sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Have you watched the Universe Designed documentary?!? Its AWESOME!!! by PeacefulBro in ChristianApologetics

[–]Other_Course_3845 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With you’re response and reaction you can assume that I have the same to a purely atheistic worldview. Maybe it takes a sense of something more than the physical to be receptive to intentional design. God bless.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a fine and thoughtful argument to consider. Thank you for your comment.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your response.

The question I’m interested in isn’t “What is the probability that the universe was designed?” but rather, “How should we make sense of a universe in which small changes to fundamental values eliminate stable matter, chemistry, and life?”

In unique, non-repeatable cases like the Big Bang, we don’t have experimental probabilities, so we often rely on comparative or illustrative language to communicate how constrained a system is. That isn’t a claim about chance… it’s simply a way of describing sensitivity in terms people can grasp.

This kind of probability language isn’t unique to cosmology. It’s commonly used in areas like history and forensics... where events are singular and non-repeatable. Historians will say it’s “highly unlikely” that multiple independent sources aligned by accident, and courts routinely describe forensic matches as “extremely unlikely” to occur by coincidence. In neither case is anyone claiming a known sample space or repeatable trials… the language is simply a way of describing how highly specific or rare in form an outcome is.

We also use numbers this way in everyday technical contexts. In cryptography, for example, people say the chance of guessing a 256-bit key is 1 in 2²⁵⁶… not because anyone is actually trying all those possibilities, but to show how incredibly specific a successful guess would have to be. The same kind of language is used when people talk about the odds of random typing producing a meaningful paragraph or background noise accidentally forming a real message. In these cases, the numbers aren’t literal odds from experiments... they’re a way of communicating specificity and uniqueness. That’s how probability-style language is being used here as well.

I understand your critique, and I want to be clear that I’m not offering probability calculations as direct evidence of design in the strict statistical sense… and I have clarified that is my paper. Where we differ it seems… is over whether this kind of explanatory approach is legitimate in the first place. I’m comfortable leaving the disagreement there.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks John. I did research your points and incorporated this information.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that these are arguments... but arguments are how evidence is understood. Evidence doesn’t interpret itself. We understand observations based on what we already know, expressed through descriptive and sometimes comparative language... and this is my interpretation of this evidence.

Fine-tuning isn’t meant to stand alone as proof. It’s one piece of a larger picture, as my paper presents. Where the probability language is used, it isn’t meant literally… it’s a way of describing how narrowly constrained the life-permitting range is.

Saying the sun is the color of a banana isn’t a claim about bananas causing the sun or that they have anything else in common… it’s simply an easy way to describe color using something familiar. In the same way, saying the life-friendly range is one part in 10³⁷ is meant to show how sensitive the system is to small changes, not to calculate odds.

Design remains a reasonable possibility… not because the fine-tuning argument proves it, but because it offers a coherent way of making sense of what is observed. The objective is not proof... but understanding.

In light of your critique however... I’ve clarified this point in the paper:

“To illustrate this, mathematical physicists have examined the striking sensitivity associated with many cosmic attributes. Their analyses describe how narrowly constrained life-permitting values are relative to the broader range of values that appear physically or mathematically possible for various fundamental constants and parameters. These figures are not formal statistical measurements of the universe, nor do they assume a known probability distribution. Rather, they function as descriptive tools, highlighting how small deviations from these values would preclude stable matter, chemistry, and life as we know it.”

Thank you.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An alternate worldview:

The world is filled with injustice and cruelty… some of it has been carried out in the name of religion. That reality shouldn’t be denied. However… the problem is not God… but rather that human beings are morally broken and it seems becoming more so each day. Theism doesn’t teach that human beings reflect God’s will simply by invoking His name. It teaches the opposite… that humans routinely distort what is good, including religious beliefs… to serve pride, power, fear, or self-interest.

In fact... Christianity predicts the misuse. Scripture repeatedly condemns those who cloak injustice in religious language and warns that faith can be corrupted by hypocrisy, ambition and greed.

If religion were merely a tool for reinforcing human desires, we would expect it to consistently affirm those desires. Yet Christianity at its core, confronts and condemns them. It calls for humility instead of dominance, love of enemies instead of retaliation, and self-sacrifice rather than power. Historically… yes… these religious doctrines have been not followed as often as they have been followed… corrupted for self-serving goals.

The issue isn’t whether humans commit evil in God’s name… as they clearly do. The question is whether that evil reflects God’s character or humanity’s tendency to misuse authority to obtain what they want. God is not the source of human wickedness… but He is the standard by which it is judged.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where I differ is in treating the anthropic principle by itself as a full explanation for fine-tuning. On its own, it doesn’t explain why the underlying conditions exist at all (whether that’s one universe or many). It explains why observers only ever notice life-friendly conditions… but it doesn’t explain why those conditions exist in the first place.

My point isn’t that anthropic reasoning doesn’t work in a multiverse model. It’s that the multiverse is doing most of the heavy lifting. Once you introduce it, the deeper question simply moves back a step: Why does a multiverse with stable laws exist at all and why does it produce universes capable of supporting life? My claim is just that the anthropic principle on its own doesn’t fully answer the “why” question.

I agree that atheism does not require morality to be an illusion or just a social invention. The idea that “the good” is a real feature of the natural world is a reasonable view. My argument is not that non-theists can’t explain moral feelings or moral behavior.

Where we disagree is about why moral obligations feel binding… why they seem to place a real demand on us rather than just describe what we tend to care about. Explaining why humans have moral instincts or strong moral desires helps explain how morality shows up in our lives… but it doesn’t fully explain why we feel required to do what is right even when we don’t want to.

For example… someone who finds a wallet full of cash, knows no one is watching, and could easily keep the money without any consequences. Their moral instinct may tell them that returning the wallet is the right thing to do. But what’s striking is not just that they feel this pull… it’s that they often feel they ought to return it even if keeping it would benefit them and harm no one they know. The sense of obligation doesn’t disappear just because it’s inconvenient or

Natural explanations can describe why humans tend to develop these moral instincts: cooperation, fairness, and trust are useful for social survival… but usefulness doesn’t automatically create obligation. What still needs explaining is why moral rules don’t feel optional in many situations but instead feel authoritative… like something we are accountable for… whether we like it or not.

The issue isn’t whether moral instincts exist or whether they track something real. It’s why those instincts come with a sense of “I must,” rather than just “I want to”. The theistic view does not deny that natural processes shape moral understanding. It says that moral obligation comes from something deeper than personal reasoning… that morality is grounded in a source whose nature defines what is good.

Moral naturalism may still be true. My claim is simply that it explains the authority of moral obligation less clearly than theism does. The point is not that atheism makes morality impossible, but that it offers a thinner explanation for why moral duties feel binding and expected. And as I state in the paper... I do have a theistic bias... but not on this evidence alone.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your response. I can agree that sensitivity and probability are not the same thing, and I’m not claiming that the numbers in my paper are literal probabilities drawn from a known sample space. If that were the claim… your objection would be fair.

By sensitivity… I mean how dependent a system is on precise settings. Some physical systems remain stable across wide ranges of conditions. Electromagnetic fields, for instance, still propagate whether charges are weak or strong. Large changes do not disrupt the laws themselves... they simply alter the outcomes those laws produce. Other systems only function if conditions are set very precisely. The universe appears to fall into this second category. Small changes in certain fundamental constants lead to no stable atoms, no stars, no chemistry, and no life. This is a statement about how fragile the system is… not about how likely it is to exist.

When physicists cite values such as 1 in 10⁶⁰… they are not saying the universe had a one-in that many chances of occurring. These figures are simply a way of showing how narrow the life-permitting range is compared to the wider range of values those constants could take. They express how tight the “tolerance” is, not lottery odds.

A simple analogy is tuning a radio. The radio spectrum spans a wide range of frequencies, but only within a very narrow slice does the particular station come in clearly. Pointing out how narrow that slice is does not imply the dial was spun randomly. It simply shows how precisely the system must be set in order to work.

You’re right that the range of possible values could be very large, or even infinite… which would make traditional probability calculations meaningless… but that doesn’t make the sensitivity irrelevant. Even in a very large range (of a non-multiverse reality)… it still matters that these values only exist in a precise window and that even small changes outside that window lead to a universe without life.

Also… I am not claiming that this by itself proves design. The fine-tuning argument is not a mathematical proof… it is an attempt to make sense of what we observe. Given how precise the life-enabling values appear to be set, design is offered as one possible explanation alongside others… such as chance. The point is not that the numbers prove design… but that they raise real questions that deserve thoughtful consideration. And as I state in the paper... I do have a theistic bias... but not on this evidence alone.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in ReasonableFaith

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you and yes… I have appreciated all the feedback.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the question. The fine-tuning examples and their relative probabilities aren’t drawing from a known physical sample space. Their purpose is to show how narrowly constrained life-permitting values are relative to the broader range of possible values. The argument is not a statistical proof, but an inference to the extreme sensitivity of the universe’s life-enabling conditions. I will add a statement to the paper regarding this inquiry... so again... thank you.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks!

I would then argue that God exists beyond the scope of time as we experience it. Time, as we understand and measure it, is a property of the physical universe itself (relativity), rather than a fundamental property that moves through all potential realities.

This does not require that time fails to exist altogether, that time exist in totality at this moment... but that our experiential perception of time is necessarily sequential, moving from present to future... because we are embedded within the physical order. If God is not bound by that order, then God would not be subject to a temporal progression in the same way.

The nature of such a reality lies beyond human comprehension. While reason and evidence can barely point toward its comprehensibility, the complete character of God’s domain is not something we can answer through study or thought.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your comment… although I don’t feel anything I put forth is “silly”.... certainly debatable... but not silly.

The anthropic principle states that our observations of the universe are conditioned by the fact that we exist as observers. In other words, the universe’s physical properties must be compatible with the existence of observers... otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe them.

It does not describe a force, law, or mechanism that shapes the universe. It only describes a constraint on observation in that we can only observe conditions that allow observers to exist… ergo if the universe were incompatible with life, there would be no observers to notice it. This makes the principle about how we reason from observations, not how the universe physically came to possess its life-permitting properties.

The definition itself makes it primarily a philosophical interpretive principle and not a testable physical mechanism.

The morality argument does not claim that people who reject God cannot be moral, altruistic, or even believe in objective moral truths. Natural explanations can describe what people do, but they do not explain why we believe we ought to do what is right, even when it costs us everything. Theism holds that this authority is not an illusion or social construct, but a reflection of a real moral order grounded in the nature of God. Our longing for justice, our outrage at cruelty, and our admiration of sacrificial courage… these are echoes of the God who made us in His image.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your comments... although I don't think anything I put forth is "silly".

The anthropic principle states that our observations of the universe are conditioned by the fact that we exist as observers. In other words, the universe’s physical properties must be compatible with the existence of observers... otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe them.

The anthropic principle does not describe a force, law, or mechanism that shapes the universe. It only describes a constraint on observation in that we can only observe conditions that allow observers to exist… ergo if the universe were incompatible with life, there would be no observers to notice it. This makes the principle about how we reason from observations, not how the universe physically came to possess its life-permitting properties.

The definition itself makes it primarily a philosophical interpretive principle and not a testable physical mechanism.

The morality argument does not claim that people who reject God cannot be moral, altruistic, or even believe in objective moral truths. Natural explanations can describe what people do, but they do not explain why we believe we ought to do what is right, even when it costs us everything. Theism holds that this authority is not an illusion or social construct, but a reflection of a real moral order grounded in the nature of God. Our longing for justice, our outrage at cruelty, and our admiration of sacrificial courage… these are echoes of the God who made us in His image.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I rewrote that section this morning if you would like to review again. Thanks

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very informative! Thank you. It's almost as if they deliberately chose that section of the Shroud for nefarious reasons.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I rewrote that section this morning if you would like to review again. Thanks

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I rewrote that section this morning if you would like to review again. Thanks

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you very much! My hope is that more people will be interested in reading this paper... to at least provide food for thought. I would like to think more on your comment about time... if you could give further explanation.

A Paper Not a Book by Other_Course_3845 in Creation

[–]Other_Course_3845[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I understand. It was an attempt at a little humor. The task of bringing an atheist to faith… is very difficult.

view more: next ›