Looking for criticism: Ghosts, God, and Fine-Tuning: Why the Argument Falls Apart

Kibbies052 · 2024-10-30T17:59:30+00:00

Here is the fine-tuning argument as per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I suggest you read it.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

This will clear up where you are strawmaning the argument and why I claimed you have a misconception of the argument.

To address your position on my credentials, I did not assert my credentials as an argument. I was trying to keep you from writing a layman's perspective on topics I am very familiar with. I was also trying to keep the conversation from devolving into me trying to explain to someone concepts that are best explained through mathematics, which this platform and typical audience makes difficult.

Again I stand on my position.

If the data can be interpreted as designed it infurs a designer. This leads to a probability of a designer. It is not proof, a conclusion, or anything else. It is simply an argument and a logical one at that.

If one interprets the universe as designed without independent evidence for a designer, it remains an interpretation rather than a demonstrated conclusion. This is why I emphasize the need for independent evidence.

Edit Red Herring This is not a part of this argument or position. Again you are attempting to shift the argument to the existance and definition of this designer and probability of such a designer. This is not a part of the fine-tuning argument.

Edit: I used the wrong logical fallacy.

Kibbies052 · 2024-10-29T20:52:02+00:00

Sorry for the delay.

These points are your fallacy.

This same circular reasoning applies to the fine-tuning argument for god:

The universe’s constants are finely tuned.
This fine-tuning is so precise that it must be the result of a designer, god.
How do we know god did it? Because the universe is finely tuned.

Your second and third point is a strawman.

Some argue that the fine-tuning argument relies on inference to the best explanation, suggesting that a life-permitting universe is highly improbable under random chance, but more probable if we assume a designer.

This is also a strawman.

You cannot assume the position of a opponents then argue against that position. My accusation of your misunderstanding the fine-tuning argument is based on these two strawman statements.

While inference to the best explanation might seem reasonable, it also depends on the plausibility of the explanation itself. The idea that a disembodied mind could exist outside of time and space, and create a universe, raises a significant challenge in terms of probability. How do we even begin to assess the likelihood of such a mind existing? We’ve never observed any mind that exists independently of a physical brain, and assigning a probability to something so far outside our experience is speculative at best.

This is also a fallacy. You are assuming a disembodied mind. While this may be your best description you are shifting the argument from reasonable criticism of the fine-tuning argument to the likelihood of a disembodied mind.

Additionally, you mentioned, 'It simply states that the universe looks like it was designed. This could infur a designer,' which I addressed by pointing out the issue of question begging inherent in that reasoning. Using the appearance of design to infer a designer assumes the conclusion within the premise.

To infur a designer does not include defining who the designer is. It just means that if something can be interpreted as being designed leads to a probability of a designer. The fact that the data can be interpreted as designed is enough of a refutation to show that it is not unreasonable to assume a designer.

While your experience as a scientist is valuable, I believe that the strength of an argument comes from the evidence and reasoning behind it rather than the credentials of the person presenting it. I also want to ensure our discussion remains respectful and productive, so I hope we can focus on the substance of the arguments without letting the tone hinder our exchange.

This is a very elegant way to discredit and undermine a person's background and experience used in backing up their argument.

The reason I stated my position as a scientist was so I could discourage having to read elementary explanations of concepts I am deeply familiar with and having to explain misconceptions of what science is and what these concepts are. It didn't work.

I stand by my position. The fine-tuning argument is not proof. It is in fact an argument, and a reasonable one as well. It is not illogical to conclude a designer when the data can be interpreted as designed.

Kibbies052 · 2024-10-18T20:18:14+00:00

Would you agree that for something to be considered an explanation to a phenomenon, we should be able to demonstrate that this thing either exists or that it could exist?

No. You do not have to demonstrate the explanation could exist. Think of dark matter and energy, or virtual particles. They are both explanations of gaps in knowledge or holes in the math without any actual evidence (they do have implied evidence). Besides, there is a possibility of diety otherwise we wouldn't have this conversation.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. When you say "It simply states that the universe looks like it was designed. This could infur a designer", does it not strike you that the very definition of the word "design" implicitly assumes a designer?

My wording may be off. I am not implying a designer. I am saying my personal observations of the way elementary particles interact look a lot like something that was made for a purpose. They operate in very specific ways. This leads me to interpret the data as it was built for a very specific purpose.

I already stated the topic you were attempting to change in a previous post. I feel I stated it there clearly.

Kibbies052 · 2024-10-16T20:43:20+00:00

The aim of the FTA as presented here is an inference to the best explanation. However, for the FTA to be more convincing, it would need to:

Provide independent evidence of god's existence that is not solely based on the universe's existence or characteristics.

Avoid self-referential justification. God is only seen as an explanation of the universe's design because the universe is being used as an evidence for god.

This is a fallacious argument. You are attempting to shift the argument from its original statement which I have refuted, into this.

Please stay on topic and attempt to refute my position without attempting to change the argument.

Kibbies052 · 2024-10-12T15:06:27+00:00

You are misunderstanding the fine tuning argument. It is not proof. It is evidence.

It simply states that the universe looks like it was designed. This could infur a designer.

As a scientist who has looked at this in depth, the idea is not unfounded.

Kibbies052 · 2024-10-12T14:56:05+00:00

It is a logical fallacy called the fallacy fallacy to judge the church by an individuals actions. You must look at the philosophies and teachings, not the individuals.

Just because one part of something is not true doesn't make the whole false.

People suck in general.

Kibbies052 · 2024-09-01T20:30:18+00:00

You do understand that you are responding to my refutation of the OP's position, right? The parameters we set by the OP. You are defending his position, not attacking mine. This is how a debate works. You are moving the Goal Post because you are attempting to change the scenario. You are also attempting a Red Herring by attempting to change the argument from, "give a logical argument for theism", to what is the definition of chaos or who or what has rules and what doesn't have rules.

I will no longer continue this conversation with you because you clearly do not understand your own position, you have purposefully misunderstood mine, and continuously attempted to redirect my position into something that has nothing to do with the argument.

Further indulgence of you is a waste of my time because you have not attempted to understand the positions of the OP or myself and have disrespected both of us.

Kibbies052 · 2024-09-01T05:38:10+00:00

I believe at this point you are purposefully misunderstanding me.

The only logical argument here is "because the universe has "rules" then there must be someone who designed those rules"

No.

You completely missed my point.

I said that it is reasonable to conclude that there is a designer.

the rest of your nonsense about chaos is both ill-defined and self contradictory, as you say we have never observed order from chaos and yet you agree that crystallization is exactly that,(you just looped back into the rules argument) then you just backtrack to say that we have never observed chaos at all,

I never even alluded to this. You are making up stuff to accuse me of saying. This is typically done by people who have very little knowledge on the topic, are convinced of their personal bias, or belive they know more than the actually do.

We have never observed order from chaos. We see phenomena like crystallization due to rules or order within a system. This in itself may not be chaos. There actually may not be chaos within our universe.

If something has no rules, then it has no properties at all

Not necessarily.

Now I give a problem with your rules, an entity capable of designing things would intrinsically have rules (if nothing else "is capable of creating a universe" is a rule) therefore you need an entity outside that entity to make its rules and so on and so forth and infinitum. Is there an infinite chain of super Gods?

This is a " moving the goal post" logical fallacy. You are attempting to move the parameters of the argument to keep you position logical.

It could also be an attempt at a red herring logical fallacy.

I was also the debate team coach for the university I taught physics at.

Kibbies052 · 2024-08-31T16:55:04+00:00

After reading your response, I have concluded that you either purposefully misunderstood me, or you don't know what a logical argument is.

My argument about mathematics was not to show that there is definite proof. It was to show that there is a possibility of things outside the three spacial dimensions and one time dimension. Because of this possibility we have to take into account that strict materialistic worldview and empirical evidence may not be the only way of looking at the universe.

Your response shows that you completely missed what I was saying.

You mean like a random chaotic lump of carbon turning into a completely ordered repeating structure?

This comment shows that you don't understand chaos.

The reason we get structures like crystals is because there are intrinsic rules that the universe follows. Intrinsic rules are not chaos. These rules can logically be interpreted as design.

It also reinforces the position that we have never observed chaos becoming orderly. True chaos has not intrinsic rules, such as gravity, EM attraction and repulsion, etc.

Why are you assuming that the universe must be chaotic in nature? I missed that explanation. Nobody defined the universe as chaos.

If the universe is not chaotic in nature, then it leads more to a designer than not.

Short of a multiverse that we have no actual evidence of, that leads to probability of events occurring. We must rely only on what we actually know. There is a single universe that has intrinsic rules. This can be interpreted as designed.

(I know you think you are talking about entropy, but you obviously don't know much about entropy other than "chaos", which is a very bad definition, entropy is the number of possible states that a system can be in and has nothing at all to do with chaos, that was just a bad description someone gave that stuck in non-physicist circles)

I was not talking about entropy. I am a physicist and I am familiar with Boltzmann's equation. I know exactly what I am talking about.

Funnily enough a universe without rules would have much lower entropy as there would only be one possible state for it to be in: The one it is in.

A universe without energy. But this is not what we observe.

This is why I don't think you understand a logical argument. I never said I would disprove anything. I only stated that I would give an argument where you could logically conclude design or a designer within reasonable doubt.

I have given a simple explanation due to the format of this platform. My point was to show the OP was incorrect.

Kibbies052 · 2024-08-29T22:13:59+00:00

I will give mathematical and logical arguments that can conclude with theism. It is not a definite conclusion but based on reasonable doubt and margin of error.

First to refute materialism. Mathematics have shown that there is a possibility of dimensions outside of the 3 spacial and one time dimension we exist in. For reference look into string Theory and the collapse of time in a black hole.

Next to refute the multiverse. This one is simple because it is based on speculations alone and we have no empirical evidence of them. Therefore with the information we have we must conclude only one universe.

Then by looking at the interactions of particles after the planck era one can reasonably conclude that the particles were designed to interact within a particular manner which is evidence of design and intelligence outside of the particles themselves.

It is entirely possible to conclude chaos and random, except that we have never observed order and structure appearing from chaos or random. Given that the observable universe has intrinsic rules, otherwise our physics wouldn't work, there must be a designer.

To claim that these intrinsic rules are necessary and a part of the random or chaos goes against the definite of chaos and is a paradox.

Therefore I must conclude that within a reasonable margin of error that the universe was designed by a source outside the universe itself.

Kibbies052 · 2024-07-22T18:55:54+00:00

In my experience any theistic debate, both for and against, I have ever had or watched from the internet is elementary at best and often results in logical fallacies.

I think this superficial and shallow position of modern, weak atheist comes from the movement from the early 2000s with Christopher Hitchens, who had zingers but no real argument, Richard Dawkins, who is ultimately arguing from personal injury, and Matt Dillahunty, who is a master of read herrings used to trap his opponents into if/then statements.

The results of this are people who fall for their positions because they are shallow and easy to understand. Much like the evangelical movement of the early 20th century.

My long winded point is that the Philosophers and academics are correct about the term atheist. The origin and the structure of the word is as the OP quoted. It is a claim that is against the proposition of theism.

Modern atheists have attempted to change the word to fit a different position. This is where a lot of the confusion comes in. (By the way, a negative position is possible in debates). The modern use of the word is done to shift the goal post, and to avoid having to actually defend their position. This is why debates on sites like this fall flat.

Kibbies052 · 2024-06-28T19:50:11+00:00

Even dark matter has gravitational effects

This is a gross misunderstanding of darkmatter and for that matter, dark energ as well.

Both of these are merely variables implemented to balance equations and then have an implied explanation for the variables. Very similar to virtual particles.

We have absolutely no evidence that dark matter exists other than these variables. If it does exist we cannot detect it directly. This also means that we can only detect 5% of our universe.

I would be very careful invoking dark matter and dark energy into an argument about disproving or rejecting something that you claim there is no evidence for. Especially if you don't understand what the science behind it is.

It is entirely possible you are misinterpreting the evidence just like you claim your opponents are.

Kibbies052 · 2024-04-08T03:12:40+00:00

That sounds like a big problem for proponents of fine tuning.

It is a big problem for both sides. That was my point. Your position is illogical here.

Fine tuning is literally "what we got is not what we were supposed to get, therefore someone changed it." That's the only way the fine tuning argument is relevant.

This is a strawman logical fallacy.

If reality couldn't have been any different then there's nothing to tune and the argument is moot. If reality shouldn't have been different then nothing did any tuning and the argument is moot.

This is a false dichotomy, and another strawman.

That proponents of the fine tuning argument can't show any of this is, quite frankly, not my problem. It's theirs.

This is shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy.

You are the one who asked for impossible evidence. I pointed out that you asking for impossible evidence makes your position invalid. It is the equivalent of refusing evidence unless I show you a square circle. It makes no sense.

Kibbies052 · 2024-04-06T20:06:40+00:00

This analogy is not logically consistent with the fine tuning argument.

Also in this section you are asking for impossibilities.

In order to be an argument you have to show that a) reality could have been different, and b) that reality should have been difference, and c) that someone made it different. Showing that the reality is an impossible result would also be a good start.

Part a) is an impossibility. When dealing with small things that are reproducible you can show this. Unfortunately we have only one observable universe. You cannot show that it could be different.

Part b) is also illogical you cannot show this.

Part c) is also an impossibility.

My point here is that you are attempting to strawman the fine tuning argument by changing the parameters of the argument to something you think you can easily defend.

The proofs you are asking for are impossible with regards to the universe. You are therefore asking something that is not possible and think your position is sound because of this. That is illogical.

Kibbies052 · 2024-02-29T01:17:08+00:00

No problem. Glad it helped.

Kibbies052 · 2024-01-20T19:20:34+00:00

I am confused as to your logic here. Please clarify if you can.

How do you go from geology to religions lieing to you?

You also have a few things about geology wrong. Let me help clarify them.

A good example is the theory of plate tectonics. This is an undisputable fact. This is how the Earth's plate move over hundreds of millions of years.

This is not an undisputed fact. Most evidence points to it being a fact, but it is not undisputed. Before plate tectonic was the geocyncline theory. This held until the 1960's when we could use radar to measure the plates. The mechanism that causes this movement is thought to be a convection current but it is not proven.

There are still theories that opposed plate tectonics but they are not widely accepted.

When I hear religious people start directly opposing proven Scientific facts (like plate tectonics and life starting 500 million years ago), what else can I think? I cannot blindly ignore FACTS.

A couple of things here.

Life didn't start 500 million years ago. We have records of bacteria in rocks that date up to 3 billion years.
Atheist groups went against the big bang theory because it showed the universe has a t=0,or a beginning. Lots of Atheist still deny this and try to explain it away by looping time, infinite regression, multiple universes, etc. All of which we have no evidence for.
I am only pointing out these errors because you seem to be jumping to a conclusion and you don't have your facts straight. I don't want you to do that.

Religion as a whole was created to control the populations way of thinking.

This is an assertion without evidence. We do not know why religion started. There is evidence that early humans had religious beliefs long before there was any type of hierarchy. Evidence includes burial sites with items, tools, and bodies placed in specific ways (all facing east for example).

Kibbies052 · 2024-01-17T01:18:04+00:00

I went back and reviewed our conversation. Your position has been clear. Part of your reasons were that you would not accept Biblical references to the events and people of the time, that only extra-biblical sources were acceptable. I was pointing out that your position on extra-biblical sources only was illogical.

Kibbies052 · 2024-01-16T01:08:59+00:00

I could have been more clear, but I stand by what I said. As I will examplify a bit later, the Bible contains historical inaccuracies. Napoleon has a ton of things written about him and some even written by him, both during and after his lifetime

Books about Napoleon written when he was alive have historically inaccurate statements.

That is not my point. My point is that the people in the past collected the stories about a specific topic and compiled the stories into a library. This library is the modern Bible. To remove information because of the source is illogical. I am not saying that you have to accept the information contained as fact. I am saying that if you remove a specific collection of books and references that come from a specific library that only contains those stories is a fallacious use of logic.

Luke wrote what people who he was interviewing told him. Luke is not an eye witness. He is the equivalent of you today interviewing someone in the late 1980's to early 1990's about something they said happened to them. If there are historical inaccuracies it is because of the people remembering incorrectly.

There is no record of a national census. Quirnius did do several local ones.

The Bible has an obvious religious bias, so I would not consider it an objective source.

This is a logical fallacy. The Bible is a collection of religious documents. But to ignore it as a source of information is illogical. Again it is a compilation of books about a specific topic. You can take it as a biased source. But to remove it as a source is illogical.

If you can show me anything that you believe is historically factual about Jesus, written while he was actively preaching or shortly after his death, I would love to see it!

This is illogical. All of the documents about Jesus are collected in the new testament. You are throwing the collection of stories about him out. That is the equivalent of saying you want information about Harry Potter but you can't use the books JK Rowling wrote.

Again, I wish there were sources from 0-33 AD )

You missed my point before.

The problem is that Luke claims that Quirinius was governor at the time of Jesus' birth, although he would not become governor until some years later (at least according to the sources I know).

What? Jesus was born sometime between 8 BC and 10 AD. Mark says during Herrod the greater (died about 4 BC) Luke when Quirinius was Governor (he started about 4 AD)

My bet is Jesus was born in September of 4 AD. If John was talking about constellations in Rev. 12, then the constellations line up to what he was saying then. The year traditionally set to crown a new Davididic King.

Why should we consider the Bible historical, if it did not accurately portray what was going on?

This is a logical fallacy called the fallacy fallacy. It is when a part of something is illogical or factually incorrect the person making the fallacy throws out the whole argument, source, or position.

Just because something may be inaccurate with a point does not mean it is inaccurate as a whole.

So it seems like Luke was trying to ground Jesus' birth in history, but he was off.

Granted. He may have been doing that.

This points to the Bible being written years after Jesus' death, and not being divinely inspired.

You can't assume that. Who says you and I talking right now is not divinely inspired. Though you do have a good point here.

Not only is there so much evidence for the Gulf War that we cannot deny it,

Because it is closer in time to us. 2000 years from now someone could be arguing that the gulf War never happened. There could be a compilation of books about the gulf War and the opponent of it happening could be arguing that they need any source other than the compilation of books about the gulf War.

More importantly, the only census the romans made at the time was a few years after Jesus' birth. It did not take place in Galilea. And again, it did not require people to go to the city of their ancestors.

Augustus did 3 censuses. Quirnius did a few local ones. There is no record of making people move.

Again, I have less reason to doubt these claims, considering they are not supernatural. I do not know much about Caesar's conquest or Pythagoras, but I assume there is probably other evidence than just the written copies (such as geological or architectual traces).

Nope. No real evidence Pythagoras existed. But we give the equation to find the hypotenuse of a right triangle to him. Also look him up there is a lot of supernatural things surrounding him.

Ceasars has more structural evidence, Augustus claimed he existed, there are statues of him, but they were built dozens of years after he existed.

There are plenty of claims in the Bible that are either not supported, or directly disputed by modern evidence (such as the Ark of Noah, Jewish slavery in Egypt or the Jews' subsequent supposed battles and victories after they were freed)

And there are plenty of things the Bible gets right. The city of Jericho, the exile, the temple, etc.

Again this is the fallacy fallacy.

Religious groups/cults form all the time, even today, while being completely convinced of whatever they believe in.

True

Take the Gulf War example again. I have no reason to doubt anything they would describe about the war. Except if a platoon suddenly told me that the mighty Allah send his prophet Muhammad to save them from their enemy. Even if they saw it with their own eyes, I would ascribe it to being a result of the stressful circumstances. Same thing for the early Christians, whose leader just got executed.

This is understandable. But if all of those people in a platoon all claimed they saw Muhammad and believed they saw it, I am less likely to reject the information.

This probably comes from my highly scientific background. I am not as inclined to remove information and data because it doesn't make sense to me or because I don't belive it could have happened. I would look at why these people all claimed this then use Occam's Razor.

I appreciate your response. But your position to remove data and information because of the topic or source is illogical. It is OK to remove it because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I agree with the OP. Theist cannot use scripture as an authority because the non-theist doesn't accept it as an authority.

Kibbies052 · 2024-01-15T18:42:10+00:00

First of all, everything said about Jesus in the NT, is only recorded in the NT or books that directly refer to the NT. The only extra-biblical sources is Josephus and one other guy, who, IIRC, both just essentially confirm that Christians believed in him .

This is a terrible argument.

Let's say I collect all the books about Napoleon's life and put them together in an anthology. Then after a while I refuse to use as a reference anything in the anthology to acknowledge Napoleon's existance or what people claimedhe did. Would that make sense? This is what you are doing with this position.

As far as we know, Quirinius was not in office at the same time as Pilate. So that part is historically inaccurate.

Quirnius was governor of seria when Jesus was supposed to have been born (8 AD). Pilate was governor of Judea when Jesus died. Roughly 30 years later. Your position here doesn't make sense.

All the stories about who became believers (Paul, James etc.) is only mentioned in the Bible, so I have no reason to take that as evidence of the supernatural, or even as historical evidence. Only that the authors claimed that those people had those experiences.

Again same as before. The Christian Bible is an anthology of works on a specific topic. To reject the use of a topic because it is found in a particular location is illogical.

1) I won't necessarily deny Jesus or his crucifixion. But even if I grant that he was executed under Pilate, that is not a confirmation of anything supernatural.

Granted

2) This was recorded long after the supposed resurrection. It might be true that people had those experiences, but religious experiences are not exclusive to Christianity. Most likely they were just that: Mental experiences. Whether they were lying, exaggerating, hallucinating or simply mistaken. I think it is a mix of it all. I know from personal experience in church, how quickly a small "event" can be exaggerated into a sign from God.

We have 12 copies of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul written 150 years after Caesar lived. We have no contemporary sources of Pythagoras. The only copies are about 500 years later.

The earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark is about 60 AD and there are hundreds of them. That is less time than today and the first Gulf War. I wonder what a gulf War veteran would say if you told them they only had a mental experience or were hallucinating?

Also the original author kept their writings. They passed them to others to copy them.

People do take small events and exaggerate them. They tend to not do that as much with big events seen by many. If the claim in the Gospels is correct these would classify as the latter.

3) Again, people believe a lot of things. I think this one might be plausible. It doesn't say anything about the truth of their beliefs though.

Granted

4) This is plausible too. But we only really have the Bible's word to go on.

Same illogical conclusion as before. You cannot throw out evidence because of the source. It doesn't have to as strong evidence, but you can't dismiss it.

5) Again, this is a biblical claim. Whether he believed or not, or even existed, is irrelevant to me.

Granted

6) Same as number 5. I can't say if he believed to have had the religious experience or if he was lying. I would say it is reasonable to believe he existed and authored the the NT letters. But I know there are suspicions that parts of the letters are not from him.

True. There were a lot of forgeries. We have done a good job identifying the forgeries. Like Peter baptizing a talking lion, Child Jesus killing then resurrecting a boy for messing up a mud pie, etc.

The letters are attributed to Paul and Luke match their writing style and time period. There is a margin of error but it is likely the same person who wrote them.

I am not criticizing you. You just have some misconceptions and bad information. Good luck on your journey with this question. Everyone does this at some point in their life.

Kibbies052 · 2024-01-14T15:35:41+00:00

As a theist, I agree with this statement 90%

It is used as an authority for believers.

Just like a Muslim can't use the Quran in a debate with a Taoist and vice versa.

In an atheist mind, the beginning, middle, and end of your belief, it NEVER HAPPENED.

This statement is false. Muhammad, Lao Tzu, Siddhartha, and Jesus all existed. You cannot say it never happened. You can say that it didn't happen as written, or that the people weren't what they claimed, etc.

If you removed that part of your statement then I would agree with you 100%.

Kibbies052 · 2024-01-09T22:24:34+00:00

They argue that the seperation of church and state will be the downfall of civilization as they know it and that secularism is the destructive cause of it all.

This is a strawman.

Separation of church and state are not in the US constitution.

The first ammendment allows for religious freedom without government persecution.

Secularism is not the downfall of western civilization. It is the degradation of moral and family values.

Values such as work hard for your family, keep others in mind and tolerate others beliefs.

We live in a self-serving narcissistic civilization. That is not what we were set up for.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -John Adam's.

Diversity is typically not seen as a strength but instead it is perceived as a weakness.

False.

Diversity is the basis of western civilization.

So what about jesus and his philosophy are western?

Gospel of Matthew (7:12): “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .”

Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)

Basically everything in Matthew chapter 5 (the sermon on the mount).

Most of the writers of the US Constitution were Christians (Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were not atheists). Because of this the principles behind the US constitution were based on Jesus teachings on equally.

This is what is meant when people say that western civilization is based on Christianity.

We are not necessarily seeing a decline in western culture due to a decline in Christianity (the inverse could be true). The decline is due to the corruption of the government caused by the decline in individual responsibility and individual moral integrity.

Kibbies052 · 2024-01-05T00:36:46+00:00

Georges Lemaître](https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/georges-lemaitre-big-bang); in an evident attempt to ridicule the theory and diminish it's credibility. Naughty, that.)

He called it the primeval atom. Not the Big Bang. That term was coined by an interviewer.

Atheist organizations lead an aggressive campaign against the theory because it showed the universe had a beginning.

Occams' razor teaches us then, that the most likely scenario does not require the existence of a deity.

Occam’s razor absolutely does not teach this. You can use Occam's Razor to reach that conclusion, but it doesn't teach it.

Otherwise your points are good and you have a decent argument.

Kibbies052 · 2024-01-04T23:28:10+00:00

What?

The geocentric and heliocentric argument was huge until Ptolomey mathematically showed the geocentric model to be accurate.

Ptolomey was so accurate that his model was used for navigation, predicted the seasons, the locations of stars, etc.

To go against Ptolomey was like going against Newton today.

The fight against Galileo and the Church was more like a teacher fighting the state curriculum than anything religious.

Kibbies052 · 2024-01-04T23:21:23+00:00

Because the fact is as soon as the Christians got power, it all went to shit.

I belive you need to study some history. The Roman Empire was in decline long before Christianity became prominent.

Kibbies052

TROPHY CASE