Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

User talk:Arensb

2011-11-26T22:39:12Z

Bob M: /* Miracles and wiki links */

By the way, have I met you? I'm assuming you're a Non-Prophets listener, do you show up in the chat room? Great job on your contributions so far, by the way. -- [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:30, 18 July 2006 (MST)
: I doubt it. I've never been to Austin (though if I'm ever there, I'd love to stop by Threadgill's and meet y'all). I ran across the Non-Prophets and Atheist Experience podcasts by chance while looking for something to listen to while doing yard work.
: And no, I haven't contributed to the chat room. They tend to turn into major time sinks, unfortunately. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:41, 18 July 2006 (MST)

== Famous atheists link fix ==

Thanks for catching the redlink I caused on the Main Page when I deleted the "Famous atheists" category. I recategorized the relevant articles but forgot to check "What links here". (I didn't think there was a good reason to have a separate category for "famous" atheists since if an atheist isn't famous in some sense, they really wouldn't warrant an article here.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 00:00, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

: Nae problem. I figured that was what had happened. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 08:29, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

== Status and admin stuff ==

I've upgraded your permissions to sysop and bureaucrat. It seemed reasonable, but let me know if there's a problem with that. Also - drop me an e-mail when you can[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 13:03, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

== Sysop ==

Welcome to The Inner Circle. <g> I see Matt has made you a sysop. I've added an entry to [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Administrators]] for you. You can describe yourself briefly there, if you wish. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:33, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

== One syllable? ==

Regarding the pronunciation of your name, how do you make it one syllable? I would have thought "Eh-rensb" (hence, two syllables). What is the appropriate vowel sound? So it rhymes with "farms" or "cairns"? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:44, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
: Gah. You're right. (Counting syllables is easy in Russian and French; it's much harder in English.)
: As for the initial A, the easy answer is that I don't really care as long as you get all the letters in the right order. The fuller answer is that in English I pronounce it as in "air" or "cairns", and in other languages I pronounce it as in "father".
: Hopefully this brings some much-needed confusion to this issue. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 23:06, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

== Category sortkey question ==

You asked about [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Religion&diff=6179&oldid=5458 my categorization] of [[Religion]] using the "*" sortkey. It is [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categorization#Priority sort keys|customary on Wikipedia]] to force articles having the same name as a category to be listed first among articles in that category. The "*" sortkey does this (as does a sortkey starting with a space, which some people prefer). I've just carried that convention over to this wiki. We don't have to do it that way, if you want to lobby for a different style. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:40, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
: Thanks. I suspected as much, but wanted to check. I'm not as well-versed in either MediaWiki or Wikipedia lore as I'd like to be. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:52, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

== More categorization issues ==

I don't agree with [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson&diff=prev&oldid=6193 your decision to remove] [[:Category:People]] from articles already in one of its subcats, such as [[:Category:Atheists]]. I know there is a big push on Wikipedia to avoid categorization into "adjacent" categories (i.e., a category and its immediate parent), but if a reader doesn't already know whether a given person is an atheist, they will have a harder time finding the article for that person using our category structure. Besides, keeping atheists separate from everyone else just don't feel right.... OTOH, thanks for adding the last-name sortkeys. BTW, did you notice [[#Sysop|my other comment above]]? You haven't edited [[Project:Administrators]], so I wasn't sure. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:46, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
: I figured the whole reason for having categories within categories was to put articles in the most specific categories. You're right that there's a certain logic in putting articles in both a generic and a specific category, but there ought to be some guidelines as to how to do it: Douglas Adams goes in [[:Category:Atheists]] because he's an atheist, and you could argue that he goes in [[:Category:People]] because he's a celebrity. But what about Richard Dawkins, who is well-known for being an atheist?
: I suppose the guiding principle should be to put articles in those categories where they'll do the most good, but I don't know how to turn that into a set of editorial do's and don'ts.
: Oh, and I haven't updated my line in [[Project:Administrators]] because I haven't come up with a pithy one-liner with which to summarize the totality of my life and relevant experience.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:01, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

We can discuss this at [[Project talk:Categorization]] if you think other people should weigh in on this issue. (Which reminds me... it's still hard to get the attention of a lot of editors at once, since the wiki is relatively low-traffic, and discussion of the wiki as a whole has been going on mostly off-wiki, in [http://forum.ironchariots.org/ the forum(s)]. In particular, see [http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewtopic.php?t=618 this post of mine].) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:59, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
: One of these days, I should probably sign up for the forum. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:01, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

== What is you policy about imports ==
: Unable to spell "your". Ten points from Gryffindor. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:27, 9 February 2009 (CST)

The Wikipedia article on Human sacrifice was referenced.[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 06:44, 9 February 2009 (CST)

I don't know that Iron Chariots has a formal policy on this sort of thing, but if there were, I'd recommend that it be against importing articles wholesale from other sites, particularly Wikipedia:
# There's already a [[Template:Wikipedia]] that can be used to point the reader there.
# Any imported articles will quickly become out of date as articles on Wikipedia are updated and their local copies aren't.
# As you may have noticed, pages don't necessarily import cleanly: the text you imported was chock full of dead links, with templates and categories that don't exist here and likely never will.
# Since this is a specialized wiki and not a general reference work, it's better to concentrate on the atheism aspect of topics covered here.

--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:27, 9 February 2009 (CST)

:: See [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines#General guidelines]] for our "policy" about copying Wikipedia articles over to this wiki. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:57, 26 March 2009 (CDT)

Arensb, there seems to be issues that organizers of this site have not cleared out yet. ''Arguments, and syllogisms particularly, are not owned by their authors''; however, the articles ''explaining the arguments'' are rightly owned. It is ''not plagiarism'' if one imports a syllogism or formal argument from another site.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 10:10, 24 June 2010 (CDT)

== Wiki's recent changes log... ==

The wiki's clock seems to be off by more than a week.... The history pages are showing the wrong dates. [[User:Jwissick|Jwissick]] 00:01, 7 April 2010 (CDT)

In fact if you check the history of this page, you will see that this comment was left on March 25, even though today is April 6th. [[User:Jwissick|Jwissick]] 00:02, 7 April 2010 (CDT)

==Spam==
Blocking spambots is usually a waste of time, they create new accounts easily and rarely or never come twice. Blocking human spammers can work, depends if they have a static or dynamic IP adress. The best protection against spambots is a [[Wikipedia:CAPTCHA|CAPTCHA]], [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 08:52, 27 October 2011 (CDT)

: Yeah, I know. But I don't have privileges to install MediaWiki modules or change the wiki's configuration. For that, you'd have to talk to one of the Real Admins™. [[User:Sans_Deity]] or [[User:Kazim]] might be able to point you in the right direction.
: Deleting spam and banning accounts used to spam is about as far as my superpowers go. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:41, 27 October 2011 (CDT)

Thanks for helping again with spam, I think it helps discourage spammers if they see that more than one admin is active. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:19, 9 November 2011 (CST)

Thasnks yet again, I went out and enjoyed myself offline but I kept thinking, "There'll be a mountain of spam to clear when I get back." Now there isn't. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:49, 12 November 2011 (CST)

I've lost Internet access at home so I can't help with spam very much for the moment, sorry. I'll check the sites where I'm an administrator from time to time from public computers Engineers are due next week to look at my Internet connection. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 08:17, 18 November 2011 (CST)

==Miracles and wiki links==
Hi Arensb. I see that you deleted the redirect I created from [[Miracles]] with the comment "Just use miracles", which I'm afraid I don't quite understand. I believe it is common policy on most wikis to create articles in the singular and then create redirects in the plural. I understand that to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects wikipedia policy]. It's certainly much easier to create wiki links where the linking "from" article has the plural form as first usage.

Consider this page [[Miracles in history]] which pretty obviously needs a link to "miracle". The first use of the word is the plural "miracles". If there is a redirect then it can be linked as <nowiki>[[miracles]]</nowiki> but if the redirect is not allowed the then the redirect has to be either <nowiki>[[miracle]]</nowiki>s or, even worse, <nowiki>[[miracle miracles]] - both of which are more difficult than if the redirect were in place.

Furthermore the redirect means that a search on "miracles" will go direct to "miracle".

I'm not trying to pick a fight over this I'm just wondering if you could explain your decision. Cheers. --~~~~</nowiki>

: Sorry about the changelog. It should have read "Just use <nowiki>[[Miracle]]s</nowiki>". It seems like an unnecessary redirect, given that you can put the "s" outside of the brackets. It's just cleaner that way, and the [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Iron_Chariots_Wiki:Editing_guidelines#Links style guidelines] list that as good usage. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:32, 25 November 2011 (CST)
::Hi Arensb. :-) OK, but:
::#The style guide doesn't relay explicitly say that you can't create redirects in such cases, rather it tells you how to link if there is no redirect.
::#If the style guide really says that you shouldn't create redirects in such cases then it is badly worded.
::#The style guide also says: ''"if this is a "redlink" → <nowiki>[[apologist]]</nowiki> create a page there with this content → <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Apologetics]] </nowiki>"''
::#The Wikipdia folks have thought about these things long and hard and their solution is plurals for redirects.
::#If you go to a page with things which look like they should be linked you can just highlight the word and click on the "AB" tab at the top of the page. This automatically adds the square brackets. This is a lot easier than it is to manually enter four square brackets while carefully ensuring that the last two are between the root word and the final "s".
::But if you still feel that this isn't permitted by the guidelines then I'll take it up at the style guidelines page. Again, I'm not looking for an argument, but this wiki is short of internal links and I was setting about creating them (check my contributions) and redirects are a lot more efficient than having to mess about with individual wiki-code for each one.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 11:59, 25 November 2011 (CST)
:::Hi. Can I take your silence as implicit agreement? I ask because I'd like to continue adding links but before doing so I would like conformation that this wiki is going to follow standard internal wiki-linking conventions. Thanks. --[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 11:47, 26 November 2011 (CST)

There is a problem that administrators spend too little time at this wiki. I did a lot of work, then got into trouble because this wiki wants a more polite approach than I was using. It would have been much better if the admins had said something tactful to me earlier on. Later I got into trouble because I called another user a troll '''after''' that user had had accused me of trolling, see [[Iron Chariots Wiki talk:Editing guidelines#Kazim's response]]. Presumably administrators had insufficient time to read that I was responding to someone else’s accusation. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:25, 26 November 2011 (CST)
:Hi Proxima. To be honest I don't really want to get involved in any other disputes you may be having as - and I hope you will pardon my saying this - you do have a tendency to get involved in misunderstandings.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 16:39, 26 November 2011 (CST)

User talk:Arensb

2011-11-26T17:47:04Z

Bob M: /* Miracles and wiki links */

User talk:Arensb

2011-11-25T17:59:18Z

Bob M: /* Miracles and wiki links */ sorry, but I'm still not convinced

User talk:Arensb

2011-11-25T16:07:43Z

Bob M: /* Miracles and wiki links */ better link

User talk:Arensb

2011-11-25T15:56:23Z

Bob M: Miracles and wiki links

By the way, have I met you? I'm assuming you're a Non-Prophets listener, do you show up in the chat room? Great job on your contributions so far, by the way. -- [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:30, 18 July 2006 (MST)
: I doubt it. I've never been to Austin (though if I'm ever there, I'd love to stop by Threadgill's and meet y'all). I ran across the Non-Prophets and Atheist Experience podcasts by chance while looking for something to listen to while doing yard work.
: And no, I haven't contributed to the chat room. They tend to turn into major time sinks, unfortunately. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:41, 18 July 2006 (MST)

== Famous atheists link fix ==

Thanks for catching the redlink I caused on the Main Page when I deleted the "Famous atheists" category. I recategorized the relevant articles but forgot to check "What links here". (I didn't think there was a good reason to have a separate category for "famous" atheists since if an atheist isn't famous in some sense, they really wouldn't warrant an article here.) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 00:00, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

: Nae problem. I figured that was what had happened. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 08:29, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

== Status and admin stuff ==

I've upgraded your permissions to sysop and bureaucrat. It seemed reasonable, but let me know if there's a problem with that. Also - drop me an e-mail when you can[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 13:03, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

== Sysop ==

Welcome to The Inner Circle. <g> I see Matt has made you a sysop. I've added an entry to [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Administrators]] for you. You can describe yourself briefly there, if you wish. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:33, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

== One syllable? ==

Regarding the pronunciation of your name, how do you make it one syllable? I would have thought "Eh-rensb" (hence, two syllables). What is the appropriate vowel sound? So it rhymes with "farms" or "cairns"? - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:44, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
: Gah. You're right. (Counting syllables is easy in Russian and French; it's much harder in English.)
: As for the initial A, the easy answer is that I don't really care as long as you get all the letters in the right order. The fuller answer is that in English I pronounce it as in "air" or "cairns", and in other languages I pronounce it as in "father".
: Hopefully this brings some much-needed confusion to this issue. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 23:06, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

== Category sortkey question ==

You asked about [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Religion&diff=6179&oldid=5458 my categorization] of [[Religion]] using the "*" sortkey. It is [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Categorization#Priority sort keys|customary on Wikipedia]] to force articles having the same name as a category to be listed first among articles in that category. The "*" sortkey does this (as does a sortkey starting with a space, which some people prefer). I've just carried that convention over to this wiki. We don't have to do it that way, if you want to lobby for a different style. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 17:40, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
: Thanks. I suspected as much, but wanted to check. I'm not as well-versed in either MediaWiki or Wikipedia lore as I'd like to be. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:52, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

== More categorization issues ==

I don't agree with [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Thomas_Jefferson&diff=prev&oldid=6193 your decision to remove] [[:Category:People]] from articles already in one of its subcats, such as [[:Category:Atheists]]. I know there is a big push on Wikipedia to avoid categorization into "adjacent" categories (i.e., a category and its immediate parent), but if a reader doesn't already know whether a given person is an atheist, they will have a harder time finding the article for that person using our category structure. Besides, keeping atheists separate from everyone else just don't feel right.... OTOH, thanks for adding the last-name sortkeys. BTW, did you notice [[#Sysop|my other comment above]]? You haven't edited [[Project:Administrators]], so I wasn't sure. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:46, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
: I figured the whole reason for having categories within categories was to put articles in the most specific categories. You're right that there's a certain logic in putting articles in both a generic and a specific category, but there ought to be some guidelines as to how to do it: Douglas Adams goes in [[:Category:Atheists]] because he's an atheist, and you could argue that he goes in [[:Category:People]] because he's a celebrity. But what about Richard Dawkins, who is well-known for being an atheist?
: I suppose the guiding principle should be to put articles in those categories where they'll do the most good, but I don't know how to turn that into a set of editorial do's and don'ts.
: Oh, and I haven't updated my line in [[Project:Administrators]] because I haven't come up with a pithy one-liner with which to summarize the totality of my life and relevant experience.
: --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:01, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

We can discuss this at [[Project talk:Categorization]] if you think other people should weigh in on this issue. (Which reminds me... it's still hard to get the attention of a lot of editors at once, since the wiki is relatively low-traffic, and discussion of the wiki as a whole has been going on mostly off-wiki, in [http://forum.ironchariots.org/ the forum(s)]. In particular, see [http://forum.ironchariots.org/viewtopic.php?t=618 this post of mine].) - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 14:59, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
: One of these days, I should probably sign up for the forum. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 17:01, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

== What is you policy about imports ==
: Unable to spell "your". Ten points from Gryffindor. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:27, 9 February 2009 (CST)

The Wikipedia article on Human sacrifice was referenced.[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 06:44, 9 February 2009 (CST)

I don't know that Iron Chariots has a formal policy on this sort of thing, but if there were, I'd recommend that it be against importing articles wholesale from other sites, particularly Wikipedia:
# There's already a [[Template:Wikipedia]] that can be used to point the reader there.
# Any imported articles will quickly become out of date as articles on Wikipedia are updated and their local copies aren't.
# As you may have noticed, pages don't necessarily import cleanly: the text you imported was chock full of dead links, with templates and categories that don't exist here and likely never will.
# Since this is a specialized wiki and not a general reference work, it's better to concentrate on the atheism aspect of topics covered here.

--[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:27, 9 February 2009 (CST)

:: See [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Editing guidelines#General guidelines]] for our "policy" about copying Wikipedia articles over to this wiki. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:57, 26 March 2009 (CDT)

Arensb, there seems to be issues that organizers of this site have not cleared out yet. ''Arguments, and syllogisms particularly, are not owned by their authors''; however, the articles ''explaining the arguments'' are rightly owned. It is ''not plagiarism'' if one imports a syllogism or formal argument from another site.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 10:10, 24 June 2010 (CDT)

== Wiki's recent changes log... ==

The wiki's clock seems to be off by more than a week.... The history pages are showing the wrong dates. [[User:Jwissick|Jwissick]] 00:01, 7 April 2010 (CDT)

In fact if you check the history of this page, you will see that this comment was left on March 25, even though today is April 6th. [[User:Jwissick|Jwissick]] 00:02, 7 April 2010 (CDT)

==Spam==
Blocking spambots is usually a waste of time, they create new accounts easily and rarely or never come twice. Blocking human spammers can work, depends if they have a static or dynamic IP adress. The best protection against spambots is a [[Wikipedia:CAPTCHA|CAPTCHA]], [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 08:52, 27 October 2011 (CDT)

: Yeah, I know. But I don't have privileges to install MediaWiki modules or change the wiki's configuration. For that, you'd have to talk to one of the Real Admins™. [[User:Sans_Deity]] or [[User:Kazim]] might be able to point you in the right direction.
: Deleting spam and banning accounts used to spam is about as far as my superpowers go. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:41, 27 October 2011 (CDT)

Thanks for helping again with spam, I think it helps discourage spammers if they see that more than one admin is active. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:19, 9 November 2011 (CST)

Thasnks yet again, I went out and enjoyed myself offline but I kept thinking, "There'll be a mountain of spam to clear when I get back." Now there isn't. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:49, 12 November 2011 (CST)

I've lost Internet access at home so I can't help with spam very much for the moment, sorry. I'll check the sites where I'm an administrator from time to time from public computers Engineers are due next week to look at my Internet connection. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 08:17, 18 November 2011 (CST)

==Miracles and wiki links==
Hi Arensb. I see that you deleted the redirect I created from [[Miracles]] with the comment "Just use miracles", which I'm afraid I don't quite understand. I believe it is common policy on most wikis to create articles in the singular and then create redirects in the plural. I understand that to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons_for_deleting wikipedia policy]. It's certainly much easier to create wiki links where the linking "from" article has the plural form as first usage.

Consider this page [[Miracles in history]] which pretty obviously needs a link to "miracle". The first use of the word is the plural "miracles". If there is a redirect then it can be linked as <nowiki>[[miracles]]</nowiki> but if the redirect is not allowed the then the redirect has to be either <nowiki>[[miracle]]</nowiki>s or, even worse, <nowiki>[[miracle miracles]] - both of which are more difficult than if the redirect were in place.

Furthermore the redirect means that a search on "miracles" will go direct to "miracle".

I'm not trying to pick a fight over this I'm just wondering if you could explain your decision. Cheers. --~~~~</nowiki>

Supernatural

2011-11-24T18:24:10Z

Bob M: /* Responses */ links cop ed

'''Supernatural''' (and/or '''paranormal''') typically refers to phenomena which are not bound to [[Naturalism|natural laws]] or [[observable|observability]]. Because of this, [[science]] cannot and does not attempt to explain these phenomena, as they are [[testable|untestable]] and cannot be substantiated with empirical [[evidence]]. When asked for evidence to substantiate their claims, believers in supernatural phenomena usually offer hearsay or personal anecdotes.

==Examples==
*[[God]]/god/gods
*[[Ghost]]s
*[[Prayer]]
*[[ESP | Extra sensory perception]]
*[[Divining]]
*[[Magic]]
*[[Miracles]]

==Responses==
Throughout human history, there have been many claims of supernatural events or supernatural abilities. None of these claims have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, many of these claims are mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of [[paranormal]] activity will usually not believe in others. Thus, a devoutly [[religious]] person may regard ESP or [[witchcraft]] as nonsense. It can be very useful to apply the [[outsider test]] when debating against a specific supernatural claim: if your opponent can understand why they don't believe competing supernatural claims with similar evidence, they can better question their own beliefs.

Frequently claims are shown to be hoaxes and are debunked ([[James Randi]] exposing [[Uri Geller]] is an example[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo]).

In other cases, claims are simply not [[falsifiable]], and testing them is consequently not possible. For example, prayer. If one prays for X, and X happens, this can be attributed to whatever figure was prayed to. However, if X does not happen, it is often rationalized by stating "it wasn't ready to happen yet", or "this means I'm focused incorrectly, and don't need it."

With these rationalizations, prayer is not falsifiable, and becomes indistinguishable from coincidence or chance. Frequently, one can replace the figure prayed to with any other thing (for example, a brick or carton of milk [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI]), and the "argument" for prayer now "demonstrates" a completely different thing.

[[Category:Metaphysics]]

Supernatural

2011-11-24T18:19:32Z

Bob M: /* Examples */ fix link

'''Supernatural''' (and/or '''paranormal''') typically refers to phenomena which are not bound to [[Naturalism|natural laws]] or [[observable|observability]]. Because of this, [[science]] cannot and does not attempt to explain these phenomena, as they are [[testable|untestable]] and cannot be substantiated with empirical [[evidence]]. When asked for evidence to substantiate their claims, believers in supernatural phenomena usually offer hearsay or personal anecdotes.

==Examples==
*[[God]]/god/gods
*[[Ghost]]s
*[[Prayer]]
*[[ESP | Extra sensory perception]]
*[[Divining]]
*[[Magic]]
*[[Miracles]]

==Responses==
Throughout human history, there have been many claims of supernatural events or supernatural abilities. None of these claims have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, many of these claims are mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of paranormal activity will usually not believe in others. Thus, a devoutly religious person may regard ESP or witchcraft as nonsense. It can be very useful to apply the [[outsider test]] when debating against a specific supernatural claim: if your opponent can understand why they don't believe competing supernatural claims with similar evidence, they can better question their own beliefs.

Often times, claims are hoaxes, and are debunked ([[James Randi]] exposing [[Uri Geller]], for example[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo]).

In other cases, claims are simply not [[falsifiable]], and testing them has no purpose. For example, prayer. If one prays for X, and X happens, they can attribute this to whatever figure they prayed to. However, if X does not happen, it is often rationalized by stating "it wasn't ready to happen yet" or "this means I'm focused incorrectly, and don't need it." With these rationalizations, prayer is not falsifiable, and becomes indistinguishable from coincidence or chance. Often times, one can replace the figure they prayed to with any other thing (for example, a brick or carton of milk [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI]), and the "argument" for prayer now "demonstrates" a completely different thing.

[[Category:Metaphysics]]

Supernatural

2011-11-24T18:18:14Z

Bob M: /* Examples */ add

'''Supernatural''' (and/or '''paranormal''') typically refers to phenomena which are not bound to [[Naturalism|natural laws]] or [[observable|observability]]. Because of this, [[science]] cannot and does not attempt to explain these phenomena, as they are [[testable|untestable]] and cannot be substantiated with empirical [[evidence]]. When asked for evidence to substantiate their claims, believers in supernatural phenomena usually offer hearsay or personal anecdotes.

==Examples==
*[[God]]/god/gods
*[[Ghost]]s
*[[Prayer]]
*[[Extra sensory perception|ESP]]
*[[Divining]]
*[[Magic]]
*[[Miracles]]

==Responses==
Throughout human history, there have been many claims of supernatural events or supernatural abilities. None of these claims have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, many of these claims are mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of paranormal activity will usually not believe in others. Thus, a devoutly religious person may regard ESP or witchcraft as nonsense. It can be very useful to apply the [[outsider test]] when debating against a specific supernatural claim: if your opponent can understand why they don't believe competing supernatural claims with similar evidence, they can better question their own beliefs.

Often times, claims are hoaxes, and are debunked ([[James Randi]] exposing [[Uri Geller]], for example[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo]).

In other cases, claims are simply not [[falsifiable]], and testing them has no purpose. For example, prayer. If one prays for X, and X happens, they can attribute this to whatever figure they prayed to. However, if X does not happen, it is often rationalized by stating "it wasn't ready to happen yet" or "this means I'm focused incorrectly, and don't need it." With these rationalizations, prayer is not falsifiable, and becomes indistinguishable from coincidence or chance. Often times, one can replace the figure they prayed to with any other thing (for example, a brick or carton of milk [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI]), and the "argument" for prayer now "demonstrates" a completely different thing.

[[Category:Metaphysics]]

Talk:Stem cell research

2011-11-24T18:16:06Z

Bob M: Is the tone of this article correct? Should it exist?

I've made some edits to this article but I'm not at all sure that the "tone" is right.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 12:16, 24 November 2011 (CST)

Stem cell research

2011-11-24T18:14:57Z

Bob M: Some edits but ...

'''Stem cell research''' offers the hope of curing many serious diseases including Parkinson's but some types of stem cell research are dependent on cells obtained from human embryos. Some [[Christians]] tend to think that a ball of cells without feelings counts for more than a suffering human being.

Under George W. Bush stem cell research got no public funding in the United States. The main effect of the ban was that in this one area other nations were getting ahead of the United States. President Obama reversed the ban and the United States is now working hard to catch up with those other countries. They call it making up for lost time.

It has been reported that stem cells can be harvested from the umbilical of a newborn after detachment from infant and placenta, making stem cell research possible without requiring harvesting from aborted fetuses none the less, some religious groups still insist that this is shockingly immoral. Why?

==External links==
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/embryos-and-stem-cells Embryos and stem cells]

[[Category:Science]]

Faith healer

2011-11-24T17:52:28Z

Bob M: redirect

#REDIRECT [[Faith healing]]

Supernaturally

2011-11-24T17:51:42Z

Bob M: redirect

#REDIRECT [[Supernatural]]

Miracle

2011-11-24T17:51:13Z

Bob M: internal links

A '''miracle''' is anything unexplainable which seems to defy the laws of [[physics]], [[natural | nature]], or [[logic]] in order to achieve an end, usually something very [[good]] or mystifying.

The more common definition of "miracle" is much looser than the technical definition. In the common definition a miracle is anything that causes wonder or amazement, even if it's completely explainable. For example, here's a comparison between the two definitions:

*''Technical:'' "I was walking down the street and an iron girder suspended above a construction site fell as I was walking underneath. Just as it was about to hit me it suddenly flew to the left and landed in the middle of the street, completely missing me and everyone else there! [[God]] was watching out for me."
*''Common:'' "My son was just born this morning. He has the most beautiful eyes in the world. Childbirth is such a miracle!"

Some [[Christian]]s have a skewed and often disturbing view of what a miracle is. To them, a miracle is something which spares them pain or hardship, even if it deals out said pain or hardship on someone else. For example, a Christian man is driving down the street when a car comes out of nowhere and hits him. Both cars are totaled and everyone dies except him. Later on, when he's interviewed by the local news station he claims that God was watching out for him ([[Argument from incomplete devastation]]). Obviously this is total bunk. The Christian God is said to be [[omnipotence|omnipotent]] and [[omniscience|omniscient]], thus he knew the accident would happen, he knew how to save everyone, and he was able to. Why he didn't is anyone's guess. In any case, the fact that one man survived doesn't mean that he owes his continued existence to God. This is also a good example of the [[problem of evil]].

==Common miracles==

In his book, ''[[Unweaving the Rainbow]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] coined a term to deal with "miracles" that merely turn out to be coincidental in nature: [[PETWHAC]], or "Population of Events That Would Have Appeared Coincidental". Dawkins points out that many mundane events occur every single day to every person on the planet, and the human mind has a great capacity to identify patterns where none exist. Dawkins explains that there is a space of events with perfectly normal probability, which could be interpreted as "miraculous" by people who have that sort of mindset.

For instance, suppose that you are thinking about a friend, and that friend just happens to call you. Is this event [[supernatural]] in nature? Extremely doubtful. People think about others all the time, and they also call each other all the time. Given enough time, there is a virtual guarantee that a coincidence of this nature will occur.

Another interesting point to think of is what if someone is out for a jog one day and suddenly drops dead right then and there, should that also be considered a "miracle"? Arbitrarily defining miracle as something beneficial that makes one feel good does nothing to support the case of miracles. The difference is when something terrible happens - people try to find a rational explanation for said occurrence. When they cannot find an explanation (typically due to lack of technology to do so) they simply say, "Oh, that's a tragedy.." Yet why do they not consider this event a miracle?

Calling something unexpected and unexplained a "miracle" is merely wishful thinking.

==Historical miracles==
''Main article: [[Miracles in history]]''

Miracle claims in the distant past, especially the alleged [[resurrection]] of [[Jesus]], play a major role in some varieties of [[Christian]] [[apologetics]]. The reasons to doubt such claims are many, including the common sense observation that most people would be [[skeptical]] of miracles outside their religion, the importance of observed regularities in historical research, and empirical considerations such as the lack of modern miracles.

==Faith healing==
''Main article: [[Faith healing]]''

In modern times, many Christian [[Evangelism | evangelists]] have claimed the ability to [[supernaturally]] heal diseases. Some Christians have cited them as powerful [[Arguments for the existence of god | evidence for the existence of God]] and the truth of Christianity. However, investigations of [[faith healers]] by men such as doctor William Nolen and magician [[James Randi]] have failed to find any [[evidence]] of actual miracles, and have turned up much evidence of fraud or, at best, self-deception.

[[Category:Religious mythology]]

===Near-death and temporary clinical death===

A person being [[Near-death experience | near death]] or even clinically dead for 5, 10, or even 30 minutes and then coming back is not evidence of a miracle in the strict/technical sense. There is a phenomenon called "autoresuscitation" (AR) that is easily understood in terms of known human physiology that is accepted by the medical community. Reports of "autoresuscitation" (Google it, it is not too difficult to find medical journal articles on the topic) after less than 15 minutes of clinical death are not even almost astounding, and there have been cases of AR after 33 or 37 minutes documented. If cases of hypothermia can be included, this period can be extended to over 45 minutes to 1 hour. This is largely because hypoxic brain damage is suppressed at lower temperatures.

Perhaps counterintuitively, according to the modern understanding of medicine it would be far more miraculous for an amputee to regrow an entire arm or leg than it would be for someone to clinically die for (say) 19 minutes and then wake back up.

Apologetics

2011-11-24T17:40:29Z

Bob M: /* Christian apologetics */ internal links

'''Apologetics''' is the systematic defense of a position. The term comes from the Greek word ''apologia'' (ἀπολογία) which means "the defense of a position against an attack". It should not be confused with the modern word "apology" which, though it derives from the same source, has a different definition. Those who engage in this practice are known as '''apologists''' or '''apologetes'''.

This wiki focuses primarily on [[Christian]] apologetics, apologists and [[arguments for the existence of god]].

==Christian apologetics==

Christian apologetics can be divided into four categories:

; Thomistic/classical
: This method of apologetics relies on philosophical arguments to support the existence of a [[god]] and builds upon those foundational arguments with additional arguments designed to support specific [[Christian]] claims. An example of Thomistic apologetics is the [[natural-law argument]].
; Evidentialist
: This method relies on empirical [[evidence]] (historical evidence as well as archeology, [[cosmology]], biology and other [[science]]s) to build arguments which attempt to justify belief in God, [[miracle]]s and other [[supernatural]] claims of Christian theology. A good example of evidentalist apologetics is the myriad arguments for a [[Young-Earth creationism|young earth or universe]].
; [[Presuppositional apologetics|Presuppositional]]
: This method asserts that belief in god and the truth of revealed [[scripture]] ([[The Bible]]) are foundational assumptions. Beginning with those assumptions, the presuppositionalist attempts to rationally justify Christianity, defend Christianity from attack, and attack perceived flaws in other worldviews. An example of presuppositional apologetics is the [[Avoidance of hell|avoidance of hell]] argument.
;Natural Revelationists
:This method relies on natural evidence in science to prove ideas about God found in Scripture. It is the most engaging of culture as far as modern Christian apologetics are concerned and tries to take fundamental assumptions of Scripture and conform it to what we know about universe mechanics through science, while holding fast to biblical thematic 'truths' in the text.

==Counter-apologetics==
:''See also: '''[[Counter-apologetics]]'''''
Each type of apologetics has a distinct method of being defeated.

; Thomistic/classical
: Since Thomistic/Classical apologetics are based on a philosophical base a strong knowledge of the philosophical thinking related to the different arguments in this category is needed.
; Evidentialist
: This method requires a knowledge of the science, history, and evidence behind the premises of the argument being used. See [[Atheist Universe]].
; Presuppositional
: Presuppositional apologetics are the easiest to defeat. All are based on one or several unproven assumptions and until these assumptions are proven the skeptic is allowed to ignore the rest of the argument.

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Apologetics]]

Apologetics

2011-11-24T17:36:17Z

Bob M: internal link

'''Apologetics''' is the systematic defense of a position. The term comes from the Greek word ''apologia'' (ἀπολογία) which means "the defense of a position against an attack". It should not be confused with the modern word "apology" which, though it derives from the same source, has a different definition. Those who engage in this practice are known as '''apologists''' or '''apologetes'''.

This wiki focuses primarily on [[Christian]] apologetics, apologists and [[arguments for the existence of god]].

==Christian apologetics==

Christian apologetics can be divided into four categories:

; Thomistic/classical
: This method of apologetics relies on philosophical arguments to support the existence of a god and builds upon those foundational arguments with additional arguments designed to support specific Christian claims. An example of Thomistic apologetics is the [[natural-law argument]].
; Evidentialist
: This method relies on empirical evidence (historical evidence as well as archeology, cosmology, biology and other sciences) to build arguments which attempt to justify belief in God, miracles and other supernatural claims of Christian theology. A good example of evidentalist apologetics is the myriad arguments for a [[Young-Earth creationism|young earth or universe]].
; [[Presuppositional apologetics|Presuppositional]]
: This method asserts that belief in god and the truth of revealed scripture ([[The Bible]]) are foundational assumptions. Beginning with those assumptions, the presuppositionalist attempts to rationally justify Christianity, defend Christianity from attack, and attack perceived flaws in other worldviews. An example of presuppositional apologetics is the [[Avoidance of hell|avoidance of hell]] argument.
;Natural Revelationists
:This method relies on natural evidence in science to prove ideas about God found in Scripture. It is the most engaging of culture as far as modern Christian apologetics are concerned and tries to take fundamental assumptions of Scripture and conform it to what we know about universe mechanics through science, while holding fast to biblical thematic 'truths' in the text.

==Counter-apologetics==
:''See also: '''[[Counter-apologetics]]'''''
Each type of apologetics has a distinct method of being defeated.

; Thomistic/classical
: Since Thomistic/Classical apologetics are based on a philosophical base a strong knowledge of the philosophical thinking related to the different arguments in this category is needed.
; Evidentialist
: This method requires a knowledge of the science, history, and evidence behind the premises of the argument being used. See [[Atheist Universe]].
; Presuppositional
: Presuppositional apologetics are the easiest to defeat. All are based on one or several unproven assumptions and until these assumptions are proven the skeptic is allowed to ignore the rest of the argument.

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Apologetics]]

Arguments for the existence of god

2011-11-24T17:34:40Z

Bob M: /* Apologetics */ more internal links

[[Image:Button_argumentsfor.png|right|Arguments for the existence of god]]
==Overview==

===Apologetics===
As long as there have been two or more people with differing [[religious]] views, there has been proselytism. This of course presents a problem; as [[religion]] is based on [[faith]] rather than [[evidence]], [[logic]], or [[reason]], how does one go about convincing other people that their religion is the correct one? After all, if it's based on faith and not reason, your faith is by definition really no more a reasonable position than anyone else's. If you don't like what the [[church]] is doing, just form your own. You don't need evidence, just faith. As a result of this complete lack of evidence on what the ''true'' faith apparently is, there are over 1,000 denominations of [[Christianity]] alone, and no empirical reason to believe any of them.

Over the years, attempts to convert people to a particular faith have taken many different forms, most of them involving brute force and threats of violence - Convert or suffer the wrath of god's chosen people! This was fine up until about the end of the Dark Ages, with the adage that-

''unknown source'':
{{Quote|[[Creationism]] lost its best argument when the [[Catholic church]] stopped burning people at the stake}}

After the enlightenment, the church started to have serious problems justifying its position. As [[science]] expanded our view of the world, [[God]] had fewer and fewer places to hide. Coupled with the fact that it was now considered slightly ''uncouth'' to simply torture and burn alive those that disagreed with you, the church and its parishioners now had to work very hard to justify their positions of belief, and harder still to convert others. Thus [[apologetics]] was born.

In a nutshell, apologetics is the discipline of attempting to justify a theological position through evidence, [[philosophy]], [[science]], [[metaphysics]], and history. However, when these apologetics arguments are actually reviewed under scrutiny, we find they rely on:
* evidence so incredibly poor that even the apologists using it wouldn't accept such evidence as proof of anything in any other argument than for that of their personal god,
* horrific straw man representations of true scientific theories,
* convoluted metaphysics that ultimately have no real world underpinning, and
* the distortion of historically documented events and evidence in a fashion similar in degree and irrationality to holocaust denial.
There are many conflicting arguments which attempt to support the existence of many conflicting gods. Being often mutually contradictory, they can't all be correct - but they can all be wrong. Indeed, every "argument" presented for gods thus far has one or more problems with validity or soundness. At their core, even the most seemingly persuasive apologetics are founded upon cognitive biases, magical thinking, logical fallacies, or basic unproved assertions, and the fact that theists of all stripes tend to use the same arguments for their specific god or gods speaks more to the common flaws in human thinking than it does to the usefulness of the arguments.

===Definitions===
It is important when engaging in an argument with a theist that all the required concepts involved in the argument are clearly defined; ''particularly'' '''the definition of God'''. Having clearly defined definitions prevents the theist from [[Moving goalposts|moving the goalposts]] mid-argument, or even more frustratingly getting to the end of the argument and then having the theists say “but that's not my god” or "[[that's not in my Bible]]".

===Purpose of the argument===
It is also important to make sure that the discussion is one that will be enlightening. An important question is, "what is the purpose of this discussion/argument?"

Prior to the onset of the hopefully dialectical discussion, both sides must reflect on the purpose and aim of the discussion. Argumentation will only prove to be fruitful if both sides are aware and accepting of the limits of persuasion in argumentation.

Religious people will almost never be "convinced" by any logically defeating counter-point, remaining staunch in their conviction, unless their faith is solely dependent on reason and proper logic. Therefore, it seems the appropriate middle-way seems to be to approach these discussions, on the whole, as forums for insightful discussion, rather than grounds for a conversion war, an approach that has proven and will continuously be proven to be ineffective in convincing religious theists to lay down their dogma.

It is important to consider the reason that successful logical arguments fail to convince theists is precisely that these theists were not convinced by logical arguments in believing in a divine being. It is usually based on personal experience, some subjective conviction that cannot be formulated into logical terms. It seems that even those who claim that their theistic belief is constructed upon some logically argumentative foundation, when pushed, eventually admit there is some fundamental subjective impetus for belief. However, if a particular theist maintains that they have a logical, objective foundation, but then dogmatically refuse to acknowledge the failure of his argument and are unwilling to question his theistic belief, then further communication is unnecessary and pointless.

==Favorite arguments==
===Most common theistic arguments===
* [[First cause]]
* [[Pascal's Wager]]
* [[Argument from design]]
* [[Argument from the meaning of life]]

===Favorites of professional apologists===
* [[Ontological argument]]
* [[Transcendental argument]]
* [[Kalam]]
* [[Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism]]

===See Also===
* [[Call for Proof]]

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Christian apologists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]

Arguments for the existence of god

2011-11-24T17:31:35Z

Bob M: /* Apologetics */ some internal links

[[Image:Button_argumentsfor.png|right|Arguments for the existence of god]]
==Overview==

===Apologetics===
As long as there have been two or more people with differing [[religious]] views, there has been proselytism. This of course presents a problem; as [[religion]] is based on [[faith]] rather than [[evidence]], [[logic]], or [[reason]], how does one go about convincing other people that their religion is the correct one? After all, if it's based on faith and not reason, your faith is by definition really no more a reasonable position than anyone else's. If you don't like what the [[church]] is doing, just form your own. You don't need evidence, just faith. As a result of this complete lack of evidence on what the ''true'' faith apparently is, there are over 1,000 denominations of [[Christianity]] alone, and no empirical reason to believe any of them.

Over the years, attempts to convert people to a particular faith have taken many different forms, most of them involving brute force and threats of violence - Convert or suffer the wrath of god's chosen people! This was fine up until about the end of the Dark Ages, with the adage that-

''unknown source'':
{{Quote|Creationism lost its best argument when the [[Catholic church]] stopped burning people at the stake}}

After the enlightenment, the church started to have serious problems justifying its position. As science expanded our view of the world, God had fewer and fewer places to hide. Coupled with the fact that it was now considered slightly ''uncouth'' to simply torture and burn alive those that disagreed with you, the church and its parishioners now had to work very hard to justify their positions of belief, and harder still to convert others. Thus apologetics was born.

In a nutshell, apologetics is the discipline of attempting to justify a theological position through evidence, philosophy, science, metaphysics, and history. However, when these apologetics arguments are actually reviewed under scrutiny, we find they rely on:
* evidence so incredibly poor that even the apologists using it wouldn't accept such evidence as proof of anything in any other argument than for that of their personal god,
* horrific straw man representations of true scientific theories,
* convoluted metaphysics that ultimately have no real world underpinning, and
* the distortion of historically documented events and evidence in a fashion similar in degree and irrationality to holocaust denial.
There are many conflicting arguments which attempt to support the existence of many conflicting gods. Being often mutually contradictory, they can't all be correct - but they can all be wrong. Indeed, every "argument" presented for gods thus far has one or more problems with validity or soundness. At their core, even the most seemingly persuasive apologetics are founded upon cognitive biases, magical thinking, logical fallacies, or basic unproved assertions, and the fact that theists of all stripes tend to use the same arguments for their specific god or gods speaks more to the common flaws in human thinking than it does to the usefulness of the arguments.

===Definitions===
It is important when engaging in an argument with a theist that all the required concepts involved in the argument are clearly defined; ''particularly'' '''the definition of God'''. Having clearly defined definitions prevents the theist from [[Moving goalposts|moving the goalposts]] mid-argument, or even more frustratingly getting to the end of the argument and then having the theists say “but that's not my god” or "[[that's not in my Bible]]".

===Purpose of the argument===
It is also important to make sure that the discussion is one that will be enlightening. An important question is, "what is the purpose of this discussion/argument?"

Prior to the onset of the hopefully dialectical discussion, both sides must reflect on the purpose and aim of the discussion. Argumentation will only prove to be fruitful if both sides are aware and accepting of the limits of persuasion in argumentation.

Religious people will almost never be "convinced" by any logically defeating counter-point, remaining staunch in their conviction, unless their faith is solely dependent on reason and proper logic. Therefore, it seems the appropriate middle-way seems to be to approach these discussions, on the whole, as forums for insightful discussion, rather than grounds for a conversion war, an approach that has proven and will continuously be proven to be ineffective in convincing religious theists to lay down their dogma.

It is important to consider the reason that successful logical arguments fail to convince theists is precisely that these theists were not convinced by logical arguments in believing in a divine being. It is usually based on personal experience, some subjective conviction that cannot be formulated into logical terms. It seems that even those who claim that their theistic belief is constructed upon some logically argumentative foundation, when pushed, eventually admit there is some fundamental subjective impetus for belief. However, if a particular theist maintains that they have a logical, objective foundation, but then dogmatically refuse to acknowledge the failure of his argument and are unwilling to question his theistic belief, then further communication is unnecessary and pointless.

==Favorite arguments==
===Most common theistic arguments===
* [[First cause]]
* [[Pascal's Wager]]
* [[Argument from design]]
* [[Argument from the meaning of life]]

===Favorites of professional apologists===
* [[Ontological argument]]
* [[Transcendental argument]]
* [[Kalam]]
* [[Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism]]

===See Also===
* [[Call for Proof]]

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Christian apologists]]
[[Category:Atheists]]

Talk:What about all the good things religion has given us?

2011-11-11T07:07:30Z

Bob M: /* What about the Dark Ages? */ still not convinced

This article seems to miss a fundamental point in the proposition it is refuting; Atheism and religiosity are not synonymous. That religions sometimes do good is not the same as saying theists do good.

==Suggestions==
I like the idea of this article, but it needs some work. Here are my suggestions:
* The title ought to be more general, so "sub-arguments" can go under the same topic.

* A general argument against anything 'good' claimed to be the sole product of religion.

* Some sort of statement that such an argument, even if accepted, would not prove religious claims are correct. The claim that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars is unfounded, even if the person making the claim has opened a hundred non-profit hospitals for sick children.

* A logical format. A numbered list of "good" things said to be provided by religion.

* Reasoning or examples to back up the assertions where each item is stated to be:
** not '''only''' provided by religious groups,
** not principally motivated by religion itself,
** provided better or more fairly by non-religious organizations.

* A list of 'bad' things religions do in accomplishing the 'good' things they do.

Also, recognize yourself that the fact that something could be does not show it is. If you say, for instance, that there is some other motivation for people to help in soup kitchens, don't argue as if that is the only motivation. A sense of obligation to one's religious group is also a motivation. We really just want to show we're not '''all''' greedy, miserable wretches without religion, not that '''none''' of us are.--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 14:34, 30 December 2009 (CST)

== What about the Dark Ages? ==

The section currently says ...
*''•Christianity caused the dark ages...''"
While I would be among the first to to point out the multiple failings of religion and religious thought I think this one goes a bit too far. A quick reading of the relevant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29 Wikipedia article] would not seem to support the claim. At the very least the claim needs to be sourced.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 10:05, 10 November 2011 (CST)

:I found [http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages] but I haven’t had time to read it all. Certainly the barbarian hordes that overcame Rome were part of the cause and Christianity didn’t cause it all. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 15:01, 10 November 2011 (CST)
::Self evidently the fall of Rome was not "caused" by Christianity. The "dark ages" which followed can be considered "dark" for two reasons: it was somehow a "dark" time for humanity, or they were "dark" in the sense of "historically obscure". I see that the comment above has been toned down a bit now but it still doesn't seem to be a fantastic argument. --[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 01:07, 11 November 2011 (CST)

Talk:What about all the good things religion has given us?

2011-11-10T16:05:26Z

Bob M: What about the Dark Ages?

This article seems to miss a fundamental point in the proposition it is refuting; Atheism and religiosity are not synonymous. That religions sometimes do good is not the same as saying theists do good.

==Suggestions==
I like the idea of this article, but it needs some work. Here are my suggestions:
* The title ought to be more general, so "sub-arguments" can go under the same topic.

* A general argument against anything 'good' claimed to be the sole product of religion.

* Some sort of statement that such an argument, even if accepted, would not prove religious claims are correct. The claim that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars is unfounded, even if the person making the claim has opened a hundred non-profit hospitals for sick children.

* A logical format. A numbered list of "good" things said to be provided by religion.

* Reasoning or examples to back up the assertions where each item is stated to be:
** not '''only''' provided by religious groups,
** not principally motivated by religion itself,
** provided better or more fairly by non-religious organizations.

* A list of 'bad' things religions do in accomplishing the 'good' things they do.

Also, recognize yourself that the fact that something could be does not show it is. If you say, for instance, that there is some other motivation for people to help in soup kitchens, don't argue as if that is the only motivation. A sense of obligation to one's religious group is also a motivation. We really just want to show we're not '''all''' greedy, miserable wretches without religion, not that '''none''' of us are.--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 14:34, 30 December 2009 (CST)

== What about the Dark Ages? ==

The section currently says ...
*''·Christianity caused the dark ages...''"
While I would be among the first to to point out the multiple failings of religion and religious thought I think this one goes a bit too far. A quick reading of the relevant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29 Wikipedia article] would not seem to support the claim. At the very least the claim needs to be sourced.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 10:05, 10 November 2011 (CST)

Abiogenesis

2010-05-20T14:31:35Z

Bob M: /* A multitude of hypotheses */ split long sentence

{{Wikipedia|Abiogenesis}}
'''Abiogenesis''' is the study of the origin of [[life]] on [[Earth]]. There is currently no widely-accepted theory of abiogenesis, but it is an ongoing area of research.

The term "abiogenesis" comes from Greek roots: the prefix "a-" (without), "bio" (life), and "genesis" (beginning) — i.e., the origin of life from non-life. In this broadest sense, abiogenesis can include religious [[creation myth]]s. More commonly, however, it refers to the scientific study of life's origins.

==Abiogenesis and evolution==
While [[evolution]] explains how self-replicating entities change over time, abiogenesis is the study of how self-replicators arose in the first place, and how evolution got started. It is thus related to evolution, but distinct.

[[Creationist]]s often claim that since scientists do not know how life started, that this makes the theory of evolution invalid or baseless. This is untrue: just as it is not necessary to know the history of the internal combustion engine to understand how an automobile works, evolutionary biologists can study how populations evolve today without necessarily knowing how life arose.

==Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation==
Creationists often claim that [[Wikipedia:Louis Pasteur|Louis Pasteur]] disproved abiogenesis by showing that flies do not appear on meat if the meat is sealed from outside contamination. This idea often manifests in the so-called [[Argumentum_ad_victus|Peanut Butter]] argument against evolution.

In fact, Pasteur disproved the theory of [[wikipedia:spontaneous generation|spontaneous generation]], the idea that fully-formed modern flies spontaneously arise from meat.

Current models of abiogenesis make no such claim. Rather, researchers try to figure out which [[wikipedia:organic molecule|organic molecule]]s could have been formed under the conditions of the early Earth, how they might have combined to form [[Wikipedia:RNA|RNA]], [[Wikipedia:DNA|DNA]], [[wikipedia:cell membrane|cell membrane]]s, [[wikipedia:cell metabolism|metabolism]], etc.

==A multitude of hypotheses==
Since evidence indicates life arose about 3.7 billion years ago, it is very difficult to find fossil remains of the earliest life forms. Many chemicals thought to have played a part in the origin of life do not last long under the conditions which they may be found today. The rocks where they might otherwise be found might have been contaminated by geologic processes, and many of them may have been [[Wikipedia:Subduction|subducted]] into the Earth's [[wikipedia:mantle|mantle]]. Nonetheless, there are numerous hypotheses as to how life ''could'' have arisen.

Some researchers believe that life arose on the surface of the Earth, perhaps as an oily film on the surface of the ocean, or in calmer tidal pools; the surface is, after all, where most living things are found today. Others argue that the surface of the early earth was bombarded with [[wikipedia:ultraviolet light|ultraviolet rays]] that would have broken down organic molecules almost as soon as they were formed, and thus these molecules could not have accumulated in sufficient concentrations to permit interesting [[wikipedia:Chemical reaction|reactions]] to take place.

It is also possible that life arose deep under the ocean, protected from ultraviolet rays, around [[wikipedia:hydrothermal vent|hydrothermal vent]]s. These could have provided the energy, in the form of heat, necessary for chemicals to form and react with each other.

Some of the chemicals required for life may have fallen to Earth in [[wikipedia:meteorite|meteorite]]s. Many chemicals, including sugar and alcohol, can form in gas clouds in outer space, and may therefore have been part of the composition of the Earth from the very beginning of its formation. Others may have fallen to Earth later. Meteorites known as [[wikipedia:carbonaceous chondrite|carbonaceous chondrite]]s contain many types of organic molecules, even after falling through the atmosphere and crashing to Earth.

It is hypothesized that minerals, including [[wikipedia:clay|clay]]s, may have played a role in the origin of life: if certain [[wikipedia:amino acid|amino acid]]s become attached to a clay surface, the clay in effect holds them in place, allowing other amino acids to become attached to the original ones.

Other minerals have microscopic pores, which may have been filled with interacting molecules, thus in effect playing the role of a primitive cell wall. However, it is known that [[wikipedia:lipid|lipid]]s can spontaneously form hollow spheres in water. Thus, it is not clear whether metabolism came before cell membranes or vice-versa.

It is possible that we will never know exactly how life arose on Earth, but it may be possible to come up with a handful of likely scenarios.

==The Urey-Miller experiment==
In 1951, [[Wikipedia:Harold Urey|Harold Urey]] and his graduate student Stanley Miller conducted a seminal experiment: they filled a glass vessel with water, [[wikipedia:methane|methane]], [[wikipedia:ammonia|ammonia]], and [[wikipedia:hydrogen|hydrogen]], by which they hoped to model the ocean and early atmosphere of the Earth (note that today we have a different picture of the composition of the early atmosphere). Two electrodes in the vessel produced sparks, simulating lightning. The vessel was connected by a tube to a condenser and a second chamber, from which samples could be withdrawn and analyzed.

Within a few days, the water turned yellow and dark "muck" had appeared on the walls of the vessel. This turned out to contain [[wikipedia:glycine|glycine]], an amino acid. Later on, several other amino acids and other organic molecules were found.

Later experiments not only [[scientific method|confirmed]] the results of the Urey-Miller experiment itself, but expanded on it, showing that many organic molecules are easy to synthesize under a wide variety of conditions, including different atmospheric compositions and energy sources.

Miller and Urey did not create life in the lab, of course, nor does anyone claim that they did. They did, however, demonstrate that molecules essential to living beings can form naturally under likely conditions of early Earth.

===Later results===

One common [[creationist]] argument is that the Urey-Miller experiment only created a few of the amino acids used by life, not life itself. Another is that the gases used by Miller and Urey were different from those actually present on primordial Earth.

According to a [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5900/404 paper published in Science in 2008], researchers were able to reanalyze
the residues from one of the original experiments, and found several
amino acids that instruments in the 1950s were not sensitive enough to
detect. In other words, Miller and Urey were more successful than they
realized.

The paper also argues that the atmosphere used in that experiment may
have been locally realistic. That is, that mixture of gases would not
occur throughout the planet, but only near [[wikipedia:volcano|volcanic eruptions]].

Later studies during the 1960s by [[Wikipedia:Joan Oró|Joan Oró]], et al., that used atmospheric conditions that better match the actual (hypothesized) atmosphere of early Earth turned out to give even better results, turning up for example adenine, which is one of the [[wikipedia:nucleotide base|nucleotide base]]s that form the "backbone" of [[wikipedia:DNA|DNA]].

[[Category:Science]]

User talk:Wissam hemadeh

2010-05-16T11:33:54Z

Bob M: /* First person */ no thanks

Wissam...

You're about two comments from being blocked and I'd really rather not do that, so let's clear a few things up.
#Sign your comments. It's really easy 4 tildes at the end of your comments will add the name and date stamp. (It's very difficult to follow discussion on talk pages when there's just a wall of text with no formatting and no signature)
#We don't need to have a discussion and take a vote about how to deal with a simple, obviously flawed argument
#Understand the scope in which you're working. Euthyphro shouldn't be a catch all for all moral arguments - feel free to create new pages
#Make sure you're familiar with posting rules, guidelines and wiki formatting. Visit the forum and/or talk to people who post regularly.
#Make sure you not only know who you're talking to, but make it clear who you're directing your comments to. Several of the comments you made, responding to me, don't seem to apply to me. The first step is to look at the history for a given page. You can see who has made changes and what changes they've made...that'll keep you from saying things like "your counter-arguments" to someone who didn't make them. (Note: At first, I took this to mean 'your arguments' as in 'your wiki'...but I'm not convinced you even knew that you were talking to the site owner.)

So, let's get to your actual comments, so we can clear the air and I can get back to work:

{{quote-source|Furthermore, I did not insinuate that the Euthyphro should address ALL moral argument but I was giving atheists a heads-up as to the modern moral argument where Euthyphro is useless and a new swift response should be made. Doesn't this require some collaboration and agreement on the counter-argument?|Wissan}}
The argument you presented is not an argument where Euthyphro is useless, it's just a moral argument that limits the use of Euthyphro as a response. We have an entire category for moral arguments, feel free to add a page for this one if it doesn't exist. No, we don't need collaboration and agreement on counter-arguments. We tend to list the counter arguments and they are then modified or removed. A wiki is a living document, we don't need a committee before adding a page and, in the end, a committee of 1 (me) may overturn the decisions.

{{quote-source|And if you really care about this site, I advise you to work on the kalam argument.|Wissan}}
Thanks for your advice. There's a reason that I opened the wiki up to the public: I simply don't have time to do this, the TV show, the podcast, my ridiculously demanding regular job, e-mail, speaking engagements, ACA business and still find time to eat, sleep and occasionally socialize. There are many articles that simply don't exist. There are many that need some serious editing...but I've had to limit my efforts here to a bare minimum.

{{quote-source|Kalam is one of the best theistic arguments.|Wissan}}
Which is only slightly more impressive than being the least smelly dung pile.

{{quote-source|Kalam is the only one which has been constantly used in recent debates. Have you been to any recent debates?|Wissan}}
Clearly you have no idea who you're talking to. I say that not because I would have expected any special fawning...but because if you knew, you couldn't have said something so monumentally stupid. Whether or not I've been to a recent debate (I have) is entirely irrelevant. I'm involved in debates 7 days a week, with real theists of all stripes and Kalam isn't nearly so common as you might think. That said, it deserves a thorough response.

{{quote-source|No, my friend. You are NOT ready to take on counter-apologetics if you have no idea of what the kalam cosmological argument for atheists is, which has been introduced by atheist philosopher quentin smith. Search for it, please do!|Wissan}}
I have done...and you missed the point. Your implication was that without Kalam for atheism, one isn't ready to take on Kalam as an apologetic. This is false and it ignores the burden of proof. Kalam stands or falls on its own merits and the existence or non-existence of a Kalam-for-atheism is a secondary concern. I've read Smith's essay. It's interesting and contingent upon unproven particulars. I don't find it particularly compelling and I don't find that it is in any way superior, as a response, than simply exposing the flaws in Kalam. - HOWEVER, it is an argument that should be included, both in the counters to Kalam and as a page in the arguments for the non-existence of a god.
Your implication that one isn't ready for counter-apologetics if they don't possess an exhaustive familiarity with a particular argument is without merit. My concern was that you seemed to be confused about how to address a simple and obviously flawed argument...that concern was based on a miscommunication. You were asking for feedback on how to address it at the wiki, not feedback about how one should respond to it. The fact that you still missed the point that one has no more need of the Kalam for atheism than they do of the atheists wager in order to address the apologetic is still a minor concern.

{{quote-source|You also have poor articles on 'quran and science' which could be a powerful atheistic tool against islam'. There's no mentioning of the 'inimatibility of quran' argument. There are many arguments you have missed. As you see, I have my hands full and it seems that you are not ready taking on counter-apologetics from the apparent poverty of this wiki.|Wissan}}
Well, aren't we lucky you've arrived! There was no claim that the wiki is finished (as if it ever would be) or that it even had adequate coverage of most arguments...it's a resource, a work in progress and its state is entirely dependent on volunteer participation. While the goal would be to serve as the premiere treatment for these subjects no one has said we were anywhere close to that. Your comment is akin to walking into a garage where someone is building a car from scratch and saying, "Where's the odometer? There's no headliner or carpet? If you really cared about this car, you'd have a GPS system installed. You aren't ready for Daytona..." - and it's almost enough for me to revoke your welcome.

Fortunately, I'm not quite that reactionary. Go. Edit pages, add comments help improve the site like many others have done. Just sign your comments and try to be clear. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:37, 2 March 2010 (CST)

== Sign Comments ==

Above the editing box on every page there are a bunch of icons. The second last one is a squiggly line that looks like a signature. If you click on it, it will insert your signature and the date/time. Or you can type two dashes and four tildes instead.

Sign discussion comments, but not article edits.

Thanks!

--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 14:54, 3 March 2010 (CST)

==First person==

I've seen a few things that you've written in the first person. Is that the standard procedure here?--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 06:04, 15 May 2010 (CDT)

No, it's not really standard procedure but I write articles for several publications on the internet in the first person. You are encouraged to change them.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 14:38, 15 May 2010 (CDT)
:Thank you for your encouragement. But I've mentioned previously that arguments against the existence of gods don't do much for me - as I feel that they are about as useful as arguments against the existence of Father Christmas. Consequently I'm reluctant to start editing such articles. I was just curious about why you did it that way. Thanks for responding.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 06:33, 16 May 2010 (CDT)

User talk:Wissam hemadeh

2010-05-15T11:04:49Z

Bob M:

Talk:Argument from Moral Autonomy

2010-05-15T11:02:28Z

Bob M: first person

Lot of first person "I" in this.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 06:02, 15 May 2010 (CDT)

Talk:Impossibility of Actual Infinity against God

2010-05-15T09:53:44Z

Bob M: ce

Maybe I'm being dense, but I find the article title impossible to understand. On the other hand the first few paragraphs left me with a similar feeling. I also note that it goes into the first person with ''"Before I continue into the nature of this First Intention-Giver, I ..."'' which does not seem very wiki-like.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 05:10, 3 May 2010 (CDT)

The article title should be "Impossibility of an Actual Infinite against an Actually Infinite God" or just "Impossibility of an Actual Infinite against God". Maybe you should correct this.
Also, you are right about the first person pronoun but I dont think it's much of a big deal.

Note: the argument provided in this article is, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments against the existence of God.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 14:33, 4 May 2010 (CDT)
:I'm afraid that it's a bit to dense for me so I won't be touching it. Frankly, I think that any and all "arguments against the existence of Gods" are a bit of a waste of time. The people who need to supply evidence or persuasive arguments are those who maintain that something exists. If neither evidence nor arguement supports a proposition then "evidence against" is simply unnecessary. The burden of prof does not lie with athiests.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 04:52, 15 May 2010 (CDT)

Talk:Impossibility of Actual Infinity against God

2010-05-15T09:52:40Z

Bob M: burden of prof not ours

Maybe I'm being dense, but I find the article title impossible to understand. On the other hand the first few paragraphs left me with a similar feeling. I also note that it goes into the first person with ''"Before I continue into the nature of this First Intention-Giver, I ..."'' which does not seem very wiki-like.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 05:10, 3 May 2010 (CDT)

The article title should be "Impossibility of an Actual Infinite against an Actually Infinite God" or just "Impossibility of an Actual Infinite against God". Maybe you should correct this.
Also, you are right about the first person pronoun but I dont think it's much of a big deal.

Note: the argument provided in this article is, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments against the existence of God.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 14:33, 4 May 2010 (CDT)
:I'm afraid that it's a bit to dense for me so I won't be touching it. Frankly, I think that any and all "arguments against the existence of Gods" are a bit of a waste of time. The people who need to supply evidence or persuasive arguments are those who maintain that something exists. If neither of these exists then "evidence against" is simply unnecessary. The burden of prof does not lie with athiests.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 04:52, 15 May 2010 (CDT)

Fine-tuning argument

2010-05-15T09:13:42Z

Bob M: ce

In [[cosmology]], '''fine tuning''' refers to the precise balance of [[cosmological constant]]s that allow the [[observable universe]] to exist as it does. These constants include the speed of light, the rate of expansion of the universe, the force of gravity, the nuclear strong force, the electromagnetic force, and many other parameters of the observable universe. It is claimed that these constants exist in such a state of precise equilibrium that any variation to their values would have resulted in a drastically different universe. The '''fine tuning argument''' states that these values occurring in such a precise state by mere chance is highly improbable, and that there must have been a creator to fine tune these values in order for our universe to exist as it does and for life to exist on Earth. This argument is the same as the anthropic theistic principle.

== Background ==

The argument of fine tuning is a rather new one. It has only become popular since the mid-1990s with recent observations about the observable universe and cosmological constants. Cosmologists have theorized that even minute variations in the values of these constants would have resulted in a radically different universe or one altogether unsuitable for supporting life as we know it.

* ''Example 1:'' The rate of expansion of matter after the [[Big Bang]] had to occur at precisely the right rate to allow our universe to form as it has. If it had expanded any faster, matter would have dissipated too quickly for stars and solar systems to form. If it had occurred any slower, the universe would have collapsed upon itself shortly after the Big Bang, resulting in what is known as a [[Big Crunch]].

* ''Example 2:'' The strong nuclear force is the force which binds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom. Scientists have calculated that variations in the strong force of as little as ±1% would have drastically affected the breakdown of naturally occurring elements in the universe, prohibiting the formation of stars, black holes, and other natural occurring phenomena.

There are studies of numerous other constants with similar results.

== Apologetics ==

Deists cite this remarkable balance of cosmological constants as evidence of a creator, being a far too unlikely set of circumstances to have occurred naturally. This is quickly becoming the argument of choice of [[creationism]] proponents like [[Lee Strobel]]. Strobel presents this concept as incontrovertible empirical evidence of God in his book [[The Case for a Creator]].

== Formal Statement of the Argument ==

Here is Drange’s formulation:

1. The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it.

2. Other combinations of physical constants are conceivable.

3. Therefore, some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one.

4. The very best explanation of the given fact is that our universe, with the particular combination of physical constants that it has, was created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal, and interested in sentient organic systems, and that he “fine-tuned” those constants in a way which would lead to the evolution of such systems.

5. But such a being as described in (4) is what people mean by “God.”

6. Hence [from (4) & (5)], there is good evidence that God exists.

== Counter-apologetics ==

# Essentially this argument is just a variation on the [[argument from design]]. The key difference here is that it misrepresents actual scientific evidence in such a way to support an unscientific conclusion. A more scientific conclusion would be to state that there is some unknown natural phenomenon to explain this apparent "fine tuning". It is also worth mentioning that a counter-argument to design, natural-law argument, and the anthropic principle is also a counter-argument to fine-tuning. See below.
# A problem arises from the premise that the cosmological constants are in fact 'fine tuned' at all. This premise assumes that there is a certain range of values that each constant could assume. The greater these ranges, the more unlikely that a given set of constants would have assumed the values we observe. However, to simply imagine a certain range of possible numerical values that each constant could assume and calculating the probability that this value would be arrived at by mere chance is fallacious for two reasons. Currently, we have no access to data that would tell us a) what range the constants could possibly assume in reality and b) how many trials there were in which the constants assumed certain values. If in a lottery one number were drawn from a pot of five numbers, then winning the lottery would become comparatively likely. Likewise, even if a trial with an extremely unlikely outcome - say winning an actual national lottery - were repeated a sufficient number of times, the outcome would become likely to occur overall. (See next point)
# Scientists theorize that given the infinite nature of time and space, an infinite number of other unobservable universes could exist parallel to our own, each with infinite variations of constants. This is known as the [[multiverse theory]]. Given infinite possibilities, the formation of a universe such as our own is not so inconceivable.
# Another flaw with this argument is that it assumes our universe is finely tuned for the sole purpose of supporting life. This is not the case at all. Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.
# The Earth's total mass is [[wikipedia:Earth|5.9736×10^24 kg]] while the estimated total biomass on Earth is around [[wikipedia:Biomass_(ecology)|7×10^13 kg]]. This means that the percentage of life on Earth is 1.17182269 × 10^-9. That is .00000000117%. The Earth, let alone the universe, is hardly fine tuned for life. Man has [http://books.google.com/books?id=Bd0vzY1x2fYC&pg=PA39&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0 created and tested] much more finely tuned mediums for simple life in the form of specialized agar solutions that support life/medium ratios far greater than .00000000117%.
# In order for the probability argument to be valid, the fundamental constants under consideration have to be independent. That is, one cannot claim that the gravitational constant and the speed of expansion of the universe were individually tuned, since they are clearly related. The electromagnetic force is mediated by massless photons which travel at the speed of light, so therefore the strength of this force is likely related to the speed of light. Similar relationships may yet emerge between other constants.
# If there were a creator who "fine tuned" the universe for our existence, who "fine tuned" the universe in order for said creator to exist? The argument of a creator is infinitely paradoxical.
# The initial premise of the argument is that in order for life to exist, the universe must have such properties that warrant a designer. However in this line of reasoning, the designer of those properties would exist in a state where none of these properties were true. Therefore any properties deemed to require a designer can't be necessary for existence in the first place, as the designer can exist without them. The argument is self-refuting.
# If one starts with the assumption that humanity is an accident, the fine tuning argument makes no sense since if we are an accident, no fine tuning was necessary. For the fine tuning argument to make any sense, one has to start with the assumption that humanity is ''not'' an accident, which begs the question of a creator. But since the purpose of the argument is to prove that there is a god who created us, any such assumption renders the argument circular.

Firstly, it has to be pointed out that for an omnipotent God the fundamental constants would be irrelevant. An omnipotent God could have created us in a universe with any set of constants had he chose to. But this is not the line of thinking the theist takes. The constants had to be what they are because, as they claim, if they were different we would have no life.
If the constants necessarily had to be what they are than that implies that there is some set of governing rules that even God must follow, that supercede his power. If God HAD to fine-tune the universe to these particular set of constants because not doing so would not have allowed him to bring life into existence (and as they claim in their argument, a different set and theres no life) then God is indeed NOT omnipotent.

Not withstanding the obvious fact that the universe really isn't very congenial towards life, as 99.999% of the observed universe is uninhabitable, Vic Stenger in his book God: The failed hypothesis, quotes a private communication with Martin Wagner in which he points out that:

"In fact, the whole argument from fine-tuning ultimately makes no sense. As my friend Martin Wagner notes, all physical parameters are irrelevant to an omnipotent God. 'he could have created us to live in a hard vacuum if he wanted.'"

Bertrand Russell:

"Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others? If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there was a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary."

We can view the universe as one of those massive safes that banks keep in their vaults, with a number of dials that must be set to specific values in order to open it. However, in our example, these dials can be literally set to any number, so that an infinite number of combinations are possible. The one combination that will open the safe is analogous to the values of the physical constants of the universe that allow the existence of intelligent life.

The "fine tuning" argument claims that it is, for all intents, impossible to randomly set the the values of the dials and, simply by chance, arrive at the correct combination that will open the safe. Only someone who actually knows the combination can open it. In the argument, this requires the existence of a god who knows the precise setting that will allow life to arise.

However, if this god is the creator of the universe and everything in it, then he is not limited to simply turning the dials on the safe. He must also have been responsible for building the safe itself, and setting the coimbination that allows it to be opened. This means he also has the ability to adjust the locking mechanism of the safe so that any combination he wants will open it. Therefore, it can no longer be said that only one combination is capable of opening the safe. Now, there is a literally infinite number of combinations that can open it.

Restated in the form of the argument itself: The (apparent) fact that only a specific combination of values of physical constants allows life to arise is, itself, an expression of a fundamental law of the universe. If God can change the values of those physical constants, there is no reason to believe he cannot also change the more fundamental laws that limit the conditions under which life will arise.

This has two fatal consequences for the "fine tuning" argument:

1) If God can, in fact, adjust the "combination" of the safe to any values he wants, this completely refutes the claim that life can only arise under a very specific set of circumstances. Rather, if such a God exists, life should be able to arise under any set of circumstances whatsoever, with infinite possibilities. The "fine tuning" argument, therefore, can no longer be used as evidence for the existence of such a God.

2) If, on the other hand, God cannot adjust the "combination", then this raises a situation that most theists would find unacceptable. It raises the question of who or what actually is reponsible for creating the safe, and deciding on its combination. God, in this scenario, is reduced to being a low-level employee of the bank, who is able to open the safe, but is not responsible for the operation of the safe itself, nor entrusted with the ability to set the combination of the safe. Those responsibilities must be taken over by some entity more powerful and important than God. This is incompatible with most theistic beliefs, particularly the Abrahamic monotheistic ones.

To restate the argument, in the form of the [[Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God]] :

Posit X and Y as features of human understanding. In the case of fine-tuning, X is "the combination of physical constants which is necessarily capable of sustaining life" and Y is "the combination of physical constants which is necessarily incapable of sustaining life".

1.X is necessary or has a necessary part (the necessity of being capable of sustaining life).

Y is necessary or has a necessary part (the physical necessity of being hostile to life).

2.If theism is true, then divine creation obtains.

3.If divine creation is true, then all in the universe is contingent to God’s act of creation, and nothing in the universe is necessary.

4.If theism is true, then no X or Y can be necessary or have a necessary part. (from 2 and 3)

5.Theism is false. (from 1 and 4)

The theist can of course deny premise 1, but doing so is a denial of the fine-tuning argument. The first premise of this argument is the same as the first premise of the fine-tuning argument.

The first premise of the fine-tuning argument is:

1. "The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it".

This means that:

The combination of physical constants in our universe -> necessarily capable of sustaining life as we know it (denoted by X).

And

The combination of other physical constants -> necessarily incapable of sustaining life as we know it (denoted by Y).

In a similar form of the argument:

1. If theism is true, then divine causation obtains.

2. If divine causation obtains, then all facts of the universe are contingent upon God's act of creation.

3. If theism is true, then life can arise under any possible physical condition. (from 1 and 2)

4. If theism is true, then fine-tuning is invalid. (from 3)

Maybe the transition from premise 2 to 3 requires further justification. Denote the physical constants by {X; Y; Z) and the obtainment of life by L and negation by ~.

A fact of the universe is that {X--> L; Y--> ~L; Z--> ~L}.

Since the fact is contingent upon God's act of creation, then it is not necessary and so can be altered.

If it can be altered then the following can be true {X--> L; Y--> L; Z--> L}. Basically, X, Y, and Z are irrelevant to God if divine causation obtains.

So as a shorthand one can say that “contingency implies the impossibility of principles and absolutes”.

One can of course deny that divine creation obtains, and deny that God created the laws of science. However, this means that God is not the Creator and that he is subject to these laws himself.

Stephen Hawking on the Anthropic Principle:

"The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty."

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary". [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

"One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics". [Stephen Hawking, Black Holes & Baby Universes]

Retrieved from "http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=A_Brief_History_of_Time"

The features of humanity have evolved as a result of our environment, rather than our environment being tailored to suit us.

Douglas Adams c.1998:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

Furthermore, the "fine-tuning argument" is a logical fallacy of the "ex-post-facto statistics" type. It applies in situations like this whenever we apply probability laws to past events.

For example, we all know the probability of being dealt a bridge hand of, say, all thirteen spades is quite small. But if we look at any bridge hand after we're dealt it, the probabilities of being dealt that exact hand are just as miniscule.

Given, hypothetically, an array of 52 different universes, the probability of actualizing our universe is 1 in 52. But if we look at any universe after it has been actualized, the probability of that occurring is just as miniscule.

-Life is just one of the possible things that may arise in the universe, and by itself is no more or less important than any of those other things. It's just that, as living beings ourselves, we tend to place a higher value on life than other aspects of the universe.

-We cannot assume that life as we know it is the only possible form that life could take. If the constants of the universe were different, that does not rule out the possibility that intelligent lilfe could nonetheless still arise, albeit in a form currently unimaginable to us.

-It is foolish to say the universe is exquisitely set for the existence of life, since any living thing would instantly die in almost any place in the observed universe.

Another reply could be that we cannot talk about there being lots of different possible causes, and the probability of the cause being the right one, because we have no way to know how to construct the reference class - the set of possibilities. This would be an absurd double standard. Remember, it was the theists who wanted to get into the probability business in the first place, and to stop playing when it is inconvenient is just hypocrisy. In the absence of any better way of constructing a reference class of possible causes we actually have an excellent reference class to use: Advocates of the fine tuning argument obviously have a reference class of "possible universes" in mind and we can simply use this, and assume that each of these possible universes has an individual possible cause. This, of course, leads us with as many causes as there are possible universes, and if advocates of fine tuning think that most universes are inhospitable to life then they must be claiming that most causes of universes are inhospitable to life. The only way round this is to claim that the reference class of causes is not constructed like that, but the this involves taking a preferential position with no justification: They are wanting to assume that all universes are equally possible, but not that all the causes of these universes are equally possible and they are just adjusting their reference class of causes to fit the answer they want. Furthermore, even if it turned out that the cause of our universe was somehow more likely than the causes of the other universes, this does not imply a designer: By adjusting the reference class like this to get round the problem, unless you can show that your adjustment follows from the cause being a designer, youa re actually admitting that there is no fine tuning problem, that the cause of the universe, for some reason, was more likely than all the other causes that might have occurred. If you lack any sound basis for this, you may as well just apply logic like that to the universe itself anyway.

Also, to quickly spot the inadequacy of the fine-tuning argument, see the following videos on youtube:

Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg]

William Lane Craig 2 - Craig Harder (Refuting WLC's Proofs For God, Part II)
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aixbI7qKNlg&feature=PlayList&p=E5D80EB3D7BAFD74&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1]

And to read an article which handily refutes the theistic anthropic principle, see [http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anthropic.htm]

== Affirming the consequent ==

The Fine Tuning argument presupposes that the phenomenon of life and it being ''presumably'' only possible in a universe with physical constants exactly like the ones in ours is what qualifies this as special or sublime, however, this is based entirely on nothing other than the entities that determine what qualifies this universe as special or sublime are living (humans). This is an [[affirming the consequent]] fallacy. It could also be seen as a [[confirmation bias]] fallacy. In a hypothetical universe with different physical constants, there may be an emergent natural phenomenon that is vastly more complex than the emergence of life, the evolution of life, and the ecology of life. This phenomenon, we will label "phenomenon x", would be impossible in our universe because our physical constants may not permit phenomenon x to occur. There is no objective reason why the possibility of life demands a fine tuner more than phenomenon x. There is also no objective reason why any natural phenomenon, no matter the complexity, should demand a fine tuner any more than another. Hypothetically, if it were shown that life of some kind is possible in most possible universes, but the phenomenon of lightning is only possible in this one, then an apologist might assert that because we occupy the only possible universe with lightning, this universe must have been finely tuned.

A reductio ad absurdum can be constructed to demonstrate the weakness of the argument. If life is improbable then the existence of spaghetti is even more improbable.

1. The combination of physical constants that we observe in our universe is the only one capable of sustaining spaghetti as we know it.

2. Other combinations of physical constants are conceivable.

3. Therefore, some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one.

4. The very best explanation of the given fact is that our universe, with the particular combination of physical constants that it has, was created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and interested in spaghetti, and that he “fine-tuned” those constants in a way which would lead to the evolution of such foods.

5. But such a being as described in (4) is what is meant by the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

6. Hence [from (4) & (5)], there is good evidence that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" exists.

== Other Counter-Arguments ==

'''Attribution:''' StrongAtheism.net
[http://www.strongatheism.net/library/against/problems_of_fine_tuning/]

Science provides us with a sense of wonder about this vast universe. Perhaps the universe is being held together by a small number of physical laws, or maybe even one. For now, we know around twenty physical constants that are vital to our understanding of the universe (some scientists have proposed less). The speed of light and the mass of protons are two of these. At first glance, there is certainly a feeling that we are lucky to be alive and involved in this universe. Our lives are intertwined with these facts of physics.

The wonders of the universe, however, can be co-opted and perverted in the name of belief. The advantage for theologians is that they gain the credibility of science without being bound to its naturalist and empiricist methodology. In Christian apologetics, fine-tuning is seen as a more sophisticated, “scientific” kind of design argument. “Science finds God” is a common creed of these ideological thieves.

I. This befuddlement in the face of facts seems to be the extent of how Christians view science. They view science not as a tool of discovery, but as a source of insolvable puzzles (that is to say, insolvable by science). To the theologian, science does not exist to give answers, but only to provide questions that only he can answer – by invoking his favourite god.

Swinburne, in this example, uses natural law instead of physical constants, but the principle is the same, as physical constants are part of the natural laws that we discover. Given that, explaining why the speed of light is the way it is, is no different than explaining E=mc2.

My answer in both cases is the same. To ask why constants are this way or why laws are that way is to presume that there is an ultimate reason to be found, an ultimate cause underlying them, something beyond the material. But if the existence of the universe is necessary, then no reason or cause is to be found.

The question of an ultimate cause or explanation for the way things are, is no more meaningful than to ask a theist why his god is the way it is. Given the necessary nature of existence, it cannot be the case that “some explanation is needed” for fundamental constants which are inherent to existence.

We can also see the question as a scientific one, that is to say, look at the formation of the universe and how the constants arose from it. This is a scientific question, that Big Bang theory answers with symmetry breaks in the early universe. But in neither case is a non-natural explanation necessary, possible, or even relevant.

II. To come back to the general argument, there is one gigantic objection, the kind of thing that does not seem obvious but seems that way after you understand it. That objection is simply that fine-tuning is not an argument for design, but rather an argument against design! The idea of an extreme fine-tuning beyond which the target cannot exist is indicative of a precarious natural system, not of intelligent planning.

To understand this, an analogy may be useful. Suppose that our breathing was dependent on a specific level of oxygen in the atmosphere, and that any other level would cause suffocation. That would certainly count as “fine-tuning” in the sense given by the argument. The atmospheric composition in question would be the only one capable of supporting life, and this would therefore demand “explanation”.

But even if that was true, how would this fine-tuning justify design explanations? A designer would not make it so that humans would constantly face the danger of suffocation! An intelligent designer would try, whether possible, to ensure that a given system could keep functioning under different conditions. Such is the case with humans, who can breathe in atmospheres thin or rich in oxygen. The precarity of a system’s functioning is not evidence of design, but rather of natural law.

III. Another objection to the fine-tuning argument is that we should not be surprised or befuddled that the universe is adapted to our needs, since we evolved within the universe and its parameters. Evolution tends towards adaptation of life to its environment. Therefore, we should no more be surprised of how well the universe fits us, than we should be surprised of how well a baked cookie fits its mold. This argument is also called the WAP.

A possible retort to WAP is that without the fundamental constants as they are, life simply could not evolve at all. But this is based on a misunderstanding: because we know only one possible way for life to evolve, does not mean that no other way is possible. Even the facts of carbon-based life are not a necessity. In many cases, life would have evolved differently, and we would be silicon life forms asking why the universe is so perfectly adapted to our existence. To think this way, without any scientific guidance at all, is nothing more than wish-fulfillment. We must start from the assumption that there is nothing special about the way we evolved, unless contrary evidence is presented.

William Craig, in ‘Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design’, argues against this use of WAP by stating that:

“We should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our own existence.”

Does not justify:

“We should not be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with out existence.”
He gives the example of a man who is shot by a firing squad, but all the shots miss. Such a man should not be surprised at not being dead, since he can still reason and thus must be alive. But, Craig continues, he should be surprised at being alive, given that he should be dead.

I see Craig’s example as illustrating the fallacy of his argument. He misunderstands that which we should be surprised about. In the case of the firing squad, the survivor should not at all be surprised at being alive, but rather at the firing squad missing all their shots. The fact that he is still alive, in itself, should not at all be surprising. It is the underlying causal link that is surprising, not the fact itself. In the case of the universe, these causal links are not surprising at all, and therefore his argument fails.

IV. We have good reason to object to a number of assumptions that are explicitly or implicitly held by theologians who use fine-tuning. The first assumption is contained in the following formulation:

“2. Other combinations of physical constants are conceivable.”

Now granted, some theologians do not explain this step at all, but they usually have no justification for their assumption that physical constants could be otherwise. So Drange’s formulation here is in fact a concession.

At any rate, it is unclear why the fact that “other combinations of physical constants are conceivable” lead to the conclusion in (3) that:

“some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one”

In fact, (3) implies that these “other combinations” could exist. But there is no way to deduce this from (2). The fact that something is conceivable does not make it possible! It only means that our imagination can encompass it. I can imagine plenty of things that are plainly impossible, such as alternate pasts.

The fact that something is conceivable does not make it magically possible. Possibility must be demonstrated with objective evidence.

V. Two other implicit assumptions can be addressed simultaneously. These assumptions are:

Change in physical constants can be isolated.
Change in physical constants necessarily brings about states where life is impossible.
The first assumption is committed by a lot of theologians, but our argument-type does not commit it. I will therefore only justify the second. I already noted that the assumption that our specific carbon-based evolution cannot be special in any way. We must assume that, given a sufficient lifespan for stars, some form of evolution is at least possible.

With this in mind, physicist Victor Stenger developed a program called “MonkeyGod”. This program generates universes using four of the physical constants we have discussed. While this is not as convincing as analyzing the twenty physical constants that we know, MonkeyGod still demonstrates that long-lived stars “occur in a wide range of parameters”. Given this preliminary result, there is no reason to assume a priori that any change would result in the impossibility of life.

VI. We have seen that the proponents of fine-tuning call divine creation a “hypothesis” or an “explanation”. And indeed, if it was not a hypothesis or an explanation, it would not answer the “problem” of fine-tuning at all.

There are three problems associated with calling divine creation a “hypothesis” or “explanation”:

Divine creation…

i. cannot be a hypothesis because its specificity is not supported by any observation. The facts of fine-tuning, even if true, only justify the existence of a supernatural process or entity, not of a divine Creator.

ii. is not a complete hypothesis or explanation, and is not a proper working hypothesis or explanation.

iii. as a hypothesis or explanation, is contradicted by many facts of the universe.

The first objection is more specific, since it only pertains to god-as-hypothesis, and I will not get into it. For more on this topic, the article ‘Process-Based Noncognitivism’, which discusses the impossibility of positing a god’s existence as a hypothesis, may be helpful.

The second objection is critical. If divine creation, as expressed by theologians, is nothing but hollow words without any substance, then it cannot serve as a hypothesis or explanation. Does it mean anything to say “a god created the universe” and can we explain this process?

The answer is no. According to theologians, the only relevant elements of any divine action on the universe are that a god wills natural change, and that will becomes reality. But both these elements are meaningless.

First, the idea that a god wills natural change contradicts its infinity. It therefore cannot be the case that a god desires to intervene in the natural world. This point is discussed as a strong-atheistic argument in ‘No-reason argument'.

Secondly, if “a god’s will becomes reality” is to mean anything at all, then one must answer to the modus operandi problem, that is, how a supernatural being could possibly act in the natural world. Without an answer to this general problem, no instance of such a passage can be justified. And if no instance can be justified, then there is no meaning to discuss.

The third objection is perhaps the heaviest. If divine creation is impossible, either due to the nature of divine creation itself or the nature of this universe, then it cannot be used as an explanation for fine-tuning.

Many strong-atheistic arguments demonstrate the impossibility of divine creation. Here are some of them:

Materialist Apologetics – based on the necessary nature of various features of human understanding, which contradict the idea that divine creation makes everything contingent.

Problem of Evil – based on the existence of evil.

Atheistic Cosmological Argument – based on the inseparability of time and space.

Argument from Scale – based on the scientific facts about evolution and the size of the universe.

Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God’s Nonexistence – based on the nature of the Big Bang.

And of course the Apathetic God Paradox, which I have already mentioned.

VII. Finally, fine-tuning arguments lack specificity. If we look at our argument-type again:

Therefore, some explanation is needed why our actual combination of physical constants exists rather than a different one.

The very best explanation of the given fact is that our universe, with the particular combination of physical constants that it has, was created out of nothing by a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal, and interested in sentient organic systems, and that he “fine-tuned” those constants in a way which would lead to the evolution of such systems.

But even if, for the sake of argument, we concede that C3 is true, there is no possible way to deduce that the explanation is “a single being who is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, eternal, and interested in sentient organic systems”. It is possible to imagine that a supernatural process or law causes the universe to come into existence, instead of a personal being. This would be perfectly in line with what we observe in our own universe.

As I said before, imagination does not indicate possibility: but since we have no idea of what a supernatural process or entity would be like anyway, any discussion on its basis must necessarily be arbitrary. The assumption that a supernatural process can exist is not any more arbitrary than the assumption that a supernatural god can exist. In the end, any discussion of the supernatural is meaningless, but we assume that it is meaningful for the sake of discussing the argument.

VIII. Carrier has proposed the objection that the claim:

The fact that life can exist demands explanation.

Displays a mistaken prejudice that life, or human life, is somehow special and requires explanation. If we see life as a by-product of the universe being in certain states, then there is nothing left that requires explanation. The existence of any universe will have temporal consequences, and life is one of those possible consequences. It requires no more explanation than the pattern of raindrops falling on the sidewalk.

In this view, the fine-tuning argument assumes teleology in regard to life as a premise in order to prove teleology. It is, to a certain extent, a circular argument.

To say that the fine-tuning argument is fallacious is a vast understatement. As generally expressed, it is false at its very core assumption – that fine-tuning, if it existed, would demonstrate design. Almost all of its other premises and assumptions are false in some way.

It also demonstrates how pitiful the theological attempt to co-opt science for its own ends can be. From Biblical reinterpretation to design arguments, all that such arguments achieve is a complete misreading of both science and religion. The idea that the universe is fine-tuned should be especially offensive to believers who uphold intelligent design, as it is an egregious example of unintelligent design, at best.

The more we learn about the universe, the more we observe the power of natural law in developing existence into complex and wondrous forms. We do not, however, observe any divine agency. “God’s fingerprints” are nowhere to be seen. The fingerprints of the eternal laws of nature, however, fill the heavens. Believers would do well to open their eyes and take a look.

'''Attribution:''' [http://phrenicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/07/refuting-fine-tuning-cosmological.html]

I. Fine-Tuning Argument (as stipulated by Richard Swinburne)

1. The universe is finely tuned for intelligent life.

2. If God existed, he would want to create Intelligent life.

3. The existence of Intelligent life is extremely improbable without God's existence.

4. Intelligent life exists.

5. Intelligent life is good and needs explanation.

Therefore, it is extremely probable (using Bayesian Probability) that God exists.

Swinburne uses Bayesian Probability (Hypothesis h being theism, evidence for theism e being intelligent life, and background knowledge k being facts of our natural universe) to compare to against the hypotheses of a universe suited to intelligent life with no god, as well as against the multiverse hypothesis.

One problem with this is that he presumes intelligent life needs explanation at all, thereby putting it into evidence for theism. A non-teleological explanation would simply say that it isn’t a logical necessity that anything needs explanation, thus denying there is any background information about our world that belongs in any sets of evidence for anything additional to its own existence.

Replying to the Fine-Tuning Argument:

1. The universe is finely tuned for intelligent life.

(1) The universe is highly hostile to all forms of life:
The hostile vacuum: Why don’t humans easily send a manned mission to mars and beyond? The cosmic radiation outside our atmosphere is incredibly fatal life as we know it after a relatively short duration of exposure.

The hostile past: The number of species that have ever existed but now have gone extinct is 99% of all life.

The barren whole: Proportion of the cosmos that is non-baryonic: 98%. That is, rather than being amazingly supportive and flourishing with “good” life, the universe is almost completely a barren void.

Our barren planet: the percentage of the earth that is actually biomass is only 0.00000000117%.

(2) In total reverse to Swinburne's above point, it is intelligent life that is finely adapted to the universe:

We fit the universe because we were formed by and within the universe. This is like Douglas Adam's sentient puddle who was amazed at how well he fit his hole. As far as the puddle is concerned, such a shapely fit must only be a miracle. If the laws of nature define our bounds and evolution formed our nature, we shouldn't be amazed at how necessary, desirable, or virtuous we find any of these things to be.
The cosmos bounded our only choice of feasible conditions for life, hence we formed within those guidelines.
Our biological environment literally shaped us to fit it, killing all non-adapted alternatives. It is no surprise that we find it to be so perfectly suited to us.
Lastly, our minds formed within the universe as it is, thereby ensuring that if we were to find anything intelligible then we (as intelligent observers) must find our universe intelligible. The alternative is creatures without working minds who find the universe unintelligible and die.

2. If God existed, he would want to create Intelligent life.

If humans really are the evidentiary product, e, of a personal God, h, then this might be fair. This is, however, an egocentric supposition rather than a necessary fact. As some say, it is no accident that people’s gods look like themselves. It is also no accident here that Swinburne defines himself as the evidence for a omni-Swinburnian god who would want to create things just like Swinburne.
After all, bats exist so why isn’t god a bat? You might argue that bats are more probable than humans. However, Apple iPods also require a cosmos that can support matter and life, human evolution to produce their inventors, and then a complex design tree of technological production plus the correct combination of sociobiological, cultural, economic, and marketing factors to produce them. They are at least as improbable and probably much more improbable than humans, therefore why isn’t god a Cosmic iPod?
Swinburne cannot presuppose that his hypothesis should assume the evidence for his own hypothesis without being circular.

3. The existence of Intelligent life is extremely improbable without God's existence.

This presumes:

(1) The combination of cosmological constants that we observe is the only one capable of sustaining life as we know it.

This isn’t the case: Victor Stenger’s “MonkeyGod” programme focuses on only four cosmological constants and shows that other life-sustaining universes are possible with other permutations of the constants.
Additionally, how many worlds even exist? Just our single cosmos? That would certainly provide the best sense of amazement at our fortuitous set of constants. If so, and if no other worlds can exist, then we have no other alternatives to our life-sustaining cosmos and the fact that we exist isn’t amazing at all. What is simply is what is.
However, it may be that other current cosmological theories are true, such as the oscillating universe, a higher-order multiverse, or “embedded” cosmoses. If so, then it is possible that the chance of a life-sustaining cosmos existing is very high. After all, if I have 99 boxes with dogs and one with a cat, then the chance of choosing a cat is only 1%. But if the number of boxes is infinite, then the number of boxes containing cats also tends towards infinity.
No matter how small the chances of getting a life-sustaining universe are, in a multiverse the chance of one existing is guaranteed.
Swinburne does not know how many possible worlds, if any, exist and therefore he cannot claim to know the relative probability of having a life sustaining universe without god.

(2) Similar to above, this argument assumes that other combinations of cosmological constants are possible.

We have no evidence for this. Cosmological constants may be non-contingent facts. The physical “laws” describing our universe simply mathematically describe what is and what happens, it doesn’t determine that which it describes. Equally, the constants are descriptions of what we observe and some of our values and constants are post-hoc fudged values that make our calculations work.
Simply because we can ascribe a number to a description that we have of our universe, that doesn't mean that it is feasible that this descriptive number value can change. It only means we can imagine it changing. However, just because something is imaginarily conceivable it doesn't mean that it is possible.
Who said the constants can change? Who said they could have been different to what they are now? How were they set in the first place?
To presume that they were ‘finely tuned’ as if by a purposive agent is a circular argument (from a theistic perspective) and an unwarranted presupposition that may actually be entirely imaginary and incoherent.

4. Intelligent life exists.

I wouldn’t argue with this. I would only qualify it with the fact that this need not necessarily be the case (except if we presuppose intelligent observers).

5. Intelligent life is good and needs explanation.

This teleologically presupposes that the big bang and evolution, if played through again, should re-produce humans. Otherwise, it is true that we are a unique fact of historical happenstance (Bayesian background knowledge k), but not evidence for anything (Bayesian evidence e for intelligence-creating theism, h).
If you don’t presuppose that we should exist, then you open yourself up to the fact that “history could have gone differently” and we simply wouldn’t have existed in an alternative situation. This robs the fact of our existence of anything that begs explanation, as we would simply be the one outcome of many possibilities that happened to occur.

== See also ==
*[[Anthropic principle]]
*[[Habitable zone]]

== External links ==

* [http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html Cosmology 101] at NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisortopy Probe website — This is an outstanding resource for understanding cosmological theory.
* ''[http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12282 Fine-Tuned Deception]: Say hello to the new stealth creationism'' by [[Sahotra Sarkar]]

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/counter_apologetics/swinburnes_teleological_arguments/

Swinburne, a theistic philosopher, displaying his naivete with the fine-tuning argument.

http://phrenicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/07/refuting-fine-tuning-cosmological.html

http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/refuting-craig-five-arguments/

Videos refuting William Lane Craig's five ''proofs'' for God.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anthropic.htm

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/against/problems_of_fine_tuning/

The Many Problems of the Fine-Tuning Argument

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Cosmological arguments]]

It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe

2010-05-15T09:10:25Z

Bob M: rework

Actually no it doesn't!

[[Atheist]]s maintain that there is no evidence for God therefore it is not necessary, logical or reasonable to be believe in him (or it or them).

Equally, not believing in fairies or Father Christmas is not an act of faith, it is the reasonable consequence of there being no evidence for the existence of these mythological beings. Such a position in no way requires a statement of [[faith]].

Some just don't want to believe, but who are Theists to criticize Atheists with Strong Atheism? In that sense, they are both being hypocritical. There is no evidence for the presence of a higher power, that's why theists need faith - it's used in place of evidence. But the irony is that most of them have the confidence to deny the existence of fairy tale creatures for which there is no evidence. When it comes to Atheism, some use the lack of evidence as their justification to say that "there is no god", but at the same time as using faith, they are using the fact that there's no evidence to support their claim.

Lack of religious faith is one of the defining characteristics of athiests - they have none.

Talk:Impossibility of Actual Infinity against God

2010-05-03T10:10:12Z

Bob M: title?

Talk:Main Page

2010-04-30T20:52:03Z

Bob M: date?

==Introduction Content==

Matt, I like the new information about what "Iron Chariots" means, but I respectfully suggest that it should be displaced to [[Iron Chariots:Introduction]]. My thinking is that the front page should be relatively clean, and new readers should not be required to look at a whole bunch of explanatory text unless they they want to.

I'll wait for your approval or objection before I take this step, or you can do it yourself.

[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:38, 20 June 2006 (MST)

:I was thinking about this earlier and I'm definitely in agreement. You can move all of this to the "about" page (or info, or whatever).

:What I would like to do, is modify the main page so that it remains clean - but is more consistent with other wiki sites (like wikipedia). A quick welcome, some highlighted information and places to start.

: - Matt

==Wiki meta-stuff==

I'm removing this meta-information from the main page:

"Getting started"

* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]
* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]
* [http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]

[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 05:29, 15 June 2006 (MST)

==Main page: Logo and Design==

I will submit a draft of a large logo suitable for display on the front page soon, I am gathering source material for it. I was wondering if anyone could send me a large (1000px +) version of the current iron chariots graphic, just for reference. Thanks.

[[User:FredContreras|FredContreras]]
: I don't have an image that size. The original image is a small photograph of a statue which I modified (a little) in Photoshop. It was always meant to be a placeholder until I (or someone else) got around to making real logos for the site. It isn't essential to the design. In fact, I'm pretty open to suggestions on logos and even (minor) color scheme changes. I've got the original image on my machine at work, but I'm pretty sure that [http://www.sculpturegallery.com/sculpture/roman_chariot.html this page] has the original image. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 21:32, 25 August 2006 (MST)

::Thank you, that's perfect! All I needed was something good to base a logo on.[[User:FredContreras|FredContreras]]

===Logo Draft 1===
[[image:ironchariotslogo.png|frame|Iron Chariots Logo]]
Ok, here is a very prelim version based on the image you supplied.
Let me know if this is ok. I'll keep working on it and post revisions as I create them.

I wonder maybe I should create some tagline graphics too, that you can mix and match with the logo?
[[User:FredContreras|FredContreras]]
:I think you're off to a great start...I'm looking forward to seeing more. [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 12:18, 27 August 2006 (MST)

::Yeah, looks good... quick request, can you get the reins back in there? It looks weird for the charioteer to have his arms out and not obviously controlling the horses.

:: Since we're doing a customized image, I wonder if some sort of subtle religious symbolism might be work somewhere in there? I'm not sure what I'm thinking of... a Bible being trampled was what came to mind, but I think that is more aggressive than it should be. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 06:51, 28 August 2006 (MST)

== Featured articles and category ==

Should the main page be in a category? If so, which one?

Secondly, the "Featured articles" section doesn't seem to have been updated in a while. If no one's interested in actively maintaining it, perhaps it should be removed. It can always be added back later, perhaps as a sidebar. --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 11:48, 16 December 2007 (CST)

== The Lord could not defeat Iron Chariots ==

I spelt it out for reader who speak English as a second language etc. The meaning of the Bible quote is now clearer. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:02, 29 June 2008 (CDT)
: I've reverted your edit because I think it's important to keep the quote "clean" for the Main Page. I have, however, linked the words "[[chariots of iron]]" to our article on this passage, so you can add any explanatory remarks there, if you'd like. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:35, 5 July 2008 (CDT)

== Time ==

Your [[Special:Recentchanges|recent changes]] clock is running behind, my edits are shown occurring on June 20 but today is July 2. This indicates that it's behind by 12 days. --[[User:Elassint|Elassint]] 19:40, 2 July 2008 (CDT)
: Well, your comment here seems to have been dated correctly. I haven't noticed any problems with the system clock since it was reading MST a while back. I've checked [[Special:Recentchanges]] quite a few times over the last few days and haven't noticed anything strange. Maybe it was just a momentary glich? If you're still seeing weird edit times (as a test, you can create your user page <g>), check the "Date and Time" settings in [[Special:Preferences|your Preferences]]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 04:37, 5 July 2008 (CDT)

:: I've noticed the same problem, the "Recent Changes" page shows the latest edits occurring as of 9 Nov - today is 24 Nov. It's been like this as long as I've been using this wiki. I've ignored it until now... [[User:Rivalarrival|Rivalarrival]] 23:08, 23 November 2008 (CST) (Ok, so I've got the wrong timezone too... :-) )

After setting date/time settings in the preferences page, the recent changes dates seem correct. Really weird... I undid my changes, and it went back to the 9th. I tested it a couple more times - if I remove the time offset, the dates in recent changes are screwed up. If I replace it with anything, including "00:00", the dates are correct. It's like the default "offset" is approximately -336 hours. [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 23:21, 23 November 2008 (CST)

Important: This problem seems to affect anyone who is not logged in! Makes it look like this wiki is stagnant, with no updates in the past ~2 weeks! [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 12:05, 24 November 2008 (CST)

Im logged in and the time still shows off for me. Its always shown a couple of weeks behind since I started editing things on the wiki. The reason the time on the commends shows right is that its manually added. I would suspect that its something on the host server, though I would suspect that the forum would have the same problem and it does not. Not sure though if I had access I might be able to find out. Somewhere its reading the date wrong. [[User:gizmoiscariot|Gizmo]] 13:45, 24 November 2008 (PST)

== [[Talk:You can't prove God doesn't exist]] ==

Everyone please move to the link above to discuss the non-existence of reality and the non-existence of God at '''Counter-counter-argument'''.

== [[St. Augustine]] ==

Hello, user [[User:Rivalarrival]] is making changes to the page about augustine that are death wrong. Because he was born to a Christian mother. I believe he might be doing this because he is feeling slighted by my metaphysical arguments about the nature of reality. Pleaselook into this, thank you. --[[User:Thomas|Thomas]]

:In my defense, I plead simple ignorance as to the difference between paganism and manichaeism, the root of the issue. Apparently, confusing a religion with multiple deities to another religion with multiple deities is "death wrong", and I apologize for any confusion I might have caused. At the time I made the change, (and even now) [[User:Thomas]]'s edits appeared to be apologist nonsense - His edits to [[You can't prove God doesn't exist]] (and subsequent discussion on the talk page) was nothing more than a diatribe about his assumptions as to the nature of god. The [[Orthodox Christianity]] article appeared intended to support Catholicism as a more valid alternative. In the [[St. Augustine]] article (and subsequent edit war) Thomas seemed intent on presenting the youthful Augustine as a Catholic, despite his intensive study of non-christian worldviews. [[User:Rivalarrival|Rival]] 00:48, 1 December 2008 (CST)
::I Wish you where this courtious on my talk page. Because i have to embarise you in public. I am not biased to Catholicism because i am an Orthodox Christian myself. Orthodox Christianity does not have a scholastic tradition, because scholasticism has it's origine in Western-Europe, in fact in Italy of the eleventh century and is based on the teachings of Aristoteles. This is very basic philosophical history which i hope you will take time to study. Augustine was in fact raised as a Christian from early childhood, for example he was enlisted into the [[catechumens]]. Augustine was a bad Christian in his early life but a Christian none the less and when he turned to Manichaenism, to the regret of his mother; he did not change from a pagan into a Manichaein but from an Christian into a Manichaen. --[[User:Thomas|Thomas]]
:::Another good point is to say that i was raised a Marxist but turned to Orthodoxy at the age of nineteen. I was a Marxist when i was twelve but not a very good Marxist, but a Marxist none the less. --[[User:Thomas|Thomas]]

== Longevity ==

Will this wiki be deactivated or expired some time in the future? Will my contributions go to waste?

==Date==

I see there is a comment about dates/times above - apparently in 2008. But I see the same two-week gap on "recent changes" now. The date stamp on comments is OK though. Is this an on-going problem?--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 15:52, 30 April 2010 (CDT)

What good is half a wing?

2010-04-30T20:06:40Z

Bob M: /* What good is half an eye? */ better?

The question, "'''What good is half a wing?'''" is often used by [[creationist]]s who severely misunderstand [[evolutionary theory]]. The question implies that [[fossil]] [[bird]]s should be discovered with literal "half-wings" — i.e., a wing missing half of itself. This is a misunderstanding of how wings likely evolved.

According to the modern theory, evolution is not oriented toward a final goal but merely involves small changes that aid in the survival of individuals to the age of reproduction. In particular, evolution in the ancestor of modern birds was not working toward full-blown modern wings as we know them today. The arms of, say, small dinosaurs might have developed small proto-feathers in order to help them stay in the air longer when they jumped to avoid predators or to pursue prey. This wasn't yet a wing, but it ostensibly had some small benefit to the animal. Over millennia the feathers may have grown longer, the arms leaner and the muscles stronger. Today their ancestors, modern birds, ''do'' have wings as we know them.

The "half a wing" argument is related to the idea that evolution is like a [[Tornado argument|tornado moving through a junkyard and assembling a fully-functional 747]].

==What good is half an eye?==
A closely-related question is, "what good is half an eye?" But we all know people who are nearsighted or farsighted, and who get along quite well. Even without glasses, it is better to be nearsighted than to have cataracts, which in turn is better than being blind. "Half an eye" or 50% of vision is 50% better than being blind.

Another way to look at it is to ask what constitutes 100% of an eye, the answer to which can shed light on what 50% of an eye is, and therefore what good it is.

*The human eye cannot be said to be a full eye in many respects:
**The nerves and blood vessels carry visual signals and blood from the retina to the brain are wired so that they go inside the eye. Where they exit the eye, they crowd out light receptors, resulting in a blind spot that the brain must fill in essentially with educated guesswork. Squid and octopus eyes are not wired this way, and therefore do not have a blind spot.
**Humans see only three colors, not five as in some fish.
**Humans cannot see ultraviolet like bees.
**Humans cannot see infrared like pit vipers.
**Humans have poor underwater vision unlike penguins.
**Humans have poor night vision unlike owls.
**Humans have poor ranged vision unlike birds of prey.
**Humans cannot see magnetic fields unlike some migratory birds.
**Humans cannot easily detect polarized light unlike ants.
**Human eyes have a fovea, an area densely packed with light receptors, which we use for distinguishing colors and for resolving fine detail (this is why we can't read a book out of the corner of our eye: there aren't enough receptors to make out the shapes of the letters). But some birds of prey, such has hawks, have two foveas, which allows them to resolve detail in two areas at once.
**Chameleons have independently-targetable eyes: each eye can look at, and focus on, a separate object. They can estimate the distance to each object by the way the lens focuses on that object.
**Human retinas aren't properly attached to the eye and easily detach possibly causing blindness.

Eye evolution is well known and documented from a point of light sensitive cells, to a depression for the light sensitive cells, to a pin hole eye, to a lensed eye: each step conveys more and more use to an organism. So half an eye is useful, about half as useful.

==See also==
* [[Irreducible complexity]]

*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921.html TO: What good is half an organ?]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html TO: What good is half an eye?]
*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html TO: What good is half a wing?]

[[Category:Arguments from design]]

User:Bob M

2010-04-30T19:59:50Z

Bob M: Hi

Hi. Atheist in Europe. I'm also [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Bob_M this Bob M] and run [http://teflpedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page my own wiki] though it's got nothing to do with athiesm.

Came here through the podcast.