Why do you have faith?

[Ferguson97]

This isn't intended as some sort of gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.

To those who believe in some sort of deity, why do you believe? Is it because you believe it to be a rational explanation of the nature of the universe, or does it bring some sort of joy to you?

[Kingpoleon]

I came to a point in my life where I considered it rather important to know what was and was not correct. So, I decided to delve into the arguments and read the following books:

J. L. Schellenberg, The Hiddenness Argument
Paul Draper editor, God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence
Graham Oppy, The Best Argument Against God
Felipe Leon and Joshua Rasmussen, Is God the Best Explanation of Things?
David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God
Ed Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God
Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism
Yujin Nagasawa, Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism

Although Hart presents no arguments for God in the way all the other books do, I found myself drawn most to it. I am rather glad I decided to clear my mind and then read these books, too, as otherwise I think I would have drawn myself up into a bizarre agnosticism.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm a cradle Christian, so I can't deny that it's had some impact on my life pretty much throughout, even as a non-church goer as a kid. My lapsed Catholic mom was responsible for all my religious upbringing, as my dad was an atheist until the last couple years of his life.

When I started reading the Bible, I felt closer to the God that had always been there for me. Currently I am preparing myself for eventual life in the clergy (whether it will be Episcopal or for a progressive independent catholic church is yet to be decided, but the Episcopal Church has its own problems so I will likely stick with them and help change some things).

I find the story very compelling, even revolutionary, for the time which the Gospels are set in: a God who, rather than demanding bloody sacrifices and other bizarre things from the old "pagan" faiths, lays His life down for the people He created. That kind of meekness of any god would be completely alien to the mainstream religions of the time.

My experiences with the supernatural, especially as a young kid, erased all doubt I had about the supernatural and God's unending presence. I do not believe we can rely on our mortal eyes to see all that exists in this reality. There has to be something more. And I believe in angels the same way I believe in demons. But as Christians, we are forbidden from actively seeking these things and should only accept those experiences as gifts.

Can those experiences with the supernatural and the miracles I've seen be scientifically proven? Can the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist be proven?* No, but that is because gifts of the supernatural are not meant to be viewed under a microscope. But nonetheless, I was fully sober and conscious during these times as I remember them quite vividly.

_{*The most important of the sacraments for me, because I believe that is ultimately when the physical and the metaphysical (and all that order it) fully intertwine.}

I am a Christian because of my experiences and familiarity with the faith. My religion and spirituality both define me more than my nationality, my gender, and my (a)sexuality. I acknowledge that my religion might not be "correct", but I also take a universal view of people of other faiths or no faith. I preach to people only who want to be preached to (which included my best friend, who like me now is somewhere between Catholicism and Protestantism).

And I never pretend to be perfect either as a Christian or as a human being. He without sin casts the first stone, etc., etc. I will continue to be a work in progress until my time in this dimension comes to an end.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I came to a point in my life where I considered it rather important to know what was and was not correct. So, I decided to delve into the arguments and read the following books:

J. L. Schellenberg, The Hiddenness Argument
Paul Draper editor, God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence
Graham Oppy, The Best Argument Against God
Felipe Leon and Joshua Rasmussen, Is God the Best Explanation of Things?
David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God
Ed Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God
Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism
Yujin Nagasawa, Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism

Although Hart presents no arguments for God in the way all the other books do, I found myself drawn most to it. I am rather glad I decided to clear my mind and then read these books, too, as otherwise I think I would have drawn myself up into a bizarre agnosticism.

I've never read any of Hart's works, but he's definitely a rock star to the Christian left. Karen Armstrong's "The Case for God" is the best book (other than Scripture) to rejuvenate my faith, and look at it from a different angle. Ironically, it does not attempt to "prove" God's existence but it does present a more mystical approach to the faith and has influenced my faith a lot.

[If my soul was made of stone]

The idea of faith emerging from rationally-held convictions is somewhat alien to me, especially as someone who was raised in a Dawkinsite environment where faith was regarded as entirely irrational folly that any sufficient logical argument could overpower. My conscious experience of faith is my cognition's interpretation of the primordial, visceral, pre-cognitive experience of love for (my conception of) the divine. Even when my more rationally-ordered thoughts are skeptical of the existence of divinity, or when despair leads me to scorn my fundamental existence, I can immerse myself in that uncritical place of love until it soothes me. At times I've asked the Goddess for subtle signs of Her presence and judgment, whether out of doubt or a desire for guidance, and found them in the subtly poetic coincidence of the world around me. As someone who's long suffered from unstable and dour mental health struggles and alienation from the way that man has ordered the world, at this point the alternative to faith is entirely lacking direction and will.

[Kingpoleon]

I've never read any of Hart's works, but he's definitely a rock star to the Christian left. Karen Armstrong's "The Case for God" is the best book (other than Scripture) to rejuvenate my faith, and look at it from a different angle. Ironically, it does not attempt to "prove" God's existence but it does present a more mystical approach to the faith and has influenced my faith a lot.

Yes, well, I’m not a huge fan of liberal theologians. Armstrong, while usually cogent, I find more difficult to agree with when compared to an evangelical commentator like Gordon Wenham. I’m not a big believer in mysticism and am, somewhat unfashionably, a bit uncomfortable with apophatic theology.

The idea of faith emerging from rationally-held convictions is somewhat alien to me, especially as someone who was raised in a Dawkinsite environment where faith was regarded as entirely irrational folly that any sufficient logical argument could overpower. My conscious experience of faith is my cognition's interpretation of the primordial, visceral, pre-cognitive experience of love for (my conception of) the divine. Even when my more rationally-ordered thoughts are skeptical of the existence of divinity, or when despair leads me to scorn my fundamental existence, I can immerse myself in that uncritical place of love until it soothes me. At times I've asked the Goddess for subtle signs of Her presence and judgment, whether out of doubt or a desire for guidance, and found them in the subtly poetic coincidence of the world around me. As someone who's long suffered from unstable and dour mental health struggles and alienation from the way that man has ordered the world, at this point the alternative to faith is entirely lacking direction and will.

Here I must really dissent from fideism. If my religious sensibilities are false, then I would rather abandon them for what is most true rather than for what is most comfortable. This is, I grant, implicitly theistic but not necessarily implicitly Christian.

I really find it difficult to admire neo paganism because of the sort of sloppy picture which comes out of it, particularly about things like the “Axial Age” and so on. Here again I would defend the unpopular notion that organized religion is in some sense BETTER than vague ideas about spirituality.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Because we are Secularist or Traditionalist it is transcended with Religion and Politics

We all came from somewhere and there might be Reincarnation we never know, if you pray, it's better than having nothing at all

[John Dule]

Because we are Secularist or Traditionalist it is transcended with Religion and Politics

We all came from somewhere and there might be Reincarnation we never know, if you pray, it's better than having nothing at all

Most thoughtful response in this thread.

[Kingpoleon]

I should note here that I quite agree with the view that one need not understand or read any philosophical argument before making up one’s mind - after all, if we must read arguments before taking any position, then we would need to justify this by reasoning in a circle and arguing in favor of arguments prior to any position, but this itself is a position.

However, if one wishes to comment on the plausibility of alternative viewpoints, one should probably hold off on comparing them to belief in Santa by comparing, say, Aquinas’s intellect and tracts with those tracts which argue for the reality of Santa.

[John Dule]

I should note here that I quite agree with the view that one need not understand or read any philosophical argument before making up one’s mind - after all, if we must read arguments before taking any position, then we would need to justify this by reasoning in a circle and arguing in favor of arguments prior to any position, but this itself is a position.

However, if one wishes to comment on the plausibility of alternative viewpoints, one should probably hold off on comparing them to belief in Santa by comparing, say, Aquinas’s intellect and tracts with those tracts which argue for the reality of Santa.

I compared your views to a belief in Santa Claus because you compared my views to being "Afraid of the Light" (whatever that means).

[Kingpoleon]

I compared your views to a belief in Santa Claus because you compared my views to being "Afraid of the Light" (whatever that means).

This isn’t really accurate. You have, for over a year now, explained how as a small child you realized since Santa didn’t exist, God doesn’t either. I, in an a jest, reworded Hawking’s famous words to you because you haven’t really ever explained what you think of cosmological arguments or fine tuning other than dismissing their conclusion as impossible.

[John Dule]

I compared your views to a belief in Santa Claus because you compared my views to being "Afraid of the Light" (whatever that means).

This isn’t really accurate. You have, for over a year now, explained how as a small child you realized since Santa didn’t exist, God doesn’t either. I, in an a jest, reworded Hawking’s famous words to you because you haven’t really ever explained what you think of cosmological arguments or fine tuning other than dismissing their conclusion as impossible.

Which arguments specifically would you like to hear my thoughts on?

[Kingpoleon]

Which arguments specifically would you like to hear my thoughts on?

I always find it difficult to know which arguments are more likely to work than others without knowing the person in real life, but I think firstly an explanation as to the fairly extreme idea that one can only believe in God at the cost of being fundamentally irrational would be worthwhile. I know Oppy and Plantinga have taken a lot of heat for their views there, but virtually all of it seems to me to be smoke rather than fire.

Nonetheless, what do you make of fine tuning?

[°Leprechaun]

Which arguments specifically would you like to hear my thoughts on?

I always find it difficult to know which arguments are more likely to work than others without knowing the person in real life, but I think firstly an explanation as to the fairly extreme idea that one can only believe in God at the cost of being fundamentally irrational would be worthwhile. I know Oppy and Plantinga have taken a lot of heat for their views there, but virtually all of it seems to me to be smoke rather than fire.

Nonetheless, what do you make of fine tuning?

"I always find it difficult to know which arguments are more likely to work than others without knowing the person in real life..."
I think that is an important thing to keep in mind, people on this site tend to make a lot of assumptions about others based on what is said online. Who is to say that those assumptions are true? I for one am not quick to judge someone until I know them well, and I don't think I can know anyone very well if I haven't met them, or at least spoken to them on the phone.

[John Dule]

Which arguments specifically would you like to hear my thoughts on?

I always find it difficult to know which arguments are more likely to work than others without knowing the person in real life, but I think firstly an explanation as to the fairly extreme idea that one can only believe in God at the cost of being fundamentally irrational would be worthwhile. I know Oppy and Plantinga have taken a lot of heat for their views there, but virtually all of it seems to me to be smoke rather than fire.

If I ever hear a "rational" reason for why someone would believe in supernatural beings, divine power, or any god/goddess, I'll let you know. Thus far, such a reason has proven just as elusive as god himself. There is no reason to believe in something for which there is insufficient proof-- you're free to speculate, of course, but to structure one's life around something which is clearly unsupported by evidence is simply wrong.

Nonetheless, what do you make of fine tuning?

Honestly, what do you get out of these exchanges? I decided a while back not to engage with you on this subject anymore-- a difficult decision, because as you may know, I enjoy debating with most people on this site. However, our last three encounters have been so unpleasant I no longer see any point in participating in this charade. In the first discussion, you claimed that several scholars believed in out-of-body experiences and medical miracles; when I disproved this claim by citing one of the scholars' own writing, you just shifted the goalposts. In the second discussion, you resorted to haughty pearl-clutching, sarcastically calling me "sir" and implying that I lacked empathy. In the third exchange, you made the claim that religious people have better mental health outcomes than atheists; when I responded with a detailed series of points breaking down the confounding variables in this correlation, you dismissed them completely and didn't even respond to them. Until we find some kind of conclusion to these three extremely annoying conversations-- perhaps, one that involves you acknowledging you were wrong in some cases-- I'm not interested in starting a fourth.

Look at this comment, for example. I am in freaking law school right now. I already have fifty pages of reading to do this week, and I'm trying to balance dozens of other aspects of my life at the same time. I do not have the time or the inclination to read a 38-page philosophical paper that you've linked to just so I can understand the argument you're trying to make. For god's sake, stop linking random works by other thinkers in the hopes that we will do your job for you; if you want to have a debate on a subject, it is your responsibility to present your reasoning in a coherent and concise manner. There is a zero percent chance I'm reading that-- and the same goes for the other five hundred articles and books you've name-dropped on here because you're too lazy to put their arguments in your own words.

[Kingpoleon]

If I ever hear a "rational" reason for why someone would believe in supernatural beings, divine power, or any god/goddess, I'll let you know. Thus far, such a reason has proven just as elusive as god himself. There is no reason to believe in something for which there is insufficient proof-- you're free to speculate, of course, but to structure one's life around something which is clearly unsupported by evidence is simply wrong.

I’m rather confused by this. Are you saying you’re an agnostic, then?

Honestly, what do you get out of these exchanges? I decided a while back not to engage with you on this subject anymore-- a difficult decision, because as you may know, I enjoy debating with most people on this site. However, our last three encounters have been so unpleasant I no longer see any point in participating in this charade. In the first discussion, you claimed that several scholars believed in out-of-body experiences and medical miracles; when I disproved this claim by citing one of the scholars' own writing, you just shifted the goalposts. In the second discussion, you resorted to haughty pearl-clutching, sarcastically calling me "sir" and implying that I lacked empathy. In the third exchange, you made the claim that religious people have better mental health outcomes than atheists; when I responded with a detailed series of points breaking down the confounding variables in this correlation, you dismissed them completely and didn't even respond to them. Until we find some kind of conclusion to these three extremely annoying conversations-- perhaps, one that involves you acknowledging you were wrong in some cases-- I'm not interested in starting a fourth.

Look at this comment, for example. I am in freaking law school right now. I already have fifty pages of reading to do this week, and I'm trying to balance dozens of other aspects of my life at the same time. I do not have the time or the inclination to read a 38-page philosophical paper that you've linked to just so I can understand the argument you're trying to make. For god's sake, stop linking random works by other thinkers in the hopes that we will do your job for you; if you want to have a debate on a subject, it is your responsibility to present your reasoning in a coherent and concise manner. There is a zero percent chance I'm reading that-- and the same goes for the other five hundred articles and books you've name-dropped on here because you're too lazy to put their arguments in your own words.

Er, your reference to Greyson and the article you linked to by him was pretty clearly a misreading of the article. I explained as much by quoting from the conclusion, in which he explicitly says that we should reconsider whether or not it’s accurate to refer to them as illusions.

Fine tuning is an examination of over two dozen constants which are necessary in order for life to exist.

“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” (Stephen Hawking)

“Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom from the dawn of the universe, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (Fred Hoyle)

“That the universe has organized its own self-awareness – is for me powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.” (Paul Davies)

“The odds of fine tuning are 10^-122.” (Aron Wall)

For instance, ε, a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is .007. That is, when 4 nucleons fuse into helium, .7% of their mass converts to energy. If it were .006 or below, only hydrogen could exist and thus life could never develop. If it were above .008, no hydrogen would exist.

1. This state of affairs could happen by chance or by design.
2. The odds of it happening by chance are astronomically low.
3. It almost certainly happened by design.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Give us this our daily "what happens when an unstoppable Dule meets an immovable Kingpoleon" thread. Delightful to see that such productive discussion has transpired here since I was discouraged from continuing to share my thoughts.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This really seems like more of a "how" question than a "why", to me. The best answer I can give to that "how" is that a world without a plus ultra strikes me as not only unbearable but unthinkable. There's an element of choice in my specific religious commitments beyond this, but the fundamental conviction is an inbuilt near-certainty with which I don't think I could dispense even if I for some reason wanted to.

[Mr. Smith]

In which sense? Mere belief of another being's existence? Or belief that said being is good, or at least not malevolent?

[John Dule]

If I ever hear a "rational" reason for why someone would believe in supernatural beings, divine power, or any god/goddess, I'll let you know. Thus far, such a reason has proven just as elusive as god himself. There is no reason to believe in something for which there is insufficient proof-- you're free to speculate, of course, but to structure one's life around something which is clearly unsupported by evidence is simply wrong.

I’m rather confused by this. Are you saying you’re an agnostic, then?

Let me be clear: I have never claimed to have any special knowledge that god does not exist with 100% certainty. This is why I routinely say "Doubt is a virtue" (and conversely, "faith is a vice"). Obviously I extend this maxim to my own beliefs (including that maxim itself), and I have never argued that god has been disproven or that the supernatural is impossible. My contention has always been that no body of evidence exists that would provide a sufficient reason for one to believe these things, and so there is no point trying to interact with reality while operating on the assumption that the supernatural world exists.

Er, your reference to Greyson and the article you linked to by him was pretty clearly a misreading of the article. I explained as much by quoting from the conclusion, in which he explicitly says that we should reconsider whether or not it’s accurate to refer to them as illusions.

More goalpost-shifting. You cited him as a scholar who argued definitively that medical miracles/out-of-body experiences were real. The conclusion to that essay merely left the reader with an open-ended question; Greyson clearly did not want to make a concrete claim as absurd as that in a serious academic journal.

Fine tuning is an examination of over two dozen constants which are necessary in order for life to exist.

“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” (Stephen Hawking)

“Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom from the dawn of the universe, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (Fred Hoyle)

“That the universe has organized its own self-awareness – is for me powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming.” (Paul Davies)

“The odds of fine tuning are 10^-122.” (Aron Wall)

For instance, ε, a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is .007. That is, when 4 nucleons fuse into helium, .7% of their mass converts to energy. If it were .006 or below, only hydrogen could exist and thus life could never develop. If it were above .008, no hydrogen would exist.

1. This state of affairs could happen by chance or by design.
2. The odds of it happening by chance are astronomically low.
3. It almost certainly happened by design.

So I'll admit I am aware of this argument, but I was simply trying to force you into a position where you would put it in your own words. Which you... kind of did, I guess.

An excellent rebuttal to this is the one posited by Leonard Susskind, a physicist who subscribes to the idea of "bubble universes," or a multiverse in which the laws of physics differ between different universes. For example, there could be universes in which distance does not exist, and objects are defined by a completely different set of rules (such as a "network universe"). Alternatively, there could be universes in which the cosmological constant is different (which if I'm not mistaken would make it impossible for suns to form). And yes, there could be a universe in which ε is different from what it is in our universe. This is a rather abstract vision of the multiverse, but it makes logical sense even if it's difficult for one to wrap one's head around it.

Humans might look around at Earth and say "This environment is so perfect-- it must have been created for us!" when the exact reverse is true-- humans evolved to live under these specific conditions. It should come as no surprise that in a place that is capable of supporting life, life has formed. And who knows? Maybe in one of Susskind's "bubble universes," a type of consciousness that is entirely unthinkable to us exists. It might be wondering right now why the conditions of its universe-- which are drastically different from our own-- are so "fine-tuned" to suit its own existence. But that being, like you, would be asking the question backwards. Our world was not made for us; we were made for our world.

[HillGoose]

my faith in the belief that God is evil and hates everyone, and that I (and likely everyone else, with the exception of maybe the most evil people) will spend eternity in unimaginable suffering comes from my weird need to believe the most negative possible outcome is the only possible outcome to any given situation

[Kingpoleon]

Let me be clear: I have never claimed to have any special knowledge that god does not exist with 100% certainty. This is why I routinely say "Doubt is a virtue" (and conversely, "faith is a vice"). Obviously I extend this maxim to my own beliefs (including that maxim itself), and I have never argued that god has been disproven or that the supernatural is impossible. My contention has always been that no body of evidence exists that would provide a sufficient reason for one to believe these things, and so there is no point trying to interact with reality while operating on the assumption that the supernatural world exists.

So you don’t think, say, the argument from divine hiddenness works?

More goalpost-shifting. You cited him as a scholar who argued definitively that medical miracles/out-of-body experiences were real. The conclusion to that essay merely left the reader with an open-ended question; Greyson clearly did not want to make a concrete claim as absurd as that in a serious academic journal.

I think it’s difficult to read an article like this in an academic journal and claim that Greyson thinks a materialistic answer is possible.

So I'll admit I am aware of this argument, but I was simply trying to force you into a position where you would put it in your own words. Which you... kind of did, I guess.

An excellent rebuttal to this is the one posited by Leonard Susskind, a physicist who subscribes to the idea of "bubble universes," or a multiverse in which the laws of physics differ between different universes. For example, there could be universes in which distance does not exist, and objects are defined by a completely different set of rules (such as a "network universe"). Alternatively, there could be universes in which the cosmological constant is different (which if I'm not mistaken would make it impossible for suns to form). And yes, there could be a universe in which ε is different from what it is in our universe. This is a rather abstract vision of the multiverse, but it makes logical sense even if it's difficult for one to wrap one's head around it.

Humans might look around at Earth and say "This environment is so perfect-- it must have been created for us!" when the exact reverse is true-- humans evolved to live under these specific conditions. It should come as no surprise that in a place that is capable of supporting life, life has formed. And who knows? Maybe in one of Susskind's "bubble universes," a type of consciousness that is entirely unthinkable to us exists. It might be wondering right now why the conditions of its universe-- which are drastically different from our own-- are so "fine-tuned" to suit its own existence. But that being, like you, would be asking the question backwards. Our world was not made for us; we were made for our world.

Surely this is an example of the inverse gambler’s fallacy. If we see one monkey writing out a poem in English, it’s rather illogical to explain this by suggesting that there are an infinite number of typing monkeys we don’t see, but they happen to be typing gibberish. However unlikely we might otherwise think it, the most probable explanation is that this monkey is very intelligent, to the point of understanding English.

[John Dule]

Let me be clear: I have never claimed to have any special knowledge that god does not exist with 100% certainty. This is why I routinely say "Doubt is a virtue" (and conversely, "faith is a vice"). Obviously I extend this maxim to my own beliefs (including that maxim itself), and I have never argued that god has been disproven or that the supernatural is impossible. My contention has always been that no body of evidence exists that would provide a sufficient reason for one to believe these things, and so there is no point trying to interact with reality while operating on the assumption that the supernatural world exists.

So you don’t think, say, the argument from divine hiddenness works?

What do you mean by "works?" "Disproves god?" No, but I don't think there is any argument that disproves god.

I think it’s difficult to read an article like this in an academic journal and claim that Greyson thinks a materialistic answer is possible.

It does not matter what Greyson's personal, private views on the subject are. What matters is that he did not attach his name to a serious academic paper definitively claiming the existence of supernatural forces/beings.

Surely this is an example of the inverse gambler’s fallacy. If we see one monkey writing out a poem in English, it’s rather illogical to explain this by suggesting that there are an infinite number of typing monkeys we don’t see, but they happen to be typing gibberish. However unlikely we might otherwise think it, the most probable explanation is that this monkey is very intelligent, to the point of understanding English.

Decent response. But let's look at something a little narrower in scope-- the Earth itself in comparison to other planets, as opposed to our universe in comparison to other universes.

There was a time when we didn't know other planets existed. We believed that the heavenly bodies were somehow different from our own in type; we did not understand that Mars was a planet in the same way Earth is, and we didn't understand that other stars are suns just like ours. Due to this rather limited perspective, we made the (fair) assumption that our world is the only one that exists, that it was made to suit us specifically, and that these conditions are the only ones under which life can exist. The first of these assumptions has since been proven false. The second, in my mind, is totally unsupported by evidence. It's quite possible that the third will be disproven in our lifetimes as well.

Now you are assuming something similar-- that our universe is the only one that exists, that it was made to suit us specifically, and that these conditions are the only ones under which life can exist. Now, these are not completely absurd assumptions at face value (though I will note that even if the second were true, you would still be multiple steps away from "proving" anything regarding Christian doctrine). But it's worth noting that every time we've assumed ourselves to be "special" in some way, we've ended up being proven wrong. We thought our planet was special-- now we know it's just one of trillions. We thought our genetic makeup was special-- now we know we're only 1% away from being chimpanzees. Now you are telling me our universe is special-- but somehow, I'm not buying it.

Let's look at this another way-- you used the nuclear fusion coefficient as evidence that this universe is uniquely structured to be conducive for life to exist. Your argument here is essentially as follows:

"If an aspect of our universe appears uniquely tuned to benefit human life, then that is a piece of evidence in favor of the universe being engineered to suit human needs, not the other way around."

But if this is true, then it logically follows that any aspect of this universe that is hostile to human life is evidence against the universe being engineered to suit human needs. How about the fact that 97% of the water on our planet is undrinkable? How about the fact that our planet is surrounded by a vacuum that will kill us if we enter it without sufficient protection? How about the fact that our sun will vaporize our planet in 5.5 billion years? There are innumerable obstacles and problems in our universe that make it difficult for life to survive. To our credit, we've managed pretty well so far. But it is very possible to imagine a world (and a universe) that is even better tuned to be conducive to human life, so the notion that this is the one set of conditions which would allow us to flourish is a fallacy on multiple fronts.

[Kingpoleon]

Decent response. But let's look at something a little narrower in scope-- the Earth itself in comparison to other planets, as opposed to our universe in comparison to other universes.

There was a time when we didn't know other planets existed. We believed that the heavenly bodies were somehow different from our own in type; we did not understand that Mars was a planet in the same way Earth is, and we didn't understand that other stars are suns just like ours. Due to this rather limited perspective, we made the (fair) assumption that our world is the only one that exists, that it was made to suit us specifically, and that these conditions are the only ones under which life can exist. The first of these assumptions has since been proven false. The second, in my mind, is totally unsupported by evidence. It's quite possible that the third will be disproven in our lifetimes as well.

Now you are assuming something similar-- that our universe is the only one that exists, that it was made to suit us specifically, and that these conditions are the only ones under which life can exist. Now, these are not completely absurd assumptions at face value (though I will note that even if the second were true, you would still be multiple steps away from "proving" anything regarding Christian doctrine). But it's worth noting that every time we've assumed ourselves to be "special" in some way, we've ended up being proven wrong. We thought our planet was special-- now we know it's just one of trillions. We thought our genetic makeup was special-- now we know we're only 1% away from being chimpanzees. Now you are telling me our universe is special-- but somehow, I'm not buying it.

Let's look at this another way-- you used the nuclear fusion coefficient as evidence that this universe is uniquely structured to be conducive for life to exist. Your argument here is essentially as follows:

"If an aspect of our universe appears uniquely tuned to benefit human life, then that is a piece of evidence in favor of the universe being engineered to suit human needs, not the other way around."

But if this is true, then it logically follows that any aspect of this universe that is hostile to human life is evidence against the universe being engineered to suit human needs. How about the fact that 97% of the water on our planet is undrinkable? How about the fact that our planet is surrounded by a vacuum that will kill us if we enter it without sufficient protection? How about the fact that our sun will vaporize our planet in 5.5 billion years? There are innumerable obstacles and problems in our universe that make it difficult for life to survive. To our credit, we've managed pretty well so far. But it is very possible to imagine a world (and a universe) that is even better tuned to be conducive to human life, so the notion that this is the one set of conditions which would allow us to flourish is a fallacy on multiple fronts.

I apologize, but the notion that observable stars are comparable to observable alternate universes is absurd. The claim that there an infinite number of alternate universes, and that within all these universes the laws and constants of the universe are different, is itself a denial of the Copernican principle, which assumes that the laws everywhere else are like they are here. To begin to deny this would lead one to question why we should grant science’s assumption that light always travels at the same speed, or that other parts of the observable universe are bound by the same laws that bind our part. We’re not “1% DNA” away from being chimps. As Jonathan Marks explains in his book What Does It Mean to Be 98% Chimpanzee?, the differences between us and animals remain one of kind and not merely of degree. Furthermore, the first person to suggest humanity ascended from monkeys was Ibn Khaldun, an Islamic philosopher hundreds of years before Darwin.

I don’t think you quite grasp there is no “distinct Christian God” under classical theism, IE divine aseity, divine simplicity, divine impassability, divine immutability. The whole notion of classical theism is that it emerges again and again, in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Platonism, Aristotelianism, Hinduism, and forms of Buddhism. Of course, the only way to know whether the Resurrection happened here is to, say, observe the evidence there, as people like N. T. Wright, Dale Allison, Pinchas Lapid, and Michael Licona have done. This is rather irrelevant - it’s like saying proving heliocentrism doesn’t prove climate change.

This triumphalist fairy tale of Reason and Science against Religion and Mysticism is sorely lacking in a historical basis. Heck, Ronald Numbers literally titled one of his books Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion, yet major figures in movement atheism continue to spread just lies built on lies to keep the fairy tale going.

(I should note that “carbon chauvinism” is itself the vast, vast majority’s view in the sciences, and the implications of fine tuning against naturalism have been noted by agnostics like Paul Davies and Michael Denton and even atheists like Thomas Nagel and Fred Hoyle.)

Now I want to address Susskind’s bizarre theory of eternal inflation in particular. There is no reason at all to suppose the fallacious reasoning to be accurate, and in fact other than giving a pretty story you haven’t explained why the multiverse explanation is correct and not fallacious. But even if we grant Susskind’s theory that the constant expansion of a universe creates multiple universes, there is no reason at all to suppose that either the laws of physics or the 25 constants would change as new universes are generated. Thus, even granting the fallacious premise, the conclusion is demonstrably wrong.

Although we may be able to conceive of a universe in which life begins at the first instance, it does not at all follow that this is logically or actually possible. Indeed, given how finely tuned the universe is, it is possible that this is the best fine tuning in all possible worlds.

[Donerail]

1. Social and familial obligations and commitments
2. Belief that organized religion is a vital institution in society and worth participating in and strengthening
3. Opportunity to participate in the good work the church does
4. Forces me to spend a couple hours a week Offline
5. Nice music, pretty candles, lovely buildings, etc.

To the extent I buy into the existence of a higher power it flows from those factors