The Instigator
Burncastle
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The "fine-tuning" argument is NOT a good argument

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Burncastle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,242 times Debate No: 59381
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

Burncastle

Pro

First round is for acceptance and I would like my opponent to give me his version of the fine-tuning argument in syllogistic form in order to make sure that I am not attacking a strawman. If you are not sure whether your argument counts as "fine-tuning argument" then please post it in the comment so that I can assess it.

By "NOT good" I mean that either the validity or the soundness of the argument are not well supported. Soundness will most likely be the focus of this debate.

Good luck!
Anti-atheist

Con

P1: DNA is a complex thing.
P2: This complex thing is either due to nature, randomness, design, chance, or Hitler.
P3: It is probably not due to nature, randomness or chance.
P4: Therefore, this complex thing was due to design and Hitler.
P5: Hitler is god.
C: DNA was designed by Hitler.
C2: Dna was designed by god.
C3: God exists.

Ok, obviously DNA is a complex thing. If dna wasn't complex, then I would have passed biology with an A. But sinceI failed biology, it follows logically by the modus ponens form of arguments (I think that's what William Lane Craig called it) that dna is a complex thing. Now, by the logical law of four possibilities and a Hitler, it follows that the only explanations of this design are nature, randomness, design, chance, or Hitler. Why can't it be due to nature? Well, let's took a look at the nature around us. Have you ever seen a deer create DNA? Obviously they can't. Deers are made up of DNA and they never cause DNA. Indeed, this would require some bizarre form of quantum mechanical retrocausality, which is refuted by the Jesus Interpretation as set out by the physicist Malcom Malum (1). Iit can't be due to randomness because if I get a deck of cards, put them in a box, and shake them around, I never get DNA. The complexity of DNA cannot be due to chance because if I allow one side of a die to represent a DNA nucleotide, and I roll a million dice, then there is only a .1 out of six hundred trillion chance that I would roll a nucleotide sequence that codes for a protein. These odds are about as high as the chance that RationalThinker will stop smoking weed. it follows that the coplexity is due to design and Hitler.

Hitler is god by definition.

Therefore, god made DNA...

Therefore god exists.

QED.

http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Burncastle

Pro

It would seem that I unfortunately find myself arguing against a troll. The argument that he presented is an argument from design, which is not the same as the fine-tuning argument. Nonetheless, I will address his points one by one.

"P1: DNA is a complex thing." Granted, although complexity is a somewhat subjective qualification.

"P2: This complex thing is either due to nature, randomness, design, chance, or Hitler." Randomness and chance are the same thing. I accept the options of nature (which could include chance) and design (which could technically also include chance). I won't even go into the "Hitler" option.

"P3: It is probably not due to nature, randomness or chance." We will se how my opponent defends this assertion.

"P4: Therefore, this complex thing was due to design and Hitler." That should be C1 by the way.

"P5: Hitler is god." ...

"C: DNA was designed by Hitler." I will assume that Hitler means God, in which case I am eager to see how my opponent defends this.

"C2: Dna was designed by god." So C was useless basically.

"C3: God exists." Technically, without the premisse "DNA exists" this does not follow, but I will let it slide.


"Ok, obviously DNA is a complex thing. If dna wasn't complex, then I would have passed biology with an A. But sinceI failed biology, it follows logically by the modus ponens form of arguments (I think that's what William Lane Craig called it) that dna is a complex thing." No it does not follow, it is also possible that my opponent is an idiot. My hypothesis has the merit of being supported by evidence which the audience can find throughout this debate.

"Now, by the logical law of four possibilities and a Hitler" Yes, that famous law.

"it follows that the only explanations of this design are nature, randomness, design, chance, or Hitler." So my opponent KNEW that this was an argument from design? How frustrating.

"Why can't it be due to nature? Well, let's took a look at the nature around us. Have you ever seen a deer create DNA? Obviously they can't. Deers are made up of DNA and they never cause DNA." So the argument is that since deers can not create DNA, it follows that nature can not create DNA? This is a non-sequitur and a fallacy of composition. Not only that, but the fact that we have not SEEN it happen is the proof that it can't? Argument from ignorance.

"Indeed, this would require some bizarre form of quantum mechanical retrocausality, which is refuted by the Jesus Interpretation as set out by the physicist Malcom Malum (1)."
*Facepalm*

"it can't be due to randomness because if I get a deck of cards, put them in a box, and shake them around, I never get DNA. The complexity of DNA cannot be due to chance because if I allow one side of a die to represent a DNA nucleotide, and I roll a million dice, then there is only a .1 out of six hundred trillion chance that I would roll a nucleotide sequence that codes for a protein. These odds are about as high as the chance that RationalThinker will stop smoking weed." *Double facepalm*

"it follows that the coplexity is due to design and Hitler." Has my opponent ever SEEN Hitler create DNA? If not, then we have a case of special pleading.

"Hitler is god by definition." I need an other hand to facepalm. Is anyone willing to... give me a hand?

"Therefore, god made DNA" ...

"Therefore god exists." ...


I await my opponent's response with apprehension.
Anti-atheist

Con

Pro asks if I have ever seen Hitler create DNA. The answer to this question is yes. It was in 1908, when I was sixteen years old, and Adolf was nineteen. We both shared a love for Bach and Cocaine, and the two of us quickly became young, gay, homosexual lovers. On that day, we happened to meet by a river in Prague, and the sexual tension between the two of us was palpable. Before I knew it, he leaned down and kissed me, his fingers moving rhythmically inside me, his thumb circling and pressing. His other hand scooped my hair off my head and held my head in place. His tongue mirrored the actions of his fingers, claiming me. My legs began to stiffen as I pushed against his hand. He gentled his hand, so I’m brought back from the brink ... I came instantly again and again, falling apart beneath him … then I’m building again … I climaxed anew, calling out his name. His arms were wrapped around me, and he pulled me to him, hard, fast, gripping my ponytail to tilt my head up, kissing me like his life depends on it … He dragged the hair tie painfully out of my hair, but I didn't care. He needed me, for whatever reason, at this point in time, and I never felt so desired and coveted. It was in this moment of sheer love and joy that Adolf Hitler created DNA right before my very eyes. It was white, liquid, and smelled faintly of glucose. This represented the divine creation event of the entire human race. I am not making the fallacy of special pleading, as I have witnessed Adolf Hitler create DNA by myself. The first premise of my argument states that DNA is a complex thing. Pro rudely insinuates that I am an idiot, which is logically impossible given the intelligence I have demonstrated in this debate. I have personally procreated with geniuses such as Christopher Langan, so the assertion that I am an in idiot is logically imposisble. Pro says that my argument commits the fallacy of composition. What he fails to realize is that there must be the proper ontic seeding and differentiation for this objetion to be coherent. For even if we accept that the proper biunivocal substantiations have been established beforehand, it must follow, and indeed is required from Godel's axioms, that there remains a certain degree of instability in how we inherently conceptualize and explicate, and thus no biunivocal correspondence in the Foucaultian-Deluzian sense of the term. We can clearly see that there is no biunivocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. This symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive character of their expansion, all these dimensions remove us from the law of excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism criticized previously. n the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous series which are
organized into a system which is neither stable nor unstable, but rather ‘metastable,’
endowed with a potential energy wherein the differences between series are
distributed . . . In the second place, singularities possess a process of auto-unification,
always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element traverses the series
and makes them resonate, enveloping the corresponding singular points in a single
aleatory point and all the emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast

As a logical proof of the abvoe statements

S (signifier) = s (the statement),
S (signifier) = s (the statement),
s (signified)
With S = (-1), produces: s = sqrt(-1)

Perhaps history itself has to be regarded as a chaotic formation, in which acceleration puts
an end to linearity and the turbulence created by acceleration deflects history definitively
If one examines capitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject neotextual
materialism or conclude that society has objective value. If dialectic desituationism holds,
we have to choose between Habermasian discourse and the subtextual paradigm of
context. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a textual nationalism that
includes truth as a reality. In a sense, the premise of the subtextual paradigm of context
If one examines capitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject neotextual
materialism or conclude that society has objective value. If dialectic desituationism holds,
we have to choose between Habermasian discourse and the subtextual paradigm of
context. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a textual nationalism that
includes truth as a reality. In a sense, the premise of the subtextual paradigm of context
states that reality comes from the collective unconscious.


In the works of Burroughs, a predominant concept is the distinction between creation and destruction. Bataille promotes the use of postconceptual construction to attack and read sexual identity.

If one examines the dialectic paradigm of narrative, one is faced with a choice: either reject postconceptual construction or conclude that the significance of the reader is deconstruction. Therefore, a number of theories concerning a self-fulfilling whole may be found. The subject is contextualised into a prematerial rationalism that includes sexuality as a paradox.

In a sense, the main theme of Tilton’s[1] analysis of surrealism is the common ground between society and class. Lacan suggests the use of capitalist depatriarchialism to deconstruct class divisions.

But Marx uses the term ‘postconceptual construction’ to denote the futility, and thus the collapse, of neosemanticist society. The economy, and some would say the collapse, of cultural discourse prevalent in Burroughs’s Naked Lunch emerges again in Nova Express, although in a more postdialectic sense.

Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a cultural objectivism that includes reality as a totality. Bataille’s critique of surrealism suggests that language is a legal fiction, given that sexuality is equal to language.

2. Postconceptual construction and neodialectic situationism

“Sexual identity is part of the paradigm of consciousness,” says Marx. It could be said that la Fournier[2] implies that the works of Burroughs are an example of mythopoetical socialism. Cultural objectivism states that language has significance.

The primary theme of the works of Burroughs is not narrative, but subnarrative. But Lyotard uses the term ‘neodialectic situationism’ to denote the role of the writer as participant. Many deappropriations concerning surrealism exist.

In the works of Burroughs, a predominant concept is the concept of neocultural narrativity. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a textual discourse that includes art as a reality. In Junky, Burroughs denies neodialectic situationism; in Naked Lunch, although, he reiterates surrealism.

The main theme of Humphrey’s[3] model of cultural objectivism is the bridge between class and sexual identity. But Debord uses the term ‘surrealism’ to denote a self-sufficient totality. The example of predeconstructive theory intrinsic to Gibson’s Mona Lisa Overdrive is also evident in Neuromancer.

“Narrativity is used in the service of hierarchy,” says Baudrillard; however, according to von Junz[4] , it is not so much narrativity that is used in the service of hierarchy, but rather the failure, and hence the absurdity, of narrativity. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a surrealism that includes reality as a whole. In Mason & Dixon, Pynchon affirms capitalist capitalism; in Gravity’s Rainbow, however, he reiterates surrealism.

However, Lyotard’s analysis of neodialectic situationism implies that the State is capable of truth, but only if the premise of surrealism is invalid; otherwise, we can assume that the goal of the artist is social comment.

Therefore, Foucault promotes the use of the

However, an abundance of theories concerning a self-justifying paradox may be discovered.

S (signifier) = s (the statement),
s
Debate Round No. 2
Burncastle

Pro

My opponent is a troll. I would ask the audience to vote Pro.
Anti-atheist

Con

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Burncastle

Pro

Again, vote Pro.
Anti-atheist

Con

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Burncastle

Pro

Vote Pro.
Anti-atheist

Con

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
Me too Ragnar: http://i62.tinypic.com...
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Anyone else unable to read this due to formatting errors?
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
medv4380
A very poor troll too. He couldn't even be bothered to replace "DNA" with something like Fine Structure Constant.
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
Lol, a real reducio ad Hitlerum, I thought I would never see the day.

Pro has no chance....
Posted by Burncastle 3 years ago
Burncastle
A troll... damn it.
Posted by Burncastle 3 years ago
Burncastle
I have a defence against this, but I will keep it for the actual debate if you don't mind.
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
medv4380
The multiverse argument would be a fairly unsound argument as to why there is fine-tuning because you'd have to prove that there really is a multiverse. It is an argument for why fine tuning exists, but isn't a very sound argument at present time. Poor-design only works against a deity as the cause, but only if you can prove that there is a better design that is possible. Deity is unsound because you'd have to prove the intention of said deity without using circular logic. Deity is easy to "prove", but only in ultra simplistic arguments leaving holes on if it could choose anything.

The problem will only be if someone attempts to extend the debate to why the fine tuning exists as long as the burden is that they must have a sound argument. The existence of fine-tuning is fairly sound, but why is were it falls apart.
Posted by Burncastle 3 years ago
Burncastle
@hanson.aaron it's okay. Technically I defined "NOT good" so I won't hold it against you
Posted by Burncastle 3 years ago
Burncastle
@KhalifV Don't give away my position! :P (and I have other objections)

@hanson.aaron I define a good argument as being valid AND sound
Posted by hanson.aaron 3 years ago
hanson.aaron
Disregard that ignorant question I just asked. I didn't fully read your first round. I'm interested.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
BurncastleAnti-atheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits