I have gone out of my way to be as civil as possible. I accept that my social skills may not be perfect, but some benefit of the doubt should be given on both sides. I am kind of upset at the moment because I thought that this was a forum that entertained real debate and not just rubber stamped positions of the leader.
My evidence of the Ayn-rand-like cultiness is that I got booted from chat. I cannot reproduce my last comments in chat, but I am sure SM could if he was so inclined. He apparently (and please correct me if I am wrong SM) took exeption to my stamement that the universe could have a purpose or even been designed for a purpose. He seems to be claiming that this is not true by definition, which is no real answer. It is just defining the problem away.
I was tag-teamed by everyone in chat and treated very hostilly for reasons that are not clear. It reminded me of the treatment I (and probably you) recieve almost every time I talk to a statist about taxes.
Certainly something (like the universe) can have a purpose without having consciousness. It could have been designed by something conscious for a specific use or it could have come into existence through chance and be used for a purpose that came later, like a rock that is used for a hammer by a cave-man. It could also just be a rock that sits there being rocky (the atheist position). That is a valid possibility, but not one that I can see is obviously more valid than mine.
The anthropic principle does not explain the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. The requirement of the precise ratios in the physical constants in order for ANY universe that is capable of suporting life to form, that requirement and the fact that our universe meets it demands an explanation. The explanation may be multple universes. It might mean some kind of conscious creator. it might mean something else we haven't thought of yet.
I am again sorry If I appear rude or insensitive, but if I am wrong, you will need to show me the flaw in my reasoning and not just boot me from the conversation because you don't like my conclusions.
I don't think Stefan understands my viewpoint enough to disagree with it. He booted me before I could explain it better, something I fully admit I need to do and intend to do if I get the chance.
I do believe I understand Stef's argument. I will restate it and please correct me if I am wrong:
The universe contains all that exists.
God exists outside the universe.
Therefor God doesn't exists.
My answer is that the universe does not contain all that exists. The first premise is incorrect. A more accurate premise is that he universe contains all that is observable.
We know there are things that are not observable but that exist because we see the effects of such things. gravity. electromagnetism. the strong and weak nuclear forces. Possibly dark matter. Whatever caused the big bang is unobservable. That cause could have been conscious. That cause could have been random chance in one of many, many like singularities. The problem is that we don't know if there were ANY more like singularities, so unitl we do, multiple universes and a creator are equally plausible.
We may never know the answer because anything extra-universal is by definition unobservable. Where do quantum fluctuations come from? it's unknowable as far as I understand the phenomenon. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I predict this will next decend into an argument of semantics for instance over what the word "exist" means. Fine. I am a guest here so I will let SM define the terms if they are used consistently. but even though I agree with Stef that is a sense governments don't "exist," in another sense they do or we wouldn't be arguing about them. Math doesn't physically "exist" but it is extremely useful nonetheless.