Thread 16834918

>the formation of matter, stars, planets, chemistry and life would be impossible without a slew of arbitrary physical constants that all happen to fall within an extremely narrow range of values where it all works out
>materialists cope by invoking a jillion multiverse schizo theory and anthropic principle
lmao

sex with rinoa

The omniverse could be an infinitely large stochastic abstract object and we happen to be in a part of that omniverse which has laws which support organic life.

>>16835206
>we happen to be in a part of that omniverse which has laws which support organic life
dumb people don't even realise that we literally cannot exist in an environment which doesn't support organic life

humans shouldn't be surprised that they happen to exist in an environment that happens to allow the existence of humans

>>16834918 (OP)
https://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=24m50s

The problem I have with the fine tune argument is that who is the tuner? If it's a simulation then that just kicks the can back, and if it's God, what is God? Some primordial consciousness/will that somehow can bring existence into being? It honestly leaves more questions than it answers. Although I still think fine tuning is the best argument for God by far.

Any way you slice it, existence seems arbitrary, nothing should be the default. Unless everything exists, but everything is a poorly defined concept.

So for now I'll just go with brute fact.

>>16834918 (OP)
>arbitrary physical constants
I agree that mutliverses, anthropic principle etc are rather SUSSY. However, we don't really know that these constants are arbitrary. It could be that there's a golden GUT that can only be exactly like this. Or there could be multiverses or whatever. It's all speculation at this point.

>>16835347
Dark pascal's wager

God is real but hes a trickster and is actually going to torture the ones who worship him and reward those who doubted his existence

>>16834918 (OP)
You say that like its not a total own-goal to think that the fine tuned argument is a better one "just because" than the multiverse+anthropic principle idea. I understand that it's turtles all the way down, but your argument is "my caveman brain likes feeling special" and immediately stops asking questions, whereas the counterargument attempts to reason about the perceived strangeness logically.
Yes it's absurd, but absurdity is a concept invented by our narrow human perspectives.
Logic holds up in nature far far beyond what we "feel" is sensible. So we use the tool that keeps working.

This isn't to say that anyone knows. It's just a literal exercise in "taking the idea to its logical conclusion". To stop at fine tuned is to not take it all the way. But I bet it feels good if you're a midwit.