rationalskepticism.org

Sweenith wrote:
If that's what you're assuming, then the objection isn't relevant, strictly speaking. Craig's fine-tuning argument doesn't say anything about the designer being omniscient or omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

Oh - you see, I'm not playing philosophical games; I'm a very down to earth, practical, get-down-to-business kinda guy, and I know that Craig supports and believes in an omni-God. He may ditch that to get out of a sticky debate situation (I don't know if he would, but you seem to imply so), but he'll go back home praying to his omni-God in any case.

Sweenith wrote:
And if you aren't presupposing that a designer would want a more populated universe than this one, then the various facts you cite regarding its inhospitality do not constitute evidence against the universe's being designed.

No, just that it would be poor design by an omni-God (omni-benevolent being one of those attributes), unless this is the best possible physical world, in which case he should have ditched the plans once he realized this, and instead continued creating in his own, or some other, realm.

Sweenith wrote:

There's a reason theologians once thought the earth had to be at the center of the universe; because we are allegedly at the center of God's attention.

being "at the center" of a person's attention is just a way of talking about whatever that person happens to be most concerned with. It has nothing to do with spatial location. So the connection between the two uses of "center" in the statement—in order for something to be at the center of God's attention, it has to be at the center of the universe—is an equivocal one

I thought perhaps the point would still get across, but I guess not.

So say you wanted to have a fountain in front of your house, and decided that it would look and "work" better if you had a patch of grass around it. And then, when you're finished, people ask you "Umm... where is this fountain you were raving about?", you'd say - "Oh yes - it's the most important piece of my property. But I started planting this patch of grass, and ended up making it into an incredibly huge garden. So the fountain ended up way over there, almost into the bushes you can barely see at the other end." ?

Still nothing? Oh well. I'm tired.

Sweenith wrote:

According to the monotheistic religions, this universe is not a permanent dwelling place for any of us, but basically a 'pit stop' on our way to another, better realm. In the mean time, people are awaiting the return of a Messiah, who is also going to whisk us away into a better realm. And scientifically, we know the universe won't be suitable for life at all in a few billion years anyway. All of which shows that this universe was - according to this then - not designed to be 'teeming with life' as life expands its borders throughout space, but that it was created for a relatively short life span, with specific entities in mind.

Not sure I follow you, but the fine-tuning argument doesn't specify how much life exists in a life-permitting universe, nor how long that life might exist - it's talking about being able to sustain life at all, in any amount and for any length of time. So I don't see how that is an objection to the argument.

It wasn't an objection to the fine tuning argument, it was a continuation of my train of thought, it's not my fault you chopped it up. Basically; you don't need a gazillion stars and planets in a universe of the Christian or Muslim God. We are apparently the reason for its existence, and we're apparently not staying here for long. If you have a different theological view, hooray for you.

Sweenith wrote:

It is with this backdrop it seems strange that the universe should have been created in such a way that life is forever but a speck of dust compared to other matter and space, and that life has to strive and clutch at straws so as to not fall off the cliff, figuratively speaking, in the tiny areas it does exist. It's not about having a gigantic universe (like we have now) overflowing with life, but rather an 'efficient', parsimonious universe, sufficiently large for the relatively few entities it was created to sustain, and that the area they would inhabit was also created to be as benign to them as possible. Carrier makes a similar point in the video above.

First, as I suggested before, the sort of universe you have in mind may not be physically possible (it may or may not be);

Then scrapping the physical plans would have been possible.

Sweenith wrote:
And second, in assuming that this universe is not 'efficient', you are presupposing that you know all of the designer's goals (the universe may be inefficient with respect to bringing about the existence of intelligent life alone, but it may be extremely efficient with respect to bringing about all of its designer's ends).

And third, efficiency is only a concern when one has limited resources. If the universe's designer were omnipotent (as you assume that it would be), then he wouldn't be limited in resources.

I don't assume anything; I'm trying to make coherent arguments against a myriad of a plethora of diverging ideas within a belief system, which is no easy task, but I have to grab hold somewhere in order to at least attempt to do so, and one way is assuming someone's beliefs 'for the sake of argument'. That people then say 'it's not what they assume' is par for the course.

Anyway - I don't think an omnipotent being would have to be sloppy or slobby and wasteful. By all means, if you owned a forest, you could cut it all down in order to make a single toothpick, but it would seem strange to me from a design point of view.


This post should of course have been a lot more eloquent and full of beautiful prose, devastating arguments and fantastic analogies, but to be honest I need a break from this debate malarkey. I've grown tired of it, having gone through it for quite a few years now. I'll see if I can muster something for your other reply in a while.