Fine tuned universe

[Animavore]

It's neither good or bad. If someone came out with a testable theory of God I would be highly interested in it. Myself? I wouldn't even know where to begin.

"Good thing" as in they'd probably wind up loosing their faith at the end of the hunt.

"Losing"

It may strengthen their faith. Like with Francis Collins. Science has no effect on faith. It doesn't inform or confirm it.

Ah, but they would be going into this looking to provide proof for their faith. The search will fail. There will still be no proof for their god or gods. Some of them may start to reconsider their delusions. Most won't, of course.

They could just follow the path of Lemaitre and consider God to be a question of the heart and not the intellect. It's really not a problem for them. The only conclusion they would arrive to is that if you're searching for God you won't find Him externally.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And this is not scientific. So looking for god or gods scientifically is just a waste of time. There is no proof they exist.

[Brian Peacock]

The fine tuning argument is an appeal to specificity, which in turn is an appeal to ends, which in turn is a concrete example of the teleological fallacy.

[Seth]

The fine tuning argument is an appeal to specificity, which in turn is an appeal to ends, which in turn is a concrete example of the teleological fallacy.

The problem with this argument is that while natural evolution may be the most "parsimonious" explanation, it does not follow that it is the only explanation, as BT corn proves.

That a Designer may not be "necessary" to the evolution of species does not mean that a Designer was not nonetheless involved in the evolution of species, or a species, again as BT corn proves.

With the advent of human manipulation of DNA to create new organisms that did not evolve "naturally" (meaning through the forces of chance and natural selection only) the teleological argument regains a position at the table because the ability of humans to design living organisms destroys the argument that the author you cite makes in regards to the watch and watchmaker.

While a watch is neither self-replicating nor self-powered, as she suggests, there is nothing in physics or science that prevents an intelligent designer from building a living organism out of fundamental particles and amino acids that is self-replicating and self-powered. Nothing supernatural is required. All that is required is advanced intelligence not so far advanced from our own and the physical capacity to manipulate DNA directly.

Therefore, the article you cite is incorrect and invalid on that basis. Natural selection may be parsimonious, but it is not the only way that an organism can come to be as it is today, as BT corn and a host of other new and genetically unique human-designed and created organisms prove, and therefore there remains room for intelligent design within the panoply of science and entirely without the sphere of supernaturalism. If we can do it, some other intelligence could have done it in the deep past and there would be no way for us to know if that occurred or not. But that ambiguity does not destroy the possibility, however remote, and so intelligent design of life on earth (or as I call it the Origin of Life on Earth - OLE) remains a valid scientific hypothesis having nothing to do with supernaturalism or theology.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Bless the thin blue line.

[surreptitious57]

It s neither good or bad If someone came out with a testable theory of God I would be highly interested in it

If He does exist then it is currently next to impossible to reference Him since He resides
in the meta physical : which by definition is that which transcends the physical so of
course means that proving such existence is impossible or least this moment in
time : so one therefore has to rely on either faith or probability : faith is out
for it can reference confirmation bias so that leaves probability : so exact
figure for His existence is somewhere between 0 and 100 per cent : now
is as accurate as it gets and not very useful : but there you go any way
So what have we at the end of the day is : God may or may not exist
and although one can find no evidence He does one can not find any
that He does not [ yes I know that you can not prove a negative but
just saying ] : well so any one can believe what ever they want then

Some credit must go to Seth in this thread for his reference of the
Golden Rule whereby he advocated anyone having the freedom to
believe what ever they want long as it does not impinge on his
freedom to do likewise : and even more credit to him for his
questioning of the atheist belief that just accepting a very
notion of the existence of God can cause some tension in
mind of one that would rather not contemplate it : I am
an atheist though have no problem with accepting the
existence of a deity but I just do not believe in any

One thing to bear in mind here : is quite important that
one does not fall into the trap of referencing reality as
they perceive it rather as it actually is or as close as
is possible anyway : the reason for this is because
if the subjective reality and the objective reality
differ significantly then one may be inclined to
the wrong one as it provides comfort : Seth
believes that one must have freedom to do
this and one agrees but the only way that
one can see reality as it is is without a
confirmation bias : that to me can be
very dangerous and comforting but
falsely comforting though ; but if
you carry on in asking awkward
questions Seth I shall be happy

[Animavore]

Except no one anywhere said anything about atheists generating tension in the mind just by even entertaining the notion of god. I mentioned something the Buddha said and Seth took that to mean I shared this view. I'm sure even Buddha could entertain the notion of god. In his view his way was beyond god. Gods were another of many illusions created by the mind we have to free ourselves of by attaining enlightenment.
Entertaining a god notion is child's play to me. I can imagine an infinite number of beings, temporal and supernatural. I even entertained the notion of being a god myself one day in many lives and creating universes. But being able to imagine something doesn't make it real in any tangible way.

[Seth]

Except no one anywhere said anything about atheists generating tension in the mind just by even entertaining the notion of god. I mentioned something the Buddha said and Seth took that to mean I shared this view.

Not true.

You said:

The idea of questions of God being meaningless did not come, for me, from Dawkins, who I only heard of a few years ago, they came from my time spent into Buddhism. According to the Buddha questions like, "Where does it all come from?" and "Why are we here?" are a cause of suffering and agitation in the mind.

I replied:

And Buddhism is a religion, and as you describe it a religion of "don't think about God because it leads to unpleasantness." This, of course, says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, it's merely deliberate denialism of the fundamental question. In that respect, science is much like Buddhism in it's willful ignorance and denial of the core question "does God exist?"

Which is why science is as much of a religion as Buddhism is...

I said nothing about whether or not you shared Buddha's beliefs.

I'm sure even Buddha could entertain the notion of god. In his view his way was beyond god. Gods were another of many illusions created by the mind we have to free ourselves of by attaining enlightenment.
Entertaining a god notion is child's play to me. I can imagine an infinite number of beings, temporal and supernatural. I even entertained the notion of being a god myself one day in many lives and creating universes. But being able to imagine something doesn't make it real in any tangible way.

Quite right. But then again refusing to imagine something doesn't make it unreal if it does in fact exist. Muons have existed as long as the universe has been in existence despite human ignorance or denial of their existence. God likewise can exist in the face of denial of imagination of God.

That's why the question of God's existence is an important scientific question, not merely a matter of theology.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's not a question for scientists, they don't do fairy tales.

[Svartalf]

Next you're going to tell me it wasn't Pr Dodgson wrote the Hunting of the Snark or Through the Looking Glass.

[Animavore]

The question Will become important for science when someone can come up with a way to test it. Until then there's nothing anyone can do with it. No one seems to be able to give a clear definition. You can't have a theory without some facts first for the theory to explain.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Great. Now we're going to get a long bullshit list of "facts". Thanks Ani. And bless you, thin blue line.

[Animavore]

I don't know of anyone working on the god question. Not even theistic scientists. ID and creationists seem concerned with trying to discredit established science not putting forth anything of their own.
I imagine if god was found it would be inadvertently, serendiptously, not because anyone was actively looking for it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't know of anyone working on the god question. Not even theistic scientists. ID and creationists seem concerned with trying to discredit established science not putting forth anything of their own.

They believe that disproving evolution will prove god. Wrong and wrong.

I imagine if god was found it would be inadvertently, serendiptously, not because anyone was actively looking for it.

"Never comes the day..."

[MrFungus420]

The fine tuning argument is an appeal to specificity, which in turn is an appeal to ends, which in turn is a concrete example of the teleological fallacy.

The problem with this argument is that while natural evolution may be the most "parsimonious" explanation, it does not follow that it is the only explanation, as BT corn prove

It is the only explanation that is supported by any evidence. That makes it the only scientific explanation.

You can make up magical, fairy-tale explanations all day long, that doesn't mean that any of them have any validity.