Ashwin: is evolution guided or unguided?

[Ashwin_s]

@Rumraket

Physical life like ours that lives in a physical universe, yes. So in order to explain why things are the way they are, you posit there’s a God that has, out of all possible imaginable attributes a God could have, the desire and capacity to create this exact physical universe. Not a universe that is ever so slightly different, like one with one less hydrogen atom, or one more neutrino. No, this one.

He wanted a value of
4π × 1.00000000082(20)×10−7 H⋅m−1 for the fine structure constant, not
4π × 1.000000000793(20)×10−7 H⋅m−1, or
3.99999871π × 1.00000000082(20)×10−7 H⋅m−1. God could have wanted infinitely many other values for these physical constants, and the consequences of changing them. But He didn’t. What’s the probability of a God wanting this value out of all possible values?

This is a scare crow argument.
The point is that the number of universes that can have life is a a very small number compared to the number of universes that cannot have life. (Call this set of possible universes with life -P(x))
If God wanted to create an universe with life, he would choose one among the comparably very small no: of possibilities… i.e one within p(x).Thus the element of chance is reduced. the chance of life is one, the rest of the variations are due to choice.

In a multiverse, there is no intention to create life. So a universe has to be found which has very low probability of existing by travelling through a random series of universes.
Very low plausibility compared to an intention act of creation by God.

@Rumraket

That simply doesn’t make sense. If having more rolls of the dice raising the probability of rolling a 6 is not an explanation, then how is God any different? Where is the explanation part? God just wants things to happen so they do? That’s just a description too.

I meant the water cycle in itself is a description without an explanation unless it is based on a multiverse or God.This is in response to your claim below.

@Rumraket

Second, the multiverse hypothesis flatly isn’t needed to explain anything.

Glad to see you accept that the multiverse or God is needed for the water cycle to be explained.

@Rumraket

Cool. Thanks for your unsubstantiated opinions.

I wasn’t giving you an opinion. I was stating an obvious fact.
One of the most basic experiences of reality that every human has is the sense of “being” and an understanding that this sense of “being”/“self” is within a body.
Materialistic athiesm contradicts this very basic universally shared reality and starts with the notion that we are bodies which think we have being.
Its a view in which free will or agency cannot exist as anything other than an illusion created by material causes which govern all actions.

So athiesm is irrational and based on denial of reality as human beings universally experience it.