No it doesn't and you have only shown you have faith a Creator isn't necessary.
Stop that. You are in no position to tell me what my views are or whether I have faith in anything.
You state your belief as fact (that a creator isn't necessary) because you have such complete total faith it is true that for you it is a fact. We have a difference of opinion you believe it isn't necessary but can't prove it I believe it is necessary but can't prove it. All we can do is make our case and let the undecided decide.
The scientific fields have already decided this in my favor. Goddidit is a dead, barren family of hypotheses and are thus religated to the dustbin of history.
Occams razor is only applicable if we have enough information to demonstrate the simpler explanation is all that's necessary and additional explanations such as a creator-designer are unnecessary. For instance if I said aliens are necessary to cause laptops to exist you could apply Occam razor because you can demonstrate human engineers and designers are sufficient to cause laptops to exist. You have no idea that natural forces is all that's necessary to cause all we observe.
You do realize that "happenstance" is a sufficient explanation for what we find in the universe and its form, right? After all, you have not said that the forms the laws take and life developing according to these laws are impossible
naturalistically, right? Just unlikely?
is still possible,
therefore even if I were to accept your claim that the universe would be unlikely
to be fine-tuned without intervention, and that life and sentient life would still be unlikely,
that does not mean that they are impossible
and accessible by happenstance. Hence, naturalism is still
a simpler and viable explanation than supernaturalism, and Occam's razor applies.False. The fact that a universe exists and we observe one is all we need to confirm that the universe necessarily exists. Not "necessary" in the sense of ontology, but epistomologically, which by the way, is the only "necessity" we have access to.
I don't think I have met someone as ideologically committed to naturalism as you are. Does the fact I exist or you exist make our existence necessary? How does observing the existence of a universe mandate its necessity? If we weren't here to observe it would its existence then be unnecessary? Do you apply an iota of skepticism to the beliefs you cling to so desperately they become unsubstantiated facts?
Ignored the second statement of that very quote, did you? Here it is again:"Not "necessary" in the sense of ontology, but epistomologically, which by the way, is the only "necessity" we have access to."
Epistomology revolves about how we know stuff,
rather than their actual existence (ontology). The fact that we observe life around us means that because of this we know that there is life in the universe actually existing. It catagorically does not mean that you are necessary because you exist. The fact of their existence doesn't necessitate existence; the fact that they are observed to exist necessitates the conclusion that they do, in fact, exist.
If you can't appreciate the difference between epistomology and ontology, then you need to go back to philosophy class, because that difference is very fucking important.
I agree God (defined as a transcendent being) could exist apart from the existence of the universe. That wasn't what I said.
Theism- Requires the existence of a place for sentient beings to exist to have any reason to think they were intentionally created.
I'd have no reason to think humans were intentionally created by a Creator if we didn't exist.
Obviously. The problem comes in that even if we exist, that doesn't prove that we were intentionally created.
So far, you have not supported your burden of proof that human beings were created with any sort of the required intention.
It's simply asserted without evidence.
Life, sentient life, a life causing and life permitting universe isn't necessary for atheism-naturalism to be true.
It's just "naturalism." A completely naturalistic universe (formed and operating) can exist along with a god, especially if that god is indigent. It also might be that the god in question is indifferent to that universe, simply leaving it to its own devices, letting it spawn and dissolve, while it busies itself with other concerns.
If a chaotic lifeless universe existed and could some how be observed there would be no reason to doubt it was caused by mindless unguided forces that didn't give a hoot if life, planets, stars or galaxies existed which is precisely what we'd expect from such forces. If you knew only mindless mechanistic forces existed would you therefore predict such forces would culminate in producing something totally unlike itself to exist, life and mind? Would you say lifeless mindless forces exist so I predict they will by happenstance create life and mind?
Yes, and yes. Because if they didn't, I wouldn't exist as a life or mind to make the observation.
That's the entire point. It's a selection bias. In naturalistic universes, ONLY naturalistic universes that both have mechanisms capable of producing life and mind and have the happenstance of producing life and mind will produce life and mind to be able to ask these questions in the first place. This is the Weak Anthropic Principle, which I have repeatedly pointed out to you supports naturalism.
You make a show about chaotic lifeless universes "could some how be observed" — we can't, so it's moot. We have no capacity for observing or existing in universes other than our own. Under naturalism, each and every universe we could originate from would have life in it and naturalistic laws allowing for that life. Every single one. If we were to observe otherwise, even a little bit, then it would be fatal for naturalism.
If I said a transcendent being exists I might well predict such a being might cause a universe to exist that causes life.
Nothing about "transcendence" makes the assertion that such a being will make life and mind exist — transcendent beings can be indigent, too.
As sentient beings we create virtual universes and play god.
Nobody is playing god. We're playing virtual universe constructor.
By this line of reasoning anything that exists necessarily has to exist the proof being that it does exist.
Again, read the damn quote as written:False. The fact that we are alive is all we need to verify that life exists. This is all the epistomological proof that we need to say that there is necessarily life. "Verify
that life exists." This is an epistomological
term, having to do with what we can sensibly conclude given the evidence. See above: the only
kind of universe where I may observe myself to be alive is a universe where life exists.
I can think of no epistomoligical reason that states or reasons that things that do exist have to exist. At best this amounts to a tautology that whatever exists has to exist because it exists. A corollary would be that whatever doesn't have to exist doesn't exist and its non-existence is proof it doesn't have to exist. Once again you state your beliefs no matter how suspect as fact.
Your ignorance is not proof of my arrogance. Epistomology has fuck-all
to do with this "whatever exists has to exist because it exists" bullshit you keep on about. You know that life exists because you see quite sufficient evidence that life exists, and that restricts the possible kinds of universe we may be living in. Namely, that universe has to permit life forms in some way. Basic shit.
And we know natural law has to exist because......drum roll please...... it does exist and that's all the proof you need. I await your response to tell me I misunderstood and don't comprehend what you say.
So you propose a universe that contains nothing, does nothing, and is nothing? How is that a universe?
No because I spoke about conditions which would lead sentient beings to think we owe our existence to a creator.
Which is epistomology
, not ontology
. Way to miss the point.
Its because of the existence of sentient life that leads sentient humans beings to question the narrative we are the result of naturalistic forces that you agree didn't have to cause any naturalistic phenomena never mind sentient beings. If we found ourselves in a self-sustained cocoon that appeared to sustain us miraculously you would think it was an unknown naturalistic phenomena in search of a naturalistic explanation.
Again, that word, "EPISTOMOLOGICALLY" — sentient human beings know that there exist sentient beings in the universe because they observe themselves as sentient beings existing in the universe. Basic fucking observation; basic fucking conclusion.
If I observe a nail clipper on my desk, pick it up, use it to clip my nails, hear the snap of fingernails coming off, and then put it down, am I in a "self-sustained cocoon" in concluding that I really have a fucking nail clipper on my desk? Of course not.
Its a foregone conclusion that if mindless naturalistic forces (somehow came into existence or always existed) and could cause all that resulted, a universe, life, sentient life then a Creator would be unnecessary. By assuming your belief is true you obviate the need for a creator.
You have failed to support the case that the above list is incomplete in resulting in life. At best, you merely make the case that such an outcome is unlikely. Unlikely is still possible, and furthermore, we are not justified in concluding a god from observing that the universe only contains phenomena that are allowed by naturalistic laws, like life. This is what the WAP and the Ikeda-Jefferys theorem concludes. You can cry and scream all you want about me and others concocting circular arguments, but it won't change the fact that the probability calculus, inference, and the scientific diciplines have come down squarely against Goddidit.
If, on the other hand, you were to find some direct evidence of your god, some solid proof that we or the universe conformed to any sort of descernable design, or any one of a number of points you brought up yet failed to support, then you would have something to talk about. Unless and until then, the hypothesis of theism is unsupported and unwarranted.
Suppose 200 years from now scientists could create a virtual universe in which virtual sentient beings arose who believed they really existed. Would the people who believed they owed their existence to a transcendent Creator(s) be right or wrong?
Ontologically, they would be right, because that's actually the case.
Epistomologically, they would not
be right, because there is no evidence in their universe that would lead to that concludion (unless the scientists deliberately put some there).
No my mind has been playing the field and fooling around for a long time.
The thing about playing the fool is that you always look foolish.
I can't rule out the possibility we owe our existence purely to naturalistic causes. I listed 5 facts that support naturalism unlike my opponents here, I don't deny there is evidence (facts) that support naturalism.
"Unlike your opponents?" No, I had some evidence to back me up — the only problem is that I reversed your own evidence on you and showed you that the evidence you thought was in support of supernaturalism actually supported naturalism. You have not shown how the Ikeda-Jefferys theorem is wrong or misapplied. Therefore, it's conclusion stands: the fine-tuning of the universe is evidence for
naturalism, not against it.
I don't question the intelligence or sincerity of those who disagree with my point of view. That said there isn't enough information by a wide margin to slam the books shut and say its a fact the universe was caused unintentionally by unknown but unguided forces that caused the universe without plan or intent to do so.
There is no way to "slam the books shut" in science. The many, many scientific revolutions are proof of that. If anything we have an embarassment of riches of how many potential explanations are out there, so many that if we were to seriously entertain each one, then we would simply be overwhelmed by the deluge and never get anywhere. That is why we use tools like Occam's razor and require evidentiary support. It's to weed out the explanations that are least likely to be true or to work in favor of explanations that are more likely true and work. Goddidit fell out of favor because it doesn't seem to work
as an explanation for anything we have tried to apply it to, whereas blind naturalism has yielded great bounties in understanding and control of our world. We now have very good explanations for a whole plethora of natural phenomena both on the grand scale of the universe down to ourselves individually. The theists still cling to their hope that God will show his face someday, but with each hole filled by naturalistic theory, that hope is becoming increasingly forelorn.
In view of that, I do not see the problem of tabling that particular explanation of Goddidit, given its past lack of performance and... well, doesn't even seem to be much of hypothesis at all on close examination. If and when a deity shows that it exists by some means, that explanation can always be revisited. Until then, I'm not wasting my mental energy on the possibility.
I can't help but feel that this is a dig at me.
But consider: the real debate is not going to be here on this forum. It's going to be out there, in the real
scientific literature. That's
where things are going to be decided, one way or another. It's also not going to be decided by the likes of the scientifically untrained, or even the trained on the outside of the relevant fields. It's going to be decided by the experts on the bleeding edge of knowledge. That's
who are going to be deciding things. And when that final (yet tentative) answer comes down, it doesn't matter really what you think, or even what I think. It will be the best answer we as a species can come up with (pending new data).
Another thing: my unwillingness to re-think or re-appraise my position on behest of your arguments is not proof that I am somehow closed-minded and am not serious about inquiry. The problem is that what you have presented is a very poor case for theism, and not even original at that. A lot of theists a lot smarter than you have proposed that life, the universe, and everything was purposefully designed, and have been beaten back at every step. They have failed to support any instance of purposeful design that they claim on behalf of a god: not in life, not in the mechanisms of the universe, the universe itself, or anything. If I'm not impressed by people who should know best about purposeful, intentional design in the universe, then I don't see why you should be surprised that I fail to take your arguments seriously.
My belief in theism is a secular belief, there is no reward or punishment involved so I don't believe in theism for ulterior motives. I've subjected my beliefs in this forum to lots of scrutiny but regardless of majority opinion, I still opine we owe our existence to a Creator for the time being. However my belief is malleable I've listed a few facts that if they came to light would alter my thinking.
If true, you would be one of the very few.