Thread 24508272 - /lit/ [Archived: 735 hours ago]

Anonymous
6/30/2025, 12:57:36 PM No.24508272
91zjozXE0yL
91zjozXE0yL
md5: 3933927e41291b3fdd40d4cbcd879f21🔍
Anyone read this? Whole premise is that since there is no way to be sure how the universe started out of nothing, how the physical constants been this fine-tuned to be life permitting, and how life on our planet started (thus work of intelligent design), we should take the simplest solution: god. How is this not appealing to the god of the gaps fallacy? Can we be certain that there will never be a NEW new theory of everything? I mean sure it makes everything easy and helps us to find purpose in life, but isn't it indifferent in the end? I'm not against any theory of there being a creator, but has it to be personal one? This book made me a deist, not an agnostic like I used to be.
Replies: >>24508427 >>24508649 >>24510527
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 1:07:38 PM No.24508285
New Proofs for the Existence of God
New Proofs for the Existence of God
md5: d0763c0210e233e3d7504d5de0e9945e🔍
I've read this. The first part details the extreme nature of the fine tuning problem in astrophysics and chemistry from within science. I can recommend it in particular, and the genre in general. Science communication handwaves over the problems of fine tuning, and you need either a radical skeptic or a theologian/believer to give it the exposition and critique it deserves.
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 1:18:17 PM No.24508303
bigbang_inflation
bigbang_inflation
md5: b668f8ef37cfbc7f4b39c4542b847ed5🔍
One of the worst fine tuning problems is cosmic inflation. In order for the big bang model to work (to solve the "horizon problem") it requires God/nature to have undergone an extreme deviation in expansion for the perfect fraction of a second, which was suddenly turned on, then suddenly turned off, and any deviation from that would have either caused the universe to near instantly collapse back in on itself under its own gravity, or caused matter to be so spread out that no stars or galaxies could ever form. But typical science communication presents it as just an event in the early universe, not an extreme moment of fine tuning where something turned the dials up and down to the perfect degree for the perfect minute duration, without which no star, let alone life, could exist.

And that's fine tuning after the big bang. Most fine tuning occurs in the extremely small constraints each physical constant requires in order for the possibility of atoms, chemistry, stars, and stellar nucleosynthesis to be possible.
Replies: >>24508615 >>24510481
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 2:48:39 PM No.24508427
>>24508272 (OP)
>how the physical constants been this fine-tuned to be life permitting
This seems completely arse-backwards. The universe wasn't tuned to permit life. Forms of life simply emerged that were adapted to the universe. Adaptation is what lifeforms do.
Replies: >>24508688
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 4:29:47 PM No.24508609
Universe didn't start out of nothing, Dunning Kruger.
Replies: >>24508688
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 4:32:06 PM No.24508615
>>24508303
Big bang model can easily work if you just concede that it's a result of whatevernova that's unimaginable to us, basically, a gigantic star not visible to us.
With this small assumption, Big Bang model has no gaps in logic, everything adds up.
Whether it is true is up to debate, but I digress. Multiverse theory is likely true too, if there's other lifeforms anywhere, they're so far that we cannot observe them, and we're so far that they cannot observe us. Essentially, we live in separate bubbles, parallel universes virtually isolated from one another. But only from simplistic point of view where observer is sentient.
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 4:50:08 PM No.24508649
9781350082861
9781350082861
md5: ef21b374b506fc3b43a83bb6ac5e6d5d🔍
>>24508272 (OP)
I'm familiar with this sort of argument but I think it's fairly unconvincing on its own. It's more convincing paired with the need for infinite being to ground intelligibility and to describe a truly self determining freedom. Pic related. Aquinas' five ways too.

Let me share a quote

By calling what we experience with our senses less real than the Forms, Plato is not saying that what we experience with our senses is simply illusion. The “reality” that the Forms have more of is not simply their not being illusions. If that’s not what their extra reality is, what is it? The easiest place to see how one could suppose that something that isn’t an illusion, is nevertheless less real than something else, is in our experience of ourselves.

In Republic book iv, Plato’s examination of the different "parts of the soul” leads him to the conclusion that only the rational part can integrate the soul into one, and thus make it truly “just.” Here is his description of the effect of a person’s being governed by his rational part, and therefore “just”:

Justice . . . is concerned with what is truly himself and his own. . . . [The person who is just] binds together [his] parts . . . and from having been many things he becomes entirely one, moderate, and harmonious. Only then does he act. (Republic 443d-e)

Our interest here (I’ll discuss the “justice” issue later) is that by “binding together his parts” and “becoming entirely one,” this person is “truly himself.” That is, as I put it in earlier chapters, a person who is governed by his rational part is real not merely as a collection of various ingredients or “parts,” but as himself. A person who acts purely out of appetite, without any examination of whether that appetite is for something that will actually be “good,” is enacting his appetite, rather than anything that can appropriately be called “himself.” Likewise for a person who acts purely out of anger, without examining whether the anger is justified by what’s genuinely good. Whereas a person who thinks about these issues before acting “becomes entirely one” and acts, therefore, in a way that expresses something that can appropriately be called “himself.”

In this way, rational self-governance brings into being an additional kind of reality, which we might describe as more fully real than what was there before, because it integrates those parts in a way that the parts themselves are not integrated. A person who acts “as one,” is more real as himself than a person who merely enacts some part or parts of himself. He is present and functioning as himself, rather than just as a collection of ingredients or inputs.
Replies: >>24508653
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 4:51:17 PM No.24508653
9781597312509
9781597312509
md5: ad992ee4ad11ac396c0b7e54d18eaf87🔍
>>24508649
We all from time to time experience periods of distraction, absence of mind, or depression, in which we aren’t fully present as ourselves. Considering these periods from a vantage point at which we are fully present and functioning as ourselves, we can see what Plato means by saying that some non-illusory things are more real than other non-illusory things. There are times when we ourselves are more real as ourselves than we are at other times.

Indeed, we can see nature as a whole as illustrating this issue of how fully integrated and “real as itself ” a being can be. Plants are more integrated than rocks, in that they’re able to process nutrients and reproduce themselves, and thus they’re less at the mercy of their environment. So we could say that plants are more effectively focused on being themselves than rocks are, and in that sense they’re more real as themselves. Rocks may be less vulnerable than plants are, but what’s the use of invulnerability if what’s invulnerable isn’t you?

Animals, in turn, are more integrated than plants are, in that animals’ senses allow them to learn about their environment and navigate through it in ways that plants can’t. So animals are still more effectively focused on being themselves than plants are, and thus more real as themselves.

Humans, in turn, can be more effectively focused on being themselves than many animals are, insofar as humans can determine for themselves what’s good, rather than having this be determined for them by their genetic heritage and their environment. Nutrition and reproduction, motility and sensation, and a thinking pursuit of the Good each bring into being a more intensive reality as oneself than is present without them.

Now, what all of this has to do with the Forms and their supposedly greater reality than our sense experience is that it’s by virtue of its pursuit of knowledge of what’s really good, that the rational part of the soul distinguishes itself from the soul’s appetites and anger and so forth. The Form of the Good is the embodiment of what’s really good. So pursuing knowledge of the Form of the Good is what enables the rational part of the soul to govern us, and thus makes us fully present, fully real, as ourselves. In this way, the Form of the Good is a precondition of our being fully real, as ourselves.

But presumably something that’s a precondition of our being fully real must be at least as real as we are when we are fully real. It’s at least as real as we are, because we can’t deny its reality without denying our own functioning as creatures who are guided by it or are trying to be guided by it.13 And since it’s at least as real as we are, it’s more (fully) real than the material things that aren’t guided by it and thus aren’t real as themselves.

Pic also relevant for an evolutionary account that builds on Hegel's insights on history.
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 5:01:28 PM No.24508688
>>24508427
Adaptation has to be at least possible, which it wouldn't be if some constants were tweaked just the slightest bit. Just Google the Fine Tuning Problem.

>>24508609
What did it start out of? Or is it eternal? Cosmology is undecided here; it is a very difficult question. What is the cause of existence and what is the cause of the particular quiddity of that which exists? Why is it one way and not any other?
Replies: >>24508694
Anonymous
6/30/2025, 5:04:13 PM No.24508694
>>24508688
First, prove that it started at all, then we can hypothesize how it may have.
Replies: >>24510428
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 4:28:07 AM No.24510428
>>24508694
idk much, my first experience with metaphysical stuff was thinking on the "camel and eye of the needle" parable mostly because of the era we're in. My thought was that it wasn't impossible, break down the camel to it's smallest diminutive parts and it will pass through the eye. First the conviction, then subject(s), then experiment, and lastly goal attainment. Metaphysically speaking, these are the steps God from the bible takes. Would mankind have figured this out themselves, idk, but underlying philosophical theories, sometimes even blueprints, can be deduced from corner of the eye glances at ground we've already treaded.
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 4:33:18 AM No.24510443
Anyone who asks the question "What caused time to begin?" doesn't understand how words work.
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 4:48:34 AM No.24510481
>>24508303
reminds me of phrase from Hawking's A Brief History of Time: "...if God will allow us."
Replies: >>24510495 >>24510505
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 4:53:25 AM No.24510495
>>24510481
>cont'd
If we follow Hawking and his trained mind's work, yeah, he declared certain things about God and nature. But, my thinking is he was doing this not to be dogmatic, but, display earnest respect for the things he experienced and discovered - basically saying to the world it's in your hands now, I'm going to the other side and seeing it for myself.
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 4:58:19 AM No.24510505
>>24510481
just did an AI search for the phrase, guess the pubs. removed it - read my copy in the 90's - sorry bout the luck.
Anonymous
7/1/2025, 5:12:45 AM No.24510527
>>24508272 (OP)
Fine tuning problem doesn't sound like an issue to me. Once you realise just how random and chaotic regular human life is, the coincidence of the world being find tuned to allow life on earth is not that far fetched. I don't see any purpose behind it just because it happened