Is Atheism Dead ?

@sonship said

If the universe wasn't 'fine-tuned' as you put it to allow our existence, we wouldn't.

We also wouldn't be able to say "Atheism is true."
So I don't know what that fact does for you.

And how come not many great thinkers of science didn't simply yawn and say "We exist. Brute fact. What else do we need to know?"

The argument "We exist ...[text shortened]... me of us don't discount our amazement simply because we don't know how such instructions came about.

We don't say "atheism is true". Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, it's not the belief that there is no god. You know this. There may be a god, there may be a creator, I don't pretend to know one way or the other. I'm ok not knowing, it doesn't change the way I live my life.

I'm not saying "we exist, get over it". I'm not yawning. I think it's all marvellous. That said, it's silly to postulate that the fact that if the universe were different in some basic way that meant we wouldn't exist means that it was designed. We do exist. Therefore the universe is such that we may exist. There's no "so what" and no apathy, it's just a methodological principle.

Evidence of non-terrestrial intelligence wouldn't change that. Your analogy in this regard is not remotely similar to the situation we are discussing.

None of the things you argue as evidence for a creator are in fact evidence for a creator. There may BE a creator, I don't know, but the evidence you cite doesn't seem remotely compelling to me or indeed to any other atheist. Further, my understanding of your religion suggests to me that you are barking up the wrong tree in seeking such evidence in the first place. You're just supposed to accept it and get on with the praying and what-not aren't you?

@sonship said
I think that is selective apathy to assume intelligent planning is illusory only when
we don't know where in the universe to point our instruments to detect the physical origin of such possible intelligence.

Ruling out Mind because of predilection to avoid God is too biased.

As for "If we didn't exist we wouldn't be curious" - The analogy has been made ...[text shortened]... e. It follows quite logically that the man WOULD be surprised that he is alive and so improbably so.

Again, this analogy doesn't remotely resemble the situation under discussion. The fact of our existence is unbelievably, incredibly, outrageously, fantastically mind-boggling upon contemplation, whether we were created or simply came into being by happy accident. You may of course choose to believe that this means we were created if you wish, I have no problem with you doing so. My not doing so seems to irritate you, and causes you to try to belittle a perfectly sound argument which far, far cleverer men than me or you have long since accepted. Do you mean to try to browbeat me into agreeing with you? That would be a futile endeavour.

@sonship

Anecdotally I think that have met more people of late who don't believe, with the main reason given that they cant believe that if there is a God who cares that he would stand by while all the terrible things that are happening in the world are.

I understand the sentiments, but don't concur.

Perhaps a dumb question, and no I haven't watched the videos; sue me.

Are the known constants of physics 'tunable' in the first place? If so, how does the 'tuning' happen?

@bigdogg said
Perhaps a dumb question, and no I haven't watched the videos; sue me.

Are the known constants of physics 'tunable' in the first place? If so, how does the 'tuning' happen?

Not in this universe. I think the idea is that if they're set at all differently in some cosmic universe-making machine we wouldn't be here. Which of course explains quite neatly why we're only in THIS universe, and not duplicated in all of the other universes, which is quite handy, because frankly, I frequently find there's too many things to remember just having the one incarnation to manage.

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat

What's the purpose of the question, if you don't mind me asking?

Don't mind at all.
The question on the OP is the title to a book by Eric Metexes which I wanted some
people to watch. And I gave a little summary of some of the topics he discusses in
the interview.
[quote]
Looking for agreement from other theists? [/quo ...[text shortened]... e with humanity in mind.

Do you think fine tuning is just an accident in a Godless creation?

The universe is not calibrated to support human life, human life is calibrated to exist in the conditions laid down by a totally disinterested universe.
How can you keep a straight face when you take these infantile positions?

@kevcvs57

How can you keep a straight face when you take these infantile positions?

I can keep a straight face because some of these people also can keep a straight face .

Astrophysicist (Harvard educated) John A. O'Keefe - "If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence . . . It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

Astrophycisist Sir Fred Holye - "I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce in stars."

Senior astronomer Owen Gingerich of Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory remarked on Sir Fred Holye - "Fred Holye and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggest the designing hand of a superintelligence."

Robert Augros and George Stanciu authors of The New Story of Science wrote - " A universe aiming at the production of man implies a mind directing it . . . Though man is not the physical center of the univere, he appears to be at the center of its purpose."

Nobel winning physicist Stephen Weinberg is an athiest. In speaking of his amazement of the cosmological constant and energy levels of empty space said space is - "remarkably well adjusted in our favor." . . . "astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very much smaller than would have guessed from first principles."

Sir John Templeton - "Would it not be strange if a universe without purpose accidently created humans who are so obsessed with purpose? "

Though theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking resists implications of fine tuning he has to admit - "If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million ,million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. On the other hand, if the expansion rate at one second had been larger by the same amount, the universe would have expanded so much that it would be effectively empty now. "

He doesn't have to be a theist. Just his observation has theistic implications.

Hawking also said - " . . . if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded . . . [It] seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."

Physicist Roger Penrose remarks - "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach even remotely, a figure like ' [10 to 10th to the 123rd].

I had to write it out in English. He refers to " . . . the Creator had to aim for in order to provide a universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics and with what we now observe? . . . [precise] to an accuracy of one part in [10 (10) (123)]. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10 [to th 123rd] successive "0"s! Even if we were to write "0" on each separate proton in the entire universe - and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure - we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. [That is] the precision needed to set the universe on its course."

You probably know astronomer Carl Sagan was no theist. His remarks on fine tuning I can see have theistic ( or deistic) implications I can see (with a straight face). Sagan said "The fact our atmosphere is clear; that our moon is just the right size and distance from the Earth, and that its gravity stabilizes the Earth's rotation; that our position in our galaxy is just so; that our sun is its precise mass and composition, all these factors (and many more), are not only necessary for Earth's habitability; they also have been surprisingly crucial for scientists to measure and make discoveries about the universe. Mankind is unusually well positioned to decipher the cosmos."

If an atheist can talk this way, I have no problem of considering the theistic implications of a finely tuned universe with a straight face.

@sonship said
@kevcvs57

How can you keep a straight face when you take these infantile positions?

I can keep a straight face because some of these people also can keep a straight face .

Astrophysicist (Harvard educated) John A. O'Keefe - "If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence . . . I ...[text shortened]... no problem of considering the theistic implications of a finely tuned universe with a straight face.

It's like the water in a lake being amazed that it's exactly the right size and shape to fill the hole it finds itself in. There's a fitting analogy for you.

@avalanchethecat

I've seen that piece of little pop analogy and seen it debunked as well.

Your universe is finely tuned not only for you the BE HERE. It is finely tuned for you to be able to VIEW, OBSERVE, and SEE as much of it as you do!

God is way, way ahead of you. He arranged it for our existence. AND He arranged it so that we would here at the best time and in the best position to be able to view it.
In a different position in the very galaxy you would not be able to view as much of the universe as you can. God anticipated your scientific instruments and positioned you in time and space to be able to appreciate the human place in the cosmos.

Besides, your attitude betrays an amazing un-thankfulness. So I suggest rather than a silly smirk you reconsider the Apostle Paul's words more astutely tonight.

" For the invisible things of Him, both is His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived by the things made, so that they would be without excuse; Because though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or thank Him. but rather became vain in their reasonings, and their heart, lacking understanding, was darkened." (Rom. 1:20-21)

@sonship said
@avalanchethecat

I've seen that piece of little pop analogy and seen it debunked as well.

Your universe is finely tuned not only for you the BE HERE. It is finely tuned for you to be able to VIEW, OBSERVE, and SEE as much of it as you do!

God is way, way ahead of you. He arranged it for our existence. AND He arranged it so that we would here at the best ...[text shortened]... vain in their reasonings, and their heart, lacking understanding, was darkened." (Rom. 1:20-21)[/b]

Why must you always load an insult into your posts? There's no "silly smirk" you pompous ass. If the universe and the world were not amenable to our evolution, we wouldn't be here. We are here, ipso facto &c. If you can't understand why that completely debases the argument you're trying make I'm afraid I can't help you any further.

"Besides, your attitude betrays an amazing un-thankfulness."
Your attitude betrays a breathtaking level of ignorance and arrogance rarely combined in a single individual. Well done.

@sonship said
@kevcvs57

How can you keep a straight face when you take these infantile positions?

I can keep a straight face because some of these people also can keep a straight face .

Astrophysicist (Harvard educated) John A. O'Keefe - "If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence . . . I ...[text shortened]... no problem of considering the theistic implications of a finely tuned universe with a straight face.

It seems that they are suffering from the same mix of fear and arrogance as yourself. My statement stands as self evident, you have to invent a supernatural entity to support your unnecessarily complicated alternative.
I wonder why god didn’t want us to fly or breath under water. Clearly the universe is far from perfectly calibrated for human existence but it’s early days yet, we have only just come down from the trees.

@avalanchethecat

Why must you always load an insult into your posts? There's no "silly smirk" you pompous ass.

I thought you wrote "ha ha" in a post. Maybe it wasn't this thread. Didn't you give me a "ha ha" somewhere? Thus the reference to a silly smirk.

It is though very interesting that to me you come off as pompous.
Like the very consideration of an intelligent Creator is beneath you.

Beneath you but not beneath say Galileo or Newton.

Beneath you but not beneath world famous former atheist philosopher Anthony Flew, who after many books expounding atheism finally moved over to deist. He finally had to admit design in life argued for intelligence. albeit of a deistic nature.

No it was not just because he got old.
For him Atheism did die.

If the universe and the world were not amenable to our evolution, we wouldn't be here.

I think that is an inane observation. And I think that is scrapping the bottom of the metaphysical barrel. Militant apathy I don't see as solution. And I don't think you do science any favors with that attitude.

​We are here, ipso facto &c.

We could just as easily shrug off your evolution under the same attitude.
We're here, ipso facto - Darwinism and evolution be totally be ignored.

If you can't understand why that completely debases the argument you're trying make I'm afraid I can't help you any further.

You are correct that you cannot help me.

Neither can you help scores of great scientists of the past who assumed the intelligently ordered nature of the universe was the key to exploring and discovering its laws.

They could have just said "We're here Ipso facto. Why look for laws of nature that we can uncover or manipulate. Why read out of the universe intelligible laws seemingly put into its operation."

Not all were Christian theists. But I don't think you could "help" any of these people who pioneered science and had thoughts of intelligent causation of the laws of nature.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Arthur Compton (1892 – 1962)
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Ernst Haeckel (1834 –1919)
Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961)
Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Francis Collins (Born 1950)
Gottfried Leibniz (1646 –1716)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Guglielmo Marconi (1874 –1937)
James Clerk Maxwell (1831 –1879)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
John Eccles (1903 – 1997)
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)

There's more from 25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
https://www.famousscientists.org/25-famous-scientists-who-believed-in-god/

Funny, they seemed to have made significant scientific contributions without your
kind of forced apathy and head in the sand denial of a theistic or deistic design inference.

@sonship said

​We are here, ipso facto &c.

We could just as easily shrug off your evolution under the same attitude.
We're here, ipso facto - Darwinism and evolution be totally be ignored.

If you can't understand why that completely debases the argument you're trying make I'm afraid I can't help you any further.

You are correct that yo ...[text shortened]... your
kind of forced apathy and head in the sand denial of a theistic or deistic design inference.

This line of reasoning runs both ways.

There are also many successful scientists who are atheists.

Your clickbait title about atheism dying is just as flawed as what some of the atheists in this thread have said.

My 2 cents: the position on theism, or lack thereof, is mainly irrelevant in the field of science. Science is concerned with how the physical world works. Questions about supernatural occurrences or entities are outside its purview.

If you doubt this, show me one Nobel Prize thesis that proved something about god.

@sonship said

They could have just said "We're here Ipso facto. Why look for laws of nature that we can uncover or manipulate. Why read out of the universe intelligible laws seemingly put into its operation."

You are insistent in regarding this position as rendering the universe inscrutable, or revealing a lack of curiosity and inquiry. It is, in fact and of course, quite the contrary. It is in fact your position which you describe. Why would the religious mind search for laws of nature, you already know that your god made everything, why then seek the principles of the universe, it's written in your book that you can't comprehend the mind of god. You know this, which is why you are so desperate to argue the contrary position. The scientists you list are all the more remarkable for having a background of religion and yet still seeking answers that people like you no doubt told them were unnecessary and beyond the understanding of man.