tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post1825001745860001111..comments2024-03-11T21:16:59.321-07:00Comments on Deity Shmeity: God Argument Power RankingsGrundyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07339125862340793733noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-42641866288844002442013-12-17T18:10:24.892-08:002013-12-17T18:10:24.892-08:00@ Rational Zealot: No changing one does result in ...@ Rational Zealot: No changing one does result in changing another to compensate for a Universe, and this does still not mean they are dependent. As for us to know this, the universes must exist and as such they have to compensate each other. It does not mean they have to be tuned.Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243905647317437724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-74972028571883937782013-12-17T17:55:56.867-08:002013-12-17T17:55:56.867-08:00@Christian – Correct, the constants and early univ...@Christian – Correct, the constants and early universe conditions are independent of one another, so changing one does not result in changing the others. This means they must each be tuned individually.The Rational Zealothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04729220728598828533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-11809706724980578872013-12-17T15:30:26.262-08:002013-12-17T15:30:26.262-08:00@The Rational Zealot: That means then that the con...@The Rational Zealot: That means then that the constants can change and are not reliant upon one another. Then there is no way they are tuned, which is fine I agree with the fact that they can change.Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243905647317437724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-69452248484181022382013-12-17T14:30:09.095-08:002013-12-17T14:30:09.095-08:00@Christian – One (maybe more) of the constants is ...@Christian – One (maybe more) of the constants is related to the ‘the nothing’ (Cosmological Constant), but many are not. Some are fundamental forces that allow for nuclear decay or the total density of the universe or atomic properties that allow stars to form carbon and oxygen or early universe conditions that allowed stars (or the universe) to form at all. A lot of these constants and early The Rational Zealothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04729220728598828533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-42815876618964991662013-12-16T15:23:57.689-08:002013-12-16T15:23:57.689-08:00But the constants are in place in the quantum vacu...But the constants are in place in the quantum vacuum (or the nothing), and still you do not need a designer.Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243905647317437724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-74524072938678532013-12-16T08:56:59.898-08:002013-12-16T08:56:59.898-08:00The multi-verse, which is a non-falsifiable idea w...The multi-verse, which is a non-falsifiable idea with zero evidence, only moves the fine-tuning question back a level. The laws of physics have to be in place 'prior' to the universe forming in order for anything to form at all, so if there are multiple universes with different physical laws, you need a law scrambler (cosmic slot machine, let’s call it God) to set the conditions of each The Rational Zealothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04729220728598828533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-92156673594998981422013-12-15T13:25:22.632-08:002013-12-15T13:25:22.632-08:00I have to say, I love reading your blog. I've ...I have to say, I love reading your blog. I've been following you for some time. Keep up the great work! Bringing knowledge to the world is a very difficult station, but we must persist. Your format for bringing that knowledge is enlightening and refreshing. I could take a few lessons from you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00250970380339685510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-46043728271296860942013-12-11T17:15:22.296-08:002013-12-11T17:15:22.296-08:00I kinda agree. There are too many unknowns to make...I kinda agree. There are too many unknowns to make sense of it.Grundyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07339125862340793733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-52218113801952498112013-12-11T17:14:20.216-08:002013-12-11T17:14:20.216-08:00It's the stupidest is one way, but the moral a...It's the stupidest is one way, but the moral argument is bad in multiple--and taking into account the specific God the arguers eventually point to, it is actually counter productive. If anything, the moral argument argues against Yahweh, Allah and the like.Grundyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07339125862340793733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-13247342124451452472013-12-10T12:35:17.217-08:002013-12-10T12:35:17.217-08:00I'd think the ontological argument should be l...I'd think the ontological argument should be last since it's the stupidest. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-81881944404333722102013-12-10T03:31:06.592-08:002013-12-10T03:31:06.592-08:00I dislike the fine tuning argument, as it assumes ...I dislike the fine tuning argument, as it assumes things that could not be different. We know life as requiring the constants in our universe do not to change (i.e. speed of light, gravity) However if another universes had to exist and the constants were different, then life could exist and be different just not what we would expect. <br /><br />The constants are after all made up values that Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243905647317437724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3217153430513050163.post-3714216092794437842013-12-10T00:12:49.532-08:002013-12-10T00:12:49.532-08:00The modal ontological is awesome, it introduces a ...The modal ontological is awesome, it introduces a concept, "Maximally Great Being"... but then it goes on to demonstrate that the actual meaning employed is a very particular one:<br />1) It is not "the greatest being". "Greatest" is an empirical notion, take a set of beings, find the one that is in fact greatest. That meaning would do absolutely nothing for the Andreashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17896354423661675885noreply@blogger.com