Timeline for Is there such a thing as an argument from unconstrained possibilities against God?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 21, 2023 at 3:39 | answer | added | Marxos | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 20, 2023 at 14:09 | comment | added | Bumble | I don't see any reason to accept your first sentence. Whether there are gods or not, there is no way to tell how many possible configurations of the universe there might be. This is what makes arguments from design so intractable. The same is true of fine tuning. Who is to say what the space of possibilities is like? | |
| Jul 20, 2023 at 11:34 | comment | added | Hudjefa | @CriglCragl, apologies mate. | |
| Jul 20, 2023 at 9:52 | answer | added | Futilitarian | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 20, 2023 at 8:30 | comment | added | CriglCragl | @AgentSmith: That is very vague. | |
| Jul 20, 2023 at 5:50 | answer | added | Pertti Ruismäki | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 19, 2023 at 10:56 | comment | added | Hudjefa | The multiverse theory pops to mind. There's a popular STEM educator who's written a good number of books that visit the issue raised herein, albeit very superficially. | |
| Jul 19, 2023 at 7:22 | answer | added | causative | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 18, 2023 at 22:27 | comment | added | CriglCragl | Yes there is, & it's this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma | |
| Jul 18, 2023 at 21:53 | answer | added | tkruse | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jul 18, 2023 at 18:02 | comment | added | Weather Vane | Regarding the post's last full paragraph, about design. Douglas Adams would mimic a puddle with body language, saying "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!" | |
| Jul 18, 2023 at 17:53 | comment | added | Weather Vane | Exactly: a description of previous observations, formalised by mathematics. When the observations (and perhaps the math) get better, old laws become approximate (or even extinct), which shows they were never actually "laws" obeyed by nature at all, but a summary of our understanding. | |
| Jul 18, 2023 at 17:49 | comment | added | user62907 | It seems that what you’re trying to get at is that laws are based on experiments that are based on inductive premises. Sure, one cannot prove that reality in the next second will not consist of atoms and the planets will not move around other planets in certain predictable ways and instead have the entire universe turn to cheese. But do you really believe that? If not, “Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts.” | |
| Jul 18, 2023 at 17:47 | comment | added | user62907 | How is that an argument against reality being constrained by laws? If it was constrained by laws, we would expect consistent observations obeying those laws to take place. | |
| Jul 18, 2023 at 17:45 | history | edited | user62907 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jul 18, 2023 at 17:44 | comment | added | Weather Vane | Er... reality is not "constrained by laws". The so-called laws formalise observations made by humans, who do not control reality. They are statements about its behaviour: not what it is or is not permitted to do, but what we expect or predict it to do. | |
| Jul 18, 2023 at 17:40 | history | edited | user62907 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 776 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2023 at 17:34 | history | asked | user62907 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |