>>16545452ç
>1,2 Because its part of the causal chain
And God isn't despite that he caused everything? Can you explain how that's not the stupidest thing I've read in months???

>3. Ok so you have no argument.
I have no proof that the universe is necessary, and I don't believe it. You believe the universe is contingent. Do you have proof? No. You just want to believe it because it's convenient to you. I prefer to say "I don't know" like a grownup.

>At least I can common sensibly look at the fundamental laws of physics plus the physical constants and see that they need not be what they are.
And you derive that from??? Constants with random-looking values appear all over the place in math, yet they necessarily derive from the rules of logic...

>You’re the one saying I’M presupposing conditions according to wishful thinking?
Yes. You're presupposing that the universe was necessarily caused with an intrinsic goal by a magic Jew in the sky with narcissistic personality disorder.

>4. I think there is good reason to be a Platonist about abstracta, I would be a Platonist even if I were an atheist.
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You gave me an argument based on the assumption that all nonempty, totally ordered sets have a maximum, I asked you whether you would immediately admit you're wrong if I showed you one counterexample, and you made it clear you wouldn't. You are not arguing in good faith at all, like every single Christian apologist I've ever interacted with.

>5. I accept the fifth because it makes much more probabilistic sense that the 26 constants are ordered towards a livable universe rather than the chance we arrived in this configuration by chaos.
First, this has nothing to do with teleology. Second, show me the p-value. What's that? You didn't calculate it? You preferred to just accept it because it fits your preexisting beliefs?

Back | Go to board

Board:

/his/

Thread:

I have never heard a single good argument for not believing in God, if the evidence is tied either way.