Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[dilbadoon]

Originally Posted by Iseeyouthere

If Jireh keeps digging like this... he may find those "non-existant fossils".

Whoah, the odds would have to be 1 in a million, which is pretty much the same as zero and therefore impossible.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Atrax Robustus

Read the link that YOU provided.

lets have a closer look at the rebate given at the website then.

The first fallacy in the most modern versions of the argument comprises a sort of circular argument involving the use of the phrase "fine-tuned." That the universe was "fine-tuned" is the conclusion the argument is trying to prove. However, this notion is almost always smuggled in at the beginning of the argument as one of the givens.

our goal is not to prove, the universe is finely tuned to life. That is something, no serious cosmologist and astronomer denies. Not for nothing, atheists like Stenger, and Dawkins, try to find a way out of the dilemma, and propose desperate solutions like the fantasious multiverse proposal.

Yes, one can imagine that physical constants could possibly have different values. But this is hardly the kind of evidence which enables one to conclude that a "creator-less universe" is somehow vastly improbable.

Why not ??????????????????????????????

One can imagine a great many things that have absolutely nothing to do with anything real.

What ????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! in what sense shall that be a answer ??

Yes, one can go on and on, as so many have,[6] about how even the most minuscule variation in this, that, or the other constant would wipe out the universe as we know it. But, unless one knows the likelihood of such a variation ever occurring, it is absolutely pointless to dwell on these numbers in and of themselves.

So the author recalls now to the assertion, the fine tune constants could be based or set on physical necessity, and therefore not be different ??? It seems the author is really desperate to find good answers, and uses a very easy to rebate argument. But the non thinking atheist swallows of course everything, that has even the shinest appearance of being a good rebuttal, and accepts it without thinking at all.
Our earth is the only place we know, that hosts life. If the fine tune constants as they are would be set by physical need, than simply ALL planets in the universe would have to host life by physical obligation !!

should i go really further ????

[loubert]

Originally Posted by jireh

winning at the lottery is one thing. To win out of the chance of one to 10^50 is another.....it seems you don't imagine how big that number is. Its a 5 with 50 zeros......its said that a chance of such dimension is never to happen , its like zero chance... but you still want to believe it ? well, go ahead, but you cannot say, your faith is rational - its blind faith in chance.

My emphasis...
It doesn't matter. It isn't zero. Do you even understand mathematics? Is one divided by a googol, zero? No it isn't.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Logic please

So, you admit that your god provides no moral example to humans at all? Especially given the biblical claim that man was made in god's image?

The example we have from God is the life of Jesus Christ. Have you seen Jesus go around, and kill people around him ? Furthermore : God is the AUTHOR of life. He has the right to give, and do take life.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by loubert

My emphasis...
It doesn't matter. It isn't zero. Do you even understand mathematics? Is one divided by a googol, zero? No it isn't.

in that case, keep on believing in chance. I admire the faith you have in these odds..... amazing

unfortunately, that is not the only hurdle you need to overcome. The cell is irreducibly complex. If not all parts are there at once, at the beginning, it will not work......

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-...arise-on-earth

Another huge problem is that information is useless unless it can be read. But the decoding machinery is itself encoded on the DNA. The leading philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:
‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
‘Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.’64
That is, the genetic information and the required reading machinery form an irreducibly complex system. So far, it has eluded materialistic explanations.

[Iseeyouthere]

Originally Posted by jireh

The example we have from God is the life of Jesus Christ. Have you seen Jesus go around, and kill people around him ?

Haven't see this jebus at all...
Did he tell you this?
Oooh oohh... whats his favourite flavour of ice cream!?

[loubert]

Our earth is the only place we know, that hosts life. If the fine tune constants as they are would be set by physical need, than simply ALL planets in the universe would have to host life by physical obligation !!

should i go really further ????

Huh???? I think you're putting the cart before the horse there buddy.
Not all planets are capable of carbon based life. And what physical obligation? They (planets) are just that, planets. They have no obligation, just like our own earth has no "obligation"...

[jireh]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

No, Jireh, but a nice try.

The instruction to wipe out the Canaanites was a call to genocide, nothing else. It's in your book of fairytales, and if you believe that, you will have to call it true.

As far as your little diversionary tale goes, the circumstances may vary.

Nevertheless, it had nothing to do with racism.

[Sieveboy]

Originally Posted by jireh

Nevertheless, it had nothing to do with racism.

Gods (Yahew) call to kill the canaanites is still biblically mandated genocide Jireh, your god, passing her dirty work to humans. You accept that when you accept jebus. Like it or fucking whinge about it. It is still your god.

[loubert]

Bloody hell. Nice straw man. I wasn't saying I believed those numbers you quoted, I was pointing out that IT ISN'T ZERO, therefore there is still a posibility.