AMR wrote:Well I've read several of Maryann Spikes' columns and they are IMHO quite good. Her bio indicates she's still an undergraduate student who works with autistic children; and I'd say for an undergrad she's assimilated all the basic arguments (and she's better read in the the "four horsemen" than I am). Also as the only person on this thread who's using his real name -- Shrunk, hotshoe, et al -- attached to his posts I'll cut Ms. Spikes a little slack; I hope she keeps posting, don't chase her away.

I have no problem with her not using her real name. I do have a problem with her posting links to her own articles without telling us that is what she is doing.

The essential problem with Dawkins' argument is that he insists that the universe (which, viewed as mere accident, is increasingly understood to be colossally improbable), if it be a product of intelligent design, a designer would then have to be even more improbable. But by acknowledging the achievement of blind evolution Dawkins already has conceded the possibility, indeed the probability, that an agency less than an omnipotent God and in fact as lowly as prokaryotes are in fact capable of generating all of terrestrial biological creation. Dawkins goes on to insinuate that some form of cosmic Darwinian selection among the multi-verses is at work without benefit of any empirical evidence. How are physical constants supposed to mutate? What would be the selective pressure? Intelligence? That would be Dawkins' ultimate downfall vis a vis intelligent design!

I think you're still misunderstanding Dawkins' point. He is not "conceding a possibility" by acknowledging that something other than an omnipotent God could have been the cause of the universe. That is the very point he is trying to make. He is arguing against the claim that only an omnipotent god could have created the universe. In so doing, he need only demonstrate that it is possible for something other than an omnipotent god to be an explanation. He doesn't have to provide evidence that this is actually the case, only that it is among the possibilities. The burden of proof then falls back on the theist to demonstrate why God is the only viable explanation among these possibilities.

Hoyles' original tornadic 747 argument I believe applied to the first self-replicating biological assemblage, not the process of evolution in its full historical sweep. Thus far even modern technology (which has been assembling 747s for some 40 years now) has yet to scratch-build a cell -- Venter's recent creation simply involved injecting synthetic DNA into a pre-existing cell with all its organelles already in place.

A cell would have been a relatively late arrival after the appearance of the "first self-replicating biological assemblage", so your point is irrelevant.

Maybe you can explain this to me, though: I've never understood the logic of the theist argument you use here. What you are in effect saying is, "To date, not even the most intelligent being we know of (humans) have been able to create life. Therefore, we conclude that life could only have been created by an intelligent being." Huh? Doesn't that rather suggest that life most likely arose thru a process other than intelligent creation?

Howdy, Shrunk. Happy Friday I never said everything needs a cause. Nobody ever said everything needs a cause (only Greta--atheist woman I quoted in my article). What was said by me, in reply to Greta, is that (in short) "everything that needs a cause, needs a cause". The "uncaused cause"--is not one of those things...it is where those things get their thingness. This was already made clear before you replied, but you skipped over that fact and fell for Greta's straw man.

What does it matter whose article it is? The arguments stand or fall on their own. Your objection is either ad hominem or poisoning the well of discourse. If that's the only way you can get around the argument...boy, howdy, you need to rethink some things.

he need only demonstrate that it is possible for something other than an omnipotent god to be an explanation

Actually, no, that wasn't what he was trying to do--he was only trying to say God is not simple (my article shows he did not succeed) and just pushes the question back. And even if that 'was' what he was trying to do--my article showed that his attempt also does not succeed in explaining the origination of all things physical (failing as a viable alternative), as there is a beginning, using any model (considering entropy build-up and quantum hooplah), attested to by physicist Brian Greene.

Ichthus77 wrote:Howdy, Shrunk. Happy Friday I never said everything needs a cause. Nobody ever said everything needs a cause (only Greta--atheist woman I quoted in my article). What was said by me, in reply to Greta, is that (in short) "everything that needs a cause, needs a cause". The "uncaused cause"--is not one of those things...it is where those things get their thingness. This was already made clear before you replied, but you skipped over that fact and fell for Greta's straw man.

No, I didn't skip over that. You skipped over the fact that this refutes the entire Kalam argument. Sure, you're quite free to define God as an "uncaused cause." But then you can't use the Kalam to demonstrate the existence of this god, since it rests on the presumption that "everytthing has a cause." If you change that to "Everything has a cause, except those things that don't have a cause" then the Kalam collapses like a house of cards.

Suppose I were to argue this: Everything in the universe has a cause, except that which does not have a cause. If the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang required a cause, this cause would have to be an uncaused cause, such as that proposed by theists. However, since there is no God, this cannot be the case. Therefore the initial singularity is not itself caused.

I doubt you would accept that argument, nor should you. However, that argument is not less valid than the one you are making.

What does it matter whose article it is? The arguments stand or fall on their own. Your objection is either ad hominem or poisoning the well of discourse. If that's the only way you can get around the argument...boy, howdy, you need to rethink some things.

As you seem to have noticed, I have made an argument against the claim of your article. Of course, it doesn't matter who wrote the article. Your actions in deliberately misrepresenting your relationship to the article you linked is a separate issue. But I guess that's between you and your saviour. If you don't feel the need to apologize for your dishonesty, we'll just leave it at that.

he need only demonstrate that it is possible for something other than an omnipotent god to be an explanation

Actually, no, that wasn't what he was trying to do--he was only trying to say God is not simple (my article shows he did not succeed) and just pushes the question back. And even if that 'was' what he was trying to do--my article showed that his attempt also does not succeed in explaining the origination of all things physical (failing as a viable alternative), as there is a beginning, using any model (considering entropy build-up and quantum hooplah), attested to by physicist Brian Greene.

He is not saying that any idea of God is complex. Only that the god as defined by the design argument cannot be simple. Again, like the Kalam, it is a case of theists violating the very principles on which they base their own arguments. The design argument states that something as complex as a human being could not result from unguided natural processes. If theists are saying that God was simple and gave rise to complex entities like human beings, then they are admitting that complexity can arise from simplicity, just as naturalistic scientific theories contend, and they have again shot themselves in the foot.

Shrunk wrote:

Ichthus77 wrote:Howdy, Shrunk. Happy Friday I never said everything needs a cause. Nobody ever said everything needs a cause (only Greta--atheist woman I quoted in my article). What was said by me, in reply to Greta, is that (in short) "everything that needs a cause, needs a cause". The "uncaused cause"--is not one of those things...it is where those things get their thingness. This was already made clear before you replied, but you skipped over that fact and fell for Greta's straw man.

No, I didn't skip over that. You skipped over the fact that this refutes the entire Kalam argument. Sure, you're quite free to define God as an "uncaused cause." But then you can't use the Kalam to demonstrate the existence of this god, since it rests on the presumption that "everytthing has a cause." If you change that to "Everything has a cause, except those things that don't have a cause" then the Kalam collapses like a house of cards.

Suppose I were to argue this: Everything in the universe has a cause, except that which does not have a cause. If the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang required a cause, this cause would have to be an uncaused cause, such as that proposed by theists. However, since there is no God, this cannot be the case. Therefore the initial singularity is not itself caused.

I doubt you would accept that argument, nor should you. However, that argument is not less valid than the one you are making.

What does it matter whose article it is? The arguments stand or fall on their own. Your objection is either ad hominem or poisoning the well of discourse. If that's the only way you can get around the argument...boy, howdy, you need to rethink some things.

As you seem to have noticed, I have made an argument against the claim of your article. Of course, it doesn't matter who wrote the article. Your actions in deliberately misrepresenting your relationship to the article you linked is a separate issue. But I guess that's between you and your saviour. If you don't feel the need to apologize for your dishonesty, we'll just leave it at that.

he need only demonstrate that it is possible for something other than an omnipotent god to be an explanation

Actually, no, that wasn't what he was trying to do--he was only trying to say God is not simple (my article shows he did not succeed) and just pushes the question back. And even if that 'was' what he was trying to do--my article showed that his attempt also does not succeed in explaining the origination of all things physical (failing as a viable alternative), as there is a beginning, using any model (considering entropy build-up and quantum hooplah), attested to by physicist Brian Greene.

He is not saying that any idea of God is complex. Only that the god as defined by the design argument cannot be simple. Again, like the Kalam, it is a case of theists violating the very principles on which they base their own arguments. The design argument states that something as complex as a human being could not result from unguided natural processes. If theists are saying that God was simple and gave rise to complex entities like human beings, then they are admitting that complexity can arise from simplicity, just as naturalistic scientific theories contend, and they have again shot themselves in the foot.

Yes, that's it exactly.

Theists never used to claim god was "simple". For heaven's sake, the christian god is divided into three parts to begin with; how can that be claimed to be maximally "simple" ? And a "simple" god gives them no help in proving that a god was either necessary to create our cosmos or even capable of creating our cosmos at all.

Now we know that natural evolutionary processes are capable of creating complexity and the apparent designedness of life by ramping up from the simplest recognizable life in small steps, unguided. We know this for a fact since we have seen it occur in the lab and in the field. Interestingly, we also know that evolutionary processes are capable of creating complexity in non-biological areas such as antenna design and computer programming. So, "simple" is not a problem to us, not a logical contradiction. But that's because we don't stupidly claim that the simple created the complexity all at once, in one fell swoop, from nothing, with no intermediate steps.

Whereas for the theists, trying to claim "god is simple" is a gob-smacking error. If god is simple, what use is he ?

Shrunk--you misinterpret the Kalam argument obviously. You know...celebrating a victory over a straw man gives off the appearance of absurdity, as does saying a logical fallacy loses it's fallaciousness when alongside a real attempt at an (erroneous, but that's moot) argument. You're telling me I deliberately misrepresented my relationship to the article and that I am dishonest and should apologize. Inside the article, it has references to my "Ichthus" username. I never said "Hey, this isn't my article, but check it out." Are you joshin' me?

Dawkins was addressing fine-tuning, not necessarily just the Intelligent Design argument--which I do not make. I believe in natural evolution. So, even if you took away ID, you're left with fine-tuning, and Dawkins is trying to say God is not simple, if he got the multiverse rolling (shown to have a beginning by Brian Greene). And yet he says the multiverse is simple. Double-standard. And there is some equivocation going on with the word simple.

Theists have been claiming God is simple for a long time, hotshoe. Heard o' Aquinas? Prob'ly preceded him, though...I haven't fully researched it. Would like to. Should. Prob'ly will. However--does that even matter how long folks have been claiming something? I'm sure there's plenty we don't know yet. If God exists (I believe he does, but I'm phrasing it this way for you), our ignorance about various things about him doesn't change that fact.

You guys need to put your heads together and get some better arguments. Mine are pretty good, feel free to try 'em out.

Ichthus77 wrote:You're telling me I deliberately misrepresented my relationship to the article and that I am dishonest and should apologize. Inside the article, it has references to my "Ichthus" username. I never said "Hey, this isn't my article, but check it out." Are you joshin' me?

Sweetie, the first rule of holes is: when you're in one, stop digging.

You were disingenuous at best if not outright dishonest.

Here's how an open, honest person would have acted:

"Hello, all, I'm new here, and I'm linking to an article I wrote elsewhere that I hope you will read."

But you chose not to be open and honest. And you got spotted despite your dissembling, and now you are complaining that you are the one who is not playing fair ?


Please go find god and ask it to kiss your boo-boo and make it all better.

Or, you could do the adult thing and actually, you know, apologize for not being upfront to begin with.

Ichthus77 wrote:Shrunk--you misinterpret the Kalam argument obviously. You know...celebrating a victory over a straw man gives off the appearance of absurdity, as does saying a logical fallacy loses it's fallaciousness when alongside a real attempt at an (erroneous, but that's moot) argument.

Please let me know how I've misinterpreted it.

You're telling me I deliberately misrepresented my relationship to the article and that I am dishonest and should apologize. Inside the article, it has references to my "Ichthus" username. I never said "Hey, this isn't my article, but check it out." Are you joshin' me?

Your reference was clearly misleading, but I'm willing to acknowledge that could have easily been inadvertent on your part. No biggie.

Dawkins was addressing fine-tuning, not necessarily just the Intelligent Design argument--which I do not make. I believe in natural evolution. So, even if you took away ID, you're left with fine-tuning, and Dawkins is trying to say God is not simple, if he got the multiverse rolling (shown to have a beginning by Brian Greene). And yet he says the multiverse is simple. Double-standard. And there is some equivocation going on with the word simple.

And I wasn't talking about Intelligent Design, either. The "Argument from Design" encompasses the "fine tuning argument", at least in the sense I was using it. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that. You still haven't addressed my argument adequately. I don't know anything about Brian Greene, but if there is now consensus among cosmologists that the universe had a definite beginning, it's news to me. I think the onus remains on theists to demonstrate how a supremely "simple" being can create a universe out of nothing.

Theists have been claiming God is simple for a long time, hotshoe. Heard o' Aquinas? Prob'ly preceded him, though...I haven't fully researched it. Would like to. Should. Prob'ly will. However--does that even matter how long folks have been claiming something? I'm sure there's plenty we don't know yet. If God exists (I believe he does, but I'm phrasing it this way for you), our ignorance about various things about him doesn't change that fact.

I was actually going to mention Aquinas to hotshoe. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

You guys need to put your heads together and get some better arguments. Mine are pretty good, feel free to try 'em out.

And here I thought modesty was a Christian virtue.

Shrunk wrote:

Ichthus77 wrote:Shrunk--you misinterpret the Kalam argument obviously. You know...celebrating a victory over a straw man gives off the appearance of absurdity, as does saying a logical fallacy loses it's fallaciousness when alongside a real attempt at an (erroneous, but that's moot) argument.

Please let me know how I've misinterpreted it.

You're telling me I deliberately misrepresented my relationship to the article and that I am dishonest and should apologize. Inside the article, it has references to my "Ichthus" username. I never said "Hey, this isn't my article, but check it out." Are you joshin' me?

Your reference was clearly misleading, but I'm willing to acknowledge that could have easily been inadvertent on your part. No biggie.

Dawkins was addressing fine-tuning, not necessarily just the Intelligent Design argument--which I do not make. I believe in natural evolution. So, even if you took away ID, you're left with fine-tuning, and Dawkins is trying to say God is not simple, if he got the multiverse rolling (shown to have a beginning by Brian Greene). And yet he says the multiverse is simple. Double-standard. And there is some equivocation going on with the word simple.

And I wasn't talking about Intelligent Design, either. The "Argument from Design" encompasses the "fine tuning argument", at least in the sense I was using it. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that. You still haven't addressed my argument adequately. I don't know anything about Brian Greene, but if there is now consensus among cosmologists that the universe had a definite beginning, it's news to me. I think the onus remains on theists to demonstrate how a supremely "simple" being can create a universe out of nothing.

Theists have been claiming God is simple for a long time, hotshoe. Heard o' Aquinas? Prob'ly preceded him, though...I haven't fully researched it. Would like to. Should. Prob'ly will. However--does that even matter how long folks have been claiming something? I'm sure there's plenty we don't know yet. If God exists (I believe he does, but I'm phrasing it this way for you), our ignorance about various things about him doesn't change that fact.

I was actually going to mention Aquinas to hotshoe. Thanks for saving me the trouble.

You guys need to put your heads together and get some better arguments. Mine are pretty good, feel free to try 'em out.

And here I thought modesty was a Christian virtue.

See, the problem with you, Shrunk, is you're too nice.

And the problem with me is I'm too mean.

Ichthus wrote:
Yeah. This one:

Ichthus77 wrote:Grounding Dawkins 747:
http://www.examiner.com/x-26772-San-Fra ... e-and-well

Well now that we have that cleared up we can address parts of your article:

First off if you want to take apart Chapter 4 of Dawkins’ God Delusion then you should spend more effort doing it. The Chapter is 46 pages. You cannot do it justice with two or three pot shots at seemingly easy targets.

   [I have already dismissed all such suggestions as raising bigger problems than they solve. But what attempts have theists made to reply ? How do they cope with the argument that …]"...any God capable of designing a universe, carefully and foresightfully tuned to lead to our evolution, must be a supremely complex and improbable entity who needs an even bigger explanation than the one he is supposed to provide. [?]?" 

Note that Dawkins is objecting to the fine-tuning argument, invoking the multiverse as a way to deal with the improbability of the physical constants. 

In the brackets in the above Dawkins quote by you I have supplied the part that you left out and the question mark at the end that you changed to a full stop. It is a question not a statement, and Dawkins continues on in the next paragraph tackling Swinburne on this subject and his “explanation.”

He comes to this:

But how can Swinburne possibly maintain this hypothesis of God simultaneously keeping a gazillion fingers on wayward electrons is a simple Hypothesis? It is, of course, precisely the opposite of simple. Swinburne pulls off the trick to his own satisfaction by a breath taking piece of intelectual Chutzpah. He asserts without justification, that God is only a single substance.

In this part of Chapter four Dawkins does not “invoke” the multi-verse for anything. He does though give some descriptions of what some cosmologists think about it as it relates to the appearance of fine-tuning. He also notes that there are physicists that dismiss the idea that any of the constants could ever have different values, regardless of what universe they pertain to.

Dawkins is however creating a double-standard and equivocating on words like 'simple' when he insists God must be complex, but the multiverse is simple, when they both come up with the same finely-tuned, biogenic results.

“Finely-tuned, biogenetic results” is an assumption that presupposes a forward looking process with a goal. Cosmology, whether it is dealing with this universe that is a fact, or other universes that are scientific speculation, does not assume fine-tuning or presuppose forward looking processes with goals.

I’m not sure what the article is getting at with the above statement, it seems to me that the author would rather have the perceived double standard go the other way: God is simple while the universe is complex, but this makes no sense if God created the universe.

Why can he not grant that God, for all that He is extravagant, is simple?

Because as Dawkins pointed out in the paragraph that is being alluded to the universe is not posited as an intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent. God is! And intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agents are not simple.

Intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agents require some explanation of how these traits came about, but in God’s case no explanation is offered or possible, and is seen as unnecessary because God is the explanation.

Bare minimum, there is no proof for either the multiverse or God, only clues--both conclusions require faith, and may not even be mutually exclusive.

The problem here with this statement is that no one is taking the existence of multi-verses on faith, whereas God seems to require enormous amounts of it. Multiple universes are scientific speculation arising out of physics and the mathematics. No one is making any kind of truth statement about it. Any physicist/cosmologists can say that he thinks that his hypothesis/scientific speculation is more probable than others, but until that scientist starts claiming without evidential support that theirs is correct and all others are wrong accusations that God and the multi-verse are both matters of faith are wrong.

The existence of the multiverse, including the cyclic model, would still require an explanation.

That is why physicist and cosmologists are working on explanations. They don’t just say, “There, that’s the way it is,” and then start arguing that no one can prove them wrong.

  In "Fabric of the Cosmos" physicist Brian Greene explains that 

     "The cyclic model has its own share of shortcomings...consideration of entropy buildup (and also of quantum mechanics) ensures that the cyclic model's cycles could not have gone on forever. Instead, the cycles began at some definite time in the past, and so, as with inflation, we need an explanation of how the first cycle got started."

I miss the validity of this statement: Is the article implying that Dawkins’ arguments hinge on infinite cyclical models?

This would seem to suggest that consideration of entropy buildup and quantum mechanics ensures that nothing physical could have gone on forever, with no beginning.  There is a beginning.  There is no infinite regress of causes, though Dawkins waves off Aquinas' arguments with

     "It is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the regresses of Aquinas.  That's putting it mildly, as we shall see later." 

Aquinas’ 3 arguments that Dawkins cites posit God as terminating infinite regress. Dawkins is saying that God is not a natural terminator to infinite regress except by Aquinas’ definition. So whether cosmology supports eternal existence or not is beside the point.

The only related thing we see later in "The God Delusion" is Dawkins' double-standard that the multiverse is simple, but God is complex.  In the event that one cannot imagine a simple God, it does not follow that a simple God does not exist;

But we are not being asked to imagine a simple god, we are being asked to imagine an intelligent designer/creator God with infinite powers and a abilities that is simpler than what it created. The problem does not seem to be with imagining this kind of god, because clearly some people do. The problem is in explaining this kind of god. Something that no one seems to be able to do in any coherent way.

Both the theistic and atheistic conclusions about the beginning of all things physical require faith.

There are no atheistic claims about the existence of all things, maybe you mean scientific claims and are under the mistaken impression that all physicists and cosmologists are atheists and that this guides their research.. Again, until some scientist claims that their hypothesis is correct and all others are incorrect, and ceases to investigate his/her own hypothesis it is fallacious to accuse them of relying on faith.

Ichthus77 wrote: ... as does saying a logical fallacy loses it's fallaciousness when alongside a real attempt at an (erroneous, but that's moot) argument.

This isn't even English. It's word salad. Did you put in too many words or did you leave some out that you need to add to make sense ? Not that it matters, because whatever you add is going to be just another version of "I'm right, because I don't believe you when you refute christian arguments."

Dawkins was addressing fine-tuning, not necessarily just the Intelligent Design argument--which I do not make. I believe in natural evolution.

At least you're not completely demented; you can use your rationality to see that evolution is a fact. Believe me, that's a big improvement over the majority of your sistren and brethren in Christ, so kudos to you. Now, re-read Dawkins chapter 4 in The God Delusion. No, skip it. It should be obvious to a person who can accept that apparent complex design via evolution occurs without requiring an "intelligent designer", then analogously apparent fine-tuning occurs without requiring a "fine tuner". And that if such a "fine-tuner" did exist, it would be have to be massively more complex than whatever it was tuning.

So, even if you took away ID, you're left with fine-tuning,

You have no reason to think that "fine tuning" is a problem which requires a god to explain, nor any reason to think that your god is the correct answer to a fine-tuning problem. What is your evidence that the cosmos had dials or knobs which could have been tuned to begin with ?

and Dawkins is trying to say God is not simple,

Not what he says. (Strawman much ? ) What Dawkins says is that god, if "simple", is not in fact the creator-works-miracles-responds-to-prayers deity beloved by the Abrahamists, or else is not simple but more complex than whatever he designed/created, in which case god needed a designer (like the christians are so fond of saying, all sufficiently complex things need a designer) unless god became more complex from a simple condition (simple enough to not need a designer itself in its beginning) via a process we would call evolution -- which is the only process we know of which can raise simple into complex without the intervention of an intelligent agent. And if that's true, we can't disprove the existence of that sort of evolved god. But it adds an unnecessary entity to our explanation of the cosmos, which by Occam's Razor suggests we should reject it without bothering to disprove it.

if he got the multiverse rolling (shown to have a beginning by Brian Greene).

Argument from authority. Why are you convinced by Brian Greene, when you are not convinced by Stephen Hawking, who clearly states that our cosmos does not have a beginning in spacetime ? I suggest the reason is because Greene says what you want to hear, which gives you hope you can reconcile your christian faith with modern science. Ah, science, emulated by the rational and irrational alike.

And yet he says the multiverse is simple.

Your evidence that it's not simple ? Not more simple than the complex creator/designer of the multiverse that you believe in ?

Double-standard. And there is some equivocation going on with the word simple.

Fine. Feel free to provide your working definition of "simple". Then, demonstrate how your god fits your definition of simple. And demonstrate how the scientific consensus view of the multiverse is less simple than your god.

Theists have been claiming God is simple for a long time, hotshoe. Heard o' Aquinas?

Heard o' ? What the fuck ? Pretentious much ?

Prob'ly

Prob'ly ? What the fuck ? Can you please start writing like an adult ?

preceded him, though...I haven't fully researched it. Would like to. Should. Prob'ly will. However--does that even matter how long folks have been claiming something? I'm sure there's plenty we don't know yet.

You got that right.

If God exists (I believe he does, but I'm phrasing it this way for you)

Don't do me any favors ,

our ignorance about various things about him doesn't change that fact.

Yes, your ignorance about god should preclude you making stupid, ignorance-based claims like "god is simple". The fact is that you don't know, and can't know, but that has never stopped christians like you from claiming that you do know. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

You guys need to put your heads together

Stop right there. There is no "you guys" here, to put our heads together. You're using a false analogy with your christian dogma and various church councils that put their heads together to define it.

and get some better arguments. Mine are pretty good, feel free to try 'em out.

Maryann, meet Dunning-Kruger. Dunning-Kruger, meet Maryann.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Maryann/ichthus77 wrote:
Both the theistic and atheistic conclusions about the beginning of all things physical require faith.

There are no atheistic claims about the existence of all things, maybe you mean scientific claims and are under the mistaken impression that all physicists and cosmologists are atheists and that this guides their research.. Again, until some scientist claims that their hypothesis is correct and all others are incorrect, and ceases to investigate his/her own hypothesis it is fallacious to accuse them of relying on faith.

Thanks, Oldskeptic, for putting it so nicely. It's not just a logical fallacy to label both theistic and scientific explanations as equally requiring "faith", it's libel against the hardworking scientists (perhaps a few of whom are members of this very forum). I'm willing to grant that Maryann didn't think through the implications of her stupid statement before she made it and just threw it in for its effect on her credulous readers. But it libels the integrity of professional scientists who are engaged in the effort to rigorously determine what works, who are not afraid to admit they don't know if they don't know, who are willing to admit they were wrong if new evidence comes along ... indeed, the exact opposite of "faith".

There's a lot more that has been said on the subject here, Ichthus77, if you do a search under the terms "kalam" and "fine tuning." Oh, sorry, I forgot. You've obviously done this already, before writing this:

You guys need to put your heads together and get some better arguments. Mine are pretty good, feel free to try 'em out.

AMR wrote:The essential problem with Dawkins' argument is that he insists that the universe (which, viewed as mere accident, is increasingly understood to be colossally improbable), if it be a product of intelligent design, a designer would then have to be even more improbable.

Your entire argument seems to predicate on this bolded premise.

I should point out that this is in fact entirely untrue. Historically nobody has ever been able to conduct a probabilisitic a priori analysis of the existence of the universe. Creationists often assert they can do it, but to the best of my knowledge it has never been done - so there is simply no basis for the claim "the universe is improbable" or "the universe is increasingly understood to be improbable".

It doesn't even make sense to discuss the a priori probability outside of a theory that claims to be a "theory of everything", and quite obviously no such theory yet exists.

AMR wrote:
The essential problem with Dawkins' argument is that he insists that the universe (which, viewed as mere accident, is increasingly understood to be colossally improbable), if it be a product of intelligent design, a designer would then have to be even more improbable.

I find it annoying when some apologist asserts that any cosmologist says that the universe was an accident. And I find it doubly annoying when the apologists follows up this unsupported assertion with another assertion that this “accident” is seen as extremely improbable.

The next thing that I expect is to hear or read are the words random and chance, as if they really mean anything when talking about cosmology.

The probability of this universe existing is 1 as in 100%, it is here, we are in it, get over it. What was the probability of this universe existing before it existed? Have a go at that one.

Do you visualize it as something like a coin toss, and so chance and probability are involved leading to an “accident“? If so, guess again. There are no accidents, there is just one thing progressing from other things. With expansion the universe progressed from one state to another, and accident or chance had nothing to do with it.

Dawkins has no problem, essential or otherwise, when pointing out the improbability of an intelligent designer/creator god with infinite powers and capabilities that is claimed to be simpler than the creation..

Oldskeptic wrote:The probability of this universe existing is 1 as in 100%, it is here, we are in it, get over it. What was the probability of this universe existing before it existed? Have a go at that one.

Creationists use the svery ame bullshit statistics to "disprove" evolution, calculating the odds (for all I know or care accurately) of humans evolving if we started from scratch., hoping we won't notice that the premise has been switched.

DaveD wrote:
Creationists use the svery ame bullshit statistics to "disprove" evolution, calculating the odds (for all I know or care accurately) of humans evolving if we started from scratch., hoping we won't notice that the premise has been switched.

Yes, it always amuses me when someone thinks that the probability of a god blowing on dirt is higher than the probability that abiogenesis occurred and evolution by natural selection followed.

The probability of abiogenesis is high, and the probability of evolution by natural selection is 1. Both supported by evidence. God blowing on dirt is supported by ancient myth.

Replying to anything but the following would be to repeat myself, indicating that such repetitions will be as read and/or correctly interpreted as my previous replies and article. Granted, it may be that I am failing to communicate properly, but I assure you it is not intentional. So I'll stick to this:

Both the theistic and atheistic conclusions about the beginning of all things physical require faith.

-- myself

There are no atheistic claims about the existence of all things, maybe you mean scientific claims and are under the mistaken impression that all physicists and cosmologists are atheists and that this guides their research.. Again, until some scientist claims that their hypothesis is correct and all others are incorrect, and ceases to investigate his/her own hypothesis it is fallacious to accuse them of relying on faith.

-- Old Skeptic

The 'beginning' of them. Science can't go beyond the physical (that means it can't go beyond the beginning of the physical, either), so, no I don't mean scientific claims. Faith is required here, as in all beliefs, but that is a different topic (see my last two articles on that 'faith' topic--if you want, of course).

Interesting to think about. Atheists would say there isn't anything 'other than' the physical, and yet, there is a beginning to the physical. That it even began...what it began 'from'...truly, truly, truly astounding. Whether you're an atheist or theist.

When I said you should get better arguments (mine)--I apologize for coming off sounding arrogant to those who took it that way...I was giving y'all a hard time and deliberately sounding full of it in good humor (though, my arguments 'are' good)... But I suppose Christians aren't allowed to have personalities 'round here.

Ichthus77 wrote:Science can't go beyond the physical (that means it can't go beyond the beginning of the physical, either), so, no I don't mean scientific claims. Faith is required here, as in all beliefs, but that is a different topic (see my last two articles on that 'faith' topic--if you want, of course).

This is simply not true. "Beyond the physical" would surely be the hypothetical. Hypotheses can usually be tested, and those that "pass" become theories.
Some hypotheses cannot yet be tested, and maybe never will. They remain hypotheses, but can still be useful for constructing working models of reality. (Have you ever seen a quantum? )
As for "faith", the blind faith that the religious put in their magic man in no way equates with the provisional faith scientists have for their theories and hypotheses. The latter only last as long as they work.

Ichthus77 wrote:Interesting to think about. Atheists would say there isn't anything 'other than' the physical, and yet, there is a beginning to the physical. That it even began...what it began 'from'...truly, truly, truly astounding. Whether you're an atheist or theist.

There is a beginning to the local cosmic inflation - the big bang.

The problem is that you are then making the unjustified assertion that this is the beginning of "everything physical" and worse, then attributing this assumption to your opponent, along with the assumption "there is nothing beyond the physical"!

This is shockingly lacking in intellectual rigour and good manners of discourse.

I should point out that I can accept the statement "I do not believe there is anything beyond the physical", but I would not make the positive claim that "there is nothing beyond the physical". I do not accept that the big bang is necessarily the beginning of "everything physical", so if you want to use this as a premise of your case then you need to present a sound argument, or some empirical evidence it is the case.

I will look forward to this evidence/sound argument to be forthcoming.

This was a really good point that should not be ignored...

Shrunk wrote:Suppose I were to argue this: Everything in the universe has a cause, except that which does not have a cause. If the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang required a cause, this cause would have to be an uncaused cause, such as that proposed by theists. However, since there is no God, this cannot be the case. Therefore the initial singularity is not itself caused.

I doubt you would accept that argument, nor should you. However, that argument is not less valid than the one you are making.

Ichtus seemed to take issue, but didn't give any reason why...

Ichthus77 wrote:Shrunk--you misinterpret the Kalam argument obviously.

(WHY?...)

You're telling me I deliberately misrepresented my relationship to the article and that I am dishonest and should apologize. Inside the article, it has references to my "Ichthus" username. I never said "Hey, this isn't my article, but check it out." Are you joshin' me?

Ichthus, GET OVER the fake username stuff, and answer his question. How is Shrunk misinterpreting the Kalam argument? Shrunk's argument is exactly the same as the Kalam uses for god.