; rather it is blatantly false.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          @wilderness:
          This is where we converge. I am sentient as you are. I have an ego, as you do.
          There is where we diverge:  Although my being sentient has allowed me to have an ego...it is not as you said "as big as the universe". On the contrary, my ego is rather miniscule compared to yours that  leads you or allows you to believe that as a human being there is no one higher than you in the pecking order (so to speak)  in the universe. When similarly thinking humans, much like yourself, starts believing (because they feel empowered for  what ever reason)  that they can do whatever they want to since they are not answerable to anyone, not even  to their fellow human beings... then atheism coupled with  nihilism, reductionism, objectivism becomes the rule of the landscape.. then what else could follow from those scenario, but human depravation, and degradation.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Forgive me but it seems rather egotistical to claim the entire universe was made just for us. It seems rather egotistical to claim we are second in the universal pecking order. I on the other hand think we are simply another animal on a small planet of the outer edge of one of billions of galaxies.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              @RadMan:
              The entire universe was not made for us, but rather, we were made for the universe.
              Bad for you that you think humans are just "simply another animal on a small planet" Your  nihilism, reductionism just stuns me to the edge of catatonia..

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                or should I say apoplexy.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Your egotistical worldview just stuns me to the edge of apoplexy.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Touche.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What a load of BS!

            I am quite sure that there is an ET species out there as far above humanity as we are above an amobea.  Thousands of them, in fact, if not millions (although that is a guess, not knowledge).  You on the other hand believe in another whole universe without a shred of evidence that such a thing even might be possible, populated by a single omnipotent creature that made our universe just for you and your kind.  Who has the ego here?

            Perhaps not degradation, but an honest appraisal of just where humanity stands in this vast thing called a universe?

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              @wilderness:
              As I have mentioned in so many posts on HubPages..... atheism coupled with nihilism/reductionism  is a deadly mixture... one that would lead  NOT to  an honest appraisal of homo sapiens'  place in the grand and intelligent design but to its ultimate demise... a self destruction so inexplicable that only a deranged mind (as is possible with the atheistic/nihilistic/reductionist  impulse) could countenance it.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If you could even come close to explaining why mankind is NOT just another life form in a universe with trillions of planets, you might make sense.

                As it is, deciding that mankind is more than a grain of sand on a deserted beach is egocentric in the extreme, and can come only from that deranged mind you mention.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  @wilderness: I am certainly not proposing that humans are the ONLY sentient beings,  when  as you said  there are "trillions of planets" out there in the universe/multiverse. But to analogize sentient beings to just meaningless and purposeless  "grains of sand on a deserted beach" is an extreme form of reductionism and objectivism--- one that can only lead to nihilism, and when that is tethered to atheism becomes a toxic mix.

                  The toxicity of that mixture, we have seen in the just concluded century from Hitler's Holocaust, to Stalin's Gulag, to Mao's Great Leap ( truly a misnomer), to Castro's  revolution, to Pol Pots killing fields. Human life degraded, devalued, and senselessly destroyed.

                  Going back to the subject of ET. A very astute middle schooler once asked...".if there are millions of ET's out there why have we not heard from any one of them". Assuming  that  there are more than quite a few of them have advanced civilization.... much more advanced than what humans have on earth, and are therefore capable of communicating in whatever manner or form... why haven't they? We humans have sent quite a bit of signals out there just over the past 25 years or so, but no takers. Why?

                  Some astronomers/astrophysicists have suggested a possible explanation. These advanced civilizations may have self-destructed because they could not deal with the enormous burden of progressing their civilization to the ultimate path of glory... whatever that means. So they devalued and degraded and essentially self-destructed. A path that humans might follow, if they continue this  atheistic/nihilistic/reductionistic/objectivistic predisposition.

                  1. Dr Lamb profile image61
                    Dr Lambposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You just don't like atheists do you? You seem to think we are immoral and could potentially be responsible for the destruction of humanity. One need only look to examples of our most extreme societies to see if your theory is correct. I believe the Scandinavian countries are the least religious with the happiest peoples and the least corruption and then we have Vatican City. The Vatican bank has been laundering vast amounts of money for other corrupt nations and mafias and refusing to stop or expose it's doings.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Baloney.  There is nothing special about life nor about sentience.  In the grand scheme of the universe it cannot be made too small.



                    Sorry - none of those considered human life in terms of the universe; only in terms of what could be accomplished by them in a small geographical area.  Not the same thing at all.



                    They can't.  They don't care.  They have a "hands off" policy.  We are their experiment, not to be meddled with and "ET" injected into the mix.  They are coming, but limited to speed of light and are from 100,000 light years away.  All possible, but all irrelevant; asking why ET is not here does not indicate there is no ET.  The question isn't even a small bit of evidence ET is non-existent.



                    First, I can't imagine any scientist making such a silly suggestion without something to back it up.  Not seriously, anyway, although it is certainly within the realm of speculation and casual discussion.  Yes, we may self destruct, but if so it won't be because we consider ourselves to be too small and worthless.  The massive ego of the religious, believing that god made everything just for them, will make that impossible.

                  3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The massive dishonesty in that response is so ridiculously childish, it is laughable. You equate psychotic dictators to a lack of belief in your invisible super friends. Such dishonesty is only prevalent in believers who hate non-believers so much, they will stoop to any level of shame.



                    Wow, you post stuff here without thinking anything through at all. Advanced ET's beyond humans does not equate to those ET's being able to visit other worlds light years away.



                    lol Not only do not think things through, you come to the most ridiculous conclusions possible.

                    Your hatred of non-believers is stunning. Christian love, indeed. And, you complain about "atheistic/nihilistic/reductionistic/objectivistic" as the destruction of us all when you only exhibit the very same hatred you project onto others.

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                On the surface, this appears to be little more than a childish, emotional response, similar to having one's oatmeal too lumpy. Has this person ever actually explained what they are talking about, or offered any value to their worldview?

                If such a worldview were accepted, the only book required would be the bible. Of course, Muslims and Jews and a variety of other religions would most likely not agree, although they would agree any books of learning required would be one page long with the words, "God done it, He works in mysterious ways that we are forbidden to question or understand". No other information would be needed. This would then facilitate closing down research and medical facilities, schools, universities and anything that had to do with gaining knowledge, helping mankind or understanding the world around us.

                We would all just sit around and worship our grand intelligent designer for creating us the way the are, praying this designer could fix all the problems with our bodies. Yes, we could easily close down all the hospitals, toss out all the medicines and fire all the doctors, they are no longer needed. Prayer would suffice because obviously, God would answer all our prayers.

                Of course, we would have to get rid of everything science has provided us thus far as that is an abomination to God and go back to living in stone or grass huts with no running water or electricity. Any form of transportation would be horse and buggy.

                This begs the question, how will such a worldview add value to humanity, what purpose can it possibly serve, how will anything change due to accepting such a worldview? Self destructive? How so? Where are your solutions, A.Villarasa, to this "atheistic/nihilistic/reductionist" worldview you so vehemently despise?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  @Encephalo:
                  Simple solution: Stop devaluing human life...stop degrading human sentience... stop devolving human existence to the level of , in Psycheskinner's case... rats.

                  But atheistic agenda prevents them from doing that. In the process of denying the existence of God, atheists would go to the extent of degrading, devaluing and devolving Homo Sapiens. The nihilism of it all.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    How can you devalue a creature that HAS no value except to its own species, and then very little as witnessed by the killing that goes on?  Commit genocide and remove all those that value it at all?

                  2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You are doing much worse, you're worldview does not even acknowledge us as anything of value, just automatons serving and worshiping an invisible God. You call that a meaningful existence? Rats have it good compared to that.



                    Sorry, but you have it the wrong way, we consider humans are valuable because they can create their own purpose and meaning, rising well above your worldview of empty headed subservience.

  3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago

    It's hard to believe this tired, old argument keeps resurfacing over and over. It's almost as if the people who dredge it up never learn anything. Maybe, they're just to lazy the read the articles posted here over and over that debunk that argument.

    Are they too lazy to watch a video?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-UIfkcgPY

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for that.

      So the universe is not designed for sky diving?

    2. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      @encephalo:
      Your video just doesn't cut it as a believable piece of information that me or any other curious intelligent life form could sink their collective teeth into. It would have been a lot more credible if the person presenting the particular point of view was an Einstein or a Hawking. The card game was too amateurish...too discombobulating.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        lol Appeal to Authority fallacy. A ten year old could say the same thing and it would be equally valid as if Einstein or Hawking said it.

        Btw, intelligent life forms do in fact accept it. Sorry, that you don't.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          @Encephalo:
          Not just authority but  believable authority. Yours just ain't believable. And I'm not even talking about THE  ultimate authority, which in my language (not yours) is GOD.
          Now just because you believe that  you are a member of that class you labeled  "intelligent life forms" does not  necessarily mean that you are a  member in good standing of that class.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well, at least you have gone back to bashing atheists, again.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              @encphalo:
              You are so thin-skinned.... I am now almost ready to think that all atheists (or at least  all the atheists on HubPages) are similarly predisposed as you.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You are probably closer to right than you think. Many atheists on hub pages are, more than likely, him. And, a few theists. He appears to create sock puppets at random.

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sure, us non-believers are all the same, we don't believe in your gods, it is the commonality between us all that we agree with, hence it gives the appearance of one person. On the other hand, you believers can't agree on very much at all because you each have your own personal, religious, fantasy world that doesn't agree with anyone else and you all fight amongst yourselves trying to convince each other whose super invisible friend can beat up the other guys super invisible friend.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  @encephalo:
                  Your arguments (if you can call them that), are getting pretty desperate my friend. Try another tact and I may yet engage you in a more meaningful debate.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You wouldn't know meaningful debate if it dropped on your head.

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Pretty good comeback. Completely inaccurate, all the way around, but considering how inaccurate your usual assumptions are; it was pretty good. smile

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    It was totally accurate, you only disagree because you disagree with most everything reasonable and rational.

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So you won't listen to a good argument unless it comes from someone famous?

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              RadMan:
              Being famous has not nothing to do with believability or credibility. You yourself are famous, and look at your credibility... zilts, zero.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Being Christ like again?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "Being Christ like" is sacrilegious ... you  who claims to know a lot about Christianity should know that.

  4. 0
    Rad Manposted 2 years ago

    Doesn't one get tired of pointing to things they don't understand and stating God done it?

    Does it really solve all your problems by inventing a magical sky daddy that can create all these things that you don't understand without explaining where the sky daddy came from? Then imagining that this sky daddy created the entire universe and possible multiverse just for us?

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It never ceases to amaze me that some decide to come to far reaching conclusions and then shove those conclusions onto the backs of others. I'm not sure that anything said in the OP would warrant that response. However, I'm sure you've confabulated something within your mind to think so.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yea, I agree. Someone claiming that the universe must have been fine tuned for our existence is far reaching to say the least. Like the link explained, it's like claiming the entire universe was designed for sky divers.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          and the discombobulation continues.

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    I have no doubt that almost  all animals have free will and many have ethics. Not surprisingly, a great ,any animals are considered sentient.  That is why we use them as companions and have laws protecting them from abuse.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      @psyche:
      Sentience comes in varying degrees of  sublimity ... humans having the highest. Now if you want to devalue and degrade yours  to the level of the  animals that you mentioned have sentience, then by all means do so.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Now we are back to Christianity's humility. We humans needs laws preventing us from killing each other.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          @RadMan:
          If there is no human sentience, the concept of good and evil goes down the drain, and with it, the concept of personal responsibility and accountability based on ethical and moral values that humans have invoked, precisely because of that sentience, thus not allowing  them to kill each other williy-nilly.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            We are so great that we had to make laws protecting us from killing each other and the fact that we thought about making these laws makes us better than other animals and therefore God done it.

          2. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Humans are what they are, no matter what words you attach to them.

            And I don't think anyone his said humans are not sentient. But sentient means being able to suffer--it is silent on the ability to be kind and ethical.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              @psyche:
              Free will allows us  the ability to  discern good from evil, right from wrong. The ability to differentiate those polar opposites is one of the things that flows from sentience. So in effect it is NOT  silent on the "ability to b kind and ethical".

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sure it is.  Having the capacity to do something is not the same a doing something.  I have legs, that does not make me a good dancer.

                And as I have stated, many animals have free will and ethics, friendships, love, grief, and a concept of fairness and betrayal.  These are not just human things.

                If you want to suggest humans have "special" sentience. What is special about it? It is not special enough to make us innately kind to children and respectful of elders and peaceful in our community--a quality found in rat wild rat colonies.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  @Psyche:
                  Interesting ...the concept that human sentience, and thus free will  is not any more purposeful and meaningful  than that of rats in wild rat colonies. What about the rats that I see scampering about the town dump?.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    They have free will to the extent they make choice based on things like degree of optimism, they live in a harmonious family, they can feel emotions like pain and joy, they laugh when tickled, they help other rats that have disabilities. Ergo they are sentient.

                    So if humans are "more" sentient is has to related to things other than the capacity what most would consider a moral lifestyle.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Do you think we feel more than say an elephant?

                1. psycheskinner profile image80
                  psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I never studied elephants. But most mammals that live in groups have similar qualities. But some, notably many primates, are much more violent.

              3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                That makes no sense at all, how can the will of a person explain the difference between good and evil? Any person can possess the will to do something and carry it out, but that will does not explain why they carry it out.

      2. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        When I look into the eyes of a working horse, I often feel there is more sublimity in that animal than in me.  Humans need no help when it comes to acting in degraded ways, and dragging animals down with us.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          @Psyche:
          Interesting... and in fact in some cases, human's because of their raging ego, could degrade/devalue their humanity well below their natural place in nature, leading to the concept of the "asphalt jungle."

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Natural place in nature? You understand we are not at the top of the food chain right?

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              So who or what do you think is in the top of the food chain?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Bacteria, perhaps - they will consume our body, dead or alive. 

                Or maybe mosquitoes - they will certainly consume our blood while alive!

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The discombobulation continues....

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Do I really need to list things that feast on humans?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course... humour me.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Okay lets start with all bears and all of the large cats. How about sharks and alligators and crocks? How about snakes and Komodo dragons? Why do you think fear is a natural human emotion. Polar bears for example have no fear of anything. It doesn't need fear to survive while we do. We could move onto parasites but I think you get my point. We typically build houses to keep animals out.

 
working