Greg Prince: Theological vs Historical Narratives

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Greg Prince: Theological vs Historical Narratives

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Philo Sofee wrote:
MG
For me, as I've mentioned before, the turning point that led towards a hope/faith in a creator/God came when I came across the Fine Tuned Universe/Anthropic Principle. From there, everything else was gravy. :wink:


Googling "fine tuning as proof for god?" was all it took for me to see what a farce that argument is. I don't expect you to do the same and actually fathom why it's a lousy argument. Your faith over rides anything factual that takes away from you making stuff up in order to save a non-existing god. Reality is too hard for you to take, make believe is much more heart warming.


I have no difficulty in accepting reality. Here's the thing, I think the reality is that the universe that we live in does have purpose/meaning beyond what we make of it and can observe through our natural senses. And in the end, if indeed that turns out to be the reality, then yeah...that is heartwarming, isn't it? :smile:

Regards,
MG
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Greg Prince: Theological vs Historical Narratives

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Philo Sofee wrote:
MG
For me, as I've mentioned before, the turning point that led towards a hope/faith in a creator/God came when I came across the Fine Tuned Universe/Anthropic Principle. From there, everything else was gravy. :wink:


Googling "fine tuning as proof for god?" was all it took for me to see what a farce that argument is. I don't expect you to do the same and actually fathom why it's a lousy argument. Your faith over rides anything factual that takes away from you making stuff up in order to save a non-existing god. Reality is too hard for you to take, make believe is much more heart warming.


I suppose you're familiar with the Goldilocks principle also.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 143904.htm

https://phys.org/news/2014-03-goldilock ... ility.html

I'd be interested in your views as to why you believe that the anthropic principle/fine tuning theory are a complete "farce". Your own words rather than a link?

Also, going along with the ideas of fined tuned universe, Goldilocks principle, and anthropic principle I was persuaded a number of years ago that beauty is a manifestation of God.

John Polkinghorne:
Well, beauty is a very interesting thing, and a form of beauty that is important to me is mathematical beauty. That’s a rather austere form of aesthetic pleasure, but those of us who work in that area and speak that language can recognize it and agree about it. And we’ve found in theoretical physics that the fundamental laws of nature are always mathematically beautiful. In fact, if you’ve got some ugly equations, almost certainly you haven’t got it right and you should think again. So beauty is the key to unlocking the secrets of the physical world.
https://onbeing.org/programs/john-polki ... -creation/


by the way, this podcast I linked to is a fun listen. I've linked to it before. Another comment from this podcast that I find relevant to some comments made on this board recently.

Well, when science first came into being in the 17th century and then in the 18th century became very successful through the discoveries of Newton and the aftermath of all those, then some people began to say, “Well, OK, if science can explain the solar system, it can explain everything.” And the religious people tried to fight back by saying, “No, science can’t explain everything, and there are gaps in our knowledge which only God can fill.” And, for example, the human eye is a very complicated, a very beautiful optical system. How could that have come about other than being made, so to speak, directly by God? Well, of course, then Charles Darwin came along in the 19th century and showed how the eye could have evolved piece by piece, slowly and slowly, and so on, and drew the rug from beneath that argument.

And then people could see with hindsight that the God of the gaps type argument, the God who’s stepped in to do the things that science couldn’t currently explain was in itself a theological mistake. If there is a God who is the God who is the Creator of the world, that God is the God of the whole show, not the sort of cosmic stunt artist who does the difficult things, the obscure bits, and leaves nature, so to speak, to do the rest. It’s back to this fundamental mistake of feeling that if nature does it, we don’t need God. God is the God who ordains nature. God works through nature as much as through anything else. And, in these days, in the science and religion community, the most contemptuous criticism you can make of somebody is to say, “I think your argument is a God of the gaps type of argument.”


Regards,
MG
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: Greg Prince: Theological vs Historical Narratives

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Philo Sofee wrote:Googling "fine tuning as proof for god?" was all it took for me to see what a farce that argument is.


Again, why?

Regards,
MG
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Greg Prince: Theological vs Historical Narratives

Post by _Philo Sofee »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:Googling "fine tuning as proof for god?" was all it took for me to see what a farce that argument is.


Again, why?

Regards,
MG


Because the scientists demonstrated the creationists misuse of the concept is fallacious. The universe isn't fine tuned for life, it is rather almost entirely totally hostile to it, so far as we understand it. We can't live just anywhere out there, it'd kill us. That is not fine tuned for life. The universe is vastly more fine tuned for the creation of black holes (again, which are entirely hostile to life)
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Post Reply