Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

The Fine-Tuning Argument

Bellerophon
Posts: 94
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:07:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 10:54:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Does it succeed? Explain...

I don't think the math is there yet ... at best it does have the advantage of being correct in that it has very slight support for it, others say that there's normalization problems to work out in regards to course-tuning vs fine-tuning, or so I've heard from Tim McGrew through facebook conversation. I don't really understand the math as much as he does.

But I think Plantinga successfully puts forth a superior "design dialog" rather than a "design argument" from anything like cosmic fine-tuning. I'm thinking here of his latest book, "where the conflict really lies."
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 12:11:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 10:54:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Does it succeed? Explain...

Its a god of the gaps argument, but is a gap. So on those grounds it's logically sound but no more valid than the multiverse non god argument.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 6:59:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/3/2013 10:54:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Does it succeed? Explain...

No more so than any other argument from incredulity and arguably quite a lot less because it is essentially "some unknown amount of probability involving factors that we have a woefully incomplete understanding of is too small an amount of probability for my liking!". I mean... they don't even know what it is they're actually objecting to. Nor do they ever bother to address the relative probability of their proposed alternative.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 8:38:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think that it is a completely unreasonable argument. One could use it to try to prove that some intelligent creator exists. However, it certainly does prove the existence of the god of the quran or the bible specifically.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 9:00:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 8:38:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
I don't think that it is a completely unreasonable argument. One could use it to try to prove that some intelligent creator exists. However, it certainly does prove the existence of the god of the quran or the bible specifically.

I don't even think it succeeds in demonstrating an intelligent creator.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 9:07:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2013 9:00:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/4/2013 8:38:02 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
I don't think that it is a completely unreasonable argument. One could use it to try to prove that some intelligent creator exists. However, it certainly does prove the existence of the god of the quran or the bible specifically.

I don't even think it succeeds in demonstrating an intelligent creator.

I tend to agree. I just think that it is not complete nonsense like some arguments (e.g. the miraculous nature of the quran or the resurrection of jesus christ)
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2013 10:40:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
From a pool of trillions, a sample of one is sufficient to develope the fine tuning argument?

I don't think so.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin