Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Fine tuning does not support god

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 12:16:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What are your thoughts on this video?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 2:01:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/25/2014 12:16:35 AM, SNP1 wrote:
What are your thoughts on this video?


I think his remarks around 4:25 are spot on. When addressing an argument you can not refute the argument by using your own definitions to the word. Especially i think when the words "God" "Spirit" and so forth are defined at the beginning of the argument. I hope Beastt pays attention to this. As long as the definition of word is consistent through out the argument then you have to refrain your rebuttals respective to that definition. Atheist seem to be inconsistent int he application of this principle.

At 6:20 the young man addresses the argument with exactly where it should be addressed. The premise may not be true. The argument actually allows that if the universe came about through chance or physical necessity than design is not a valid conclusion. And by attacking premise 2.

Now the rebuttal to the universe not being from chance, His remarks are "for all we know there could be other possible universes".

Every decision we makes should be made with the available information on hand. Science grows and changes due to this simple fact. At time "A" scientist thought the universe was infinite and stagnant. At time "B" new information suggested an expanding universe with a finite past. Meaning a "for all we know" is injecting doubt in the argument not from it's premises possibly being untrue, but just for the sake of it. Cartesian doubt is something we just deal with and mostly ignore.

If a scientist said the universe is expanding and my rebuttal was "for all we know we are brains in a vat and that isn't the real universe", No one would take that seriously.

What can be calculated is if certain physical values or constants were different as little as .01% the universe would have collapsed or biological life impossible.

these constants are affective before the universe exists 0+1plank second age-of-universe. This is different from the observations he listed near the end, stating the same observations would be present in a natural only world.

The nature of the universe can not dictate the values prior to the universe being made. If these values are properties of any universe possible than they would be physical necessities. but alas we don't know this because we don't see any other universes.

His anti-thesis that the universe appears as if it is naturally made, has no weight to it. How is the cosmological constant naturally made, if the cosmological constant has to be a certain value before there is nature. He says these things and the observations would be expected in an un-designed universe. This I have a problem with.

How can you tell? If you come across a room with a tipped over box, and on the floor were 1000 dice. IF the dice were all the numbers 1-6 you would think the box flipped over. IF all the dice were 6 up. you would ask WHO set them that way.

Is there a chance the box could flip and all 1000 dice land 6. yes. There's a chance.

But now explain why the box even flipped over?

I thought the young man was honest and sincere. Has a good head about logical arguments. Now the first few minutes about a descriptive model and such is a bit misleading in that it applies to every argument about reality. Every sentence we speak is a descriptive model of reality not the "real" reality.

1 apple plus 1 apple gives me 2 apples. This can be expressed as 1+1=2. But one is an abstract concept. It has nothing to do with the apple I have in my left hand. THe 1 is not contingent on the apple, nor the apple contingent on the number 1.

If he is trying to use that as a reason to reject fine-tuning then it is a reason to reject all theories, formulas and speech about everything.

Thank you for the video, I found it thought provoking.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 3:37:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
https://www.youtube.com...
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2014 3:56:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fine tuning proves the non existence of an omnipotent god who obviously doesn't need any fine tuning in order to create life.
Omnipotent..................poof................... LIFE.
Pretty fuking simple.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:15:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/25/2014 3:56:47 AM, bulproof wrote:
Fine tuning proves the non existence of an omnipotent god who obviously doesn't need any fine tuning in order to create life.
Omnipotent..................poof................... LIFE.
Pretty fuking simple.

hypothesis contrary to fact

Can god make life without fine tuning, let's just say sure
Then it follows God can make life through fine tuning.

instead of talking about what could have been, or what your pea brain (compared to an omniscient god's brain) think should be,

can we actually talk about what this universe is like? I know I know crazy thought having a logical rationale discussion based on what this universe IS like, wow wow

that would be trying something new for you.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:21:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/25/2014 3:56:47 AM, bulproof wrote:
Fine tuning proves the non existence of an omnipotent god who obviously doesn't need any fine tuning in order to create life.
Omnipotent..................poof................... LIFE.
Pretty fuking simple.

same thing I have been saying for days. believers want their cake and want to eat it to. They want to say that god can do anything (omnipotent) and then turn right around and say things have to be and remain a certain razor thin way in order for his whole intention ( us ) to exist.

as you say

Omnipotent god -------- poof -------------- LIFE ----- laws or constants change -------- omnipotent god says ------------ I don't give a sh*t there is still life dammitt I'm me!

as simple as it can be.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:25:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 8:15:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/25/2014 3:56:47 AM, bulproof wrote:
Fine tuning proves the non existence of an omnipotent god who obviously doesn't need any fine tuning in order to create life.
Omnipotent..................poof................... LIFE.
Pretty fuking simple.

hypothesis contrary to fact

Can god make life without fine tuning, let's just say sure
Then it follows God can make life through fine tuning.

instead of talking about what could have been, or what your pea brain (compared to an omniscient god's brain) think should be,

can we actually talk about what this universe is like? I know I know crazy thought having a logical rationale discussion based on what this universe IS like, wow wow

exactly how do you propose to talk about something scientific like what the universe is like, when you keep using your seemingly unlimited powers to insert your god. You can't have that conversation with an atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, hindu, jain, or any of a host of other people.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:33:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 8:15:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/25/2014 3:56:47 AM, bulproof wrote:
Fine tuning proves the non existence of an omnipotent god who obviously doesn't need any fine tuning in order to create life.
Omnipotent..................poof................... LIFE.
Pretty fuking simple.

hypothesis contrary to fact

Can god make life without fine tuning, let's just say sure
Then it follows God can make life through fine tuning.

instead of talking about what could have been, or what your pea brain (compared to an omniscient god's brain) think should be,

can we actually talk about what this universe is like? I know I know crazy thought having a logical rationale discussion based on what this universe IS like, wow wow

that would be trying something new for you.

where does your knowledge of your god creating the universe come from? since the bible is the word of your god and through it he told the story of genesis.

in GENESIS 1:16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

it is so funny that your god didn't know that the great light that rules the day was also a star. I hope this isn't your evidence
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 8:51:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 8:25:44 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/27/2014 8:15:45 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/25/2014 3:56:47 AM, bulproof wrote:
Fine tuning proves the non existence of an omnipotent god who obviously doesn't need any fine tuning in order to create life.
Omnipotent..................poof................... LIFE.
Pretty fuking simple.

hypothesis contrary to fact

Can god make life without fine tuning, let's just say sure
Then it follows God can make life through fine tuning.

instead of talking about what could have been, or what your pea brain (compared to an omniscient god's brain) think should be,

can we actually talk about what this universe is like? I know I know crazy thought having a logical rationale discussion based on what this universe IS like, wow wow

exactly how do you propose to talk about something scientific like what the universe is like, when you keep using your seemingly unlimited powers to insert your god. You can't have that conversation with an atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, hindu, jain, or any of a host of other people.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

If there other options please insert them. We can take all possible causes of the universe and scientifically and falsifiable examine them to see if evidence supports any of these options.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

As has been done in other threads and by many people evidence gleaned from an understanding of physics, statistics, and logic support the negation of purely necessity or likely hood by chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

hence the conclusion logical follows that the remaining option is most likely. Based on the evidence and experiments conducted so far this is a rational conclusion.

from this conclusion theist will define this designer as God. Deist will accept it as a being simple enough to account for being the universe designer, the similarities conclude that God is a sufficient label for such a designer.

An atheist, well they just reject the logical conclusion, and from what i have read in this thread none of them can say why they reject other than to say God does not exist so it can't be God. Which is circular reasoning.

Or you take the road like the trolls and not even address the argument, just make up your own and say " nah nah I'm the ginger bread man and you can't catch me".

Scientifically the conclusion is always short from identifying any designer. When it comes to finding out if a painting is made the actual artist the "proof" is a scientifically discerned. there is no test to see if painting A is painted by painter B. What is done is a couple of tests on the canvas, on the paint, on the under drawing, etc.. all to look for anything that would outright reject painter B as possible.

And OH my gosh that is the same procedure being applied to the universe to conclude premise 3..

Seriously it is scientific because it can be falsified by experimental data, or a looser definition of science can be falsified by statistics, and scientific evidence is NOT the only evidence valuable to discerning truth. But still this argument is falsifiable by logical contentions, statistics, and examining the inferences or leaps made form one premise to the next.

So DO YOU have anything to add to this discussion, particularly addressing the 3 premises presented and only the premises presented or is this a troll post?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 9:20:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 8:51:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

If there other options please insert them. We can take all possible causes of the universe and scientifically and falsifiable examine them to see if evidence supports any of these options.

As said in the video, statistical necessity (because of the chance of there being a multiverse)

While you do not except a multiverse, there is reason to accept it as possible:
1) Some quantum physics models predict the multiverse
2) There are anomalies in the CBR that is explainable by the multiverse

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

As has been done in other threads and by many people evidence gleaned from an understanding of physics, statistics, and logic support the negation of purely necessity or likely hood by chance.

No matter how unlikely it might be, the option of chance never disappears.
As well as that, there is no evidence that says that a universe that is different than ours is even possible (which would make the chance of this universe being the way it is 100%)

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

hence the conclusion logical follows that the remaining option is most likely. Based on the evidence and experiments conducted so far this is a rational conclusion.

Or statistical necessity, or chance.

Also, when you take into consideration the different time theories, we can actually rule out design in premise 2. This is because physics currently supports the B-Theory of Time. Under the B-Theory of Time, the universe has no cause. If there is a designer, would it not have a cause?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 9:28:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

again you assert that the universe is fine tuned, I don't call if fine tuned, the laws and constants just are what they are, I don't know why. The fact that they are what they are and that they are does in no way necessitate that one conclude it was "designed" this way

If there other options please insert them. We can take all possible causes of the universe and scientifically and falsifiable examine them to see if evidence supports any of these options.

inflationary cosmology
multiverse
oscillatory universe
bubble universe theory
top down cosmology
alien design

discuss any of them you wish

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

How do you know?


3. Therefore, it is due to design.

hence the conclusion logical follows that the remaining option is most likely. Based on the evidence and experiments conducted so far this is a rational conclusion.

from this conclusion theist will define this designer as God. Deist will accept it as a being simple enough to account for being the universe designer, the similarities conclude that God is a sufficient label for such a designer.

An atheist, well they just reject the logical conclusion, and from what i have read in this thread none of them can say why they reject other than to say God does not exist so it can't be God. Which is circular reasoning.

Or you take the road like the trolls and not even address the argument, just make up your own and say " nah nah I'm the ginger bread man and you can't catch me".

Scientifically the conclusion is always short from identifying any designer. When it comes to finding out if a painting is made the actual artist the "proof" is a scientifically discerned. there is no test to see if painting A is painted by painter B. What is done is a couple of tests on the canvas, on the paint, on the under drawing, etc.. all to look for anything that would outright reject painter B as possible.

note neither A or B is "god did it"

And OH my gosh that is the same procedure being applied to the universe to conclude premise 3..

Seriously it is scientific because it can be falsified by experimental data, or a looser definition of science can be falsified by statistics, and scientific evidence is NOT the only evidence valuable to discerning truth. But still this argument is falsifiable by logical contentions, statistics, and examining the inferences or leaps made form one premise to the next.

talk all you want the existence of a deistic or theistic god cannot be proven so again your argument cannot be falsified. You say god did it. No one can prove that he didn't but even if I grant you that it is #3, how do you leap from that to stating for a fact that YOUR god was the designer?

how do you know little green aliens didn't design it
how do you know that the flying spaghetti monster didn't design it
how do you know that a magical pink unicorn didn't design it

use all of whatever you want to claim as your evidence for design, fine tuning go ahead take it - I give it to you - for arguments sake I will grant you that the universe was designed -- now kind sir, ---- tell us how you arrive at the 100 percent certain fact that it was the god that you speak of, any god of any other religion, prove that it couldn't be the flying spaghetti monster, or the aliens that keep abducting people

I'll wait
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 9:30:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 9:28:43 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

again you assert that the universe is fine tuned, I don't call if fine tuned, the laws and constants just are what they are, I don't know why. The fact that they are what they are and that they are does in no way necessitate that one conclude it was "designed" this way

Please watch the video in the OP. Martymer addresses this issue.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 9:42:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 9:20:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 8:51:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

If there other options please insert them. We can take all possible causes of the universe and scientifically and falsifiable examine them to see if evidence supports any of these options.

As said in the video, statistical necessity (because of the chance of there being a multiverse)

While you do not except a multiverse, there is reason to accept it as possible:
1) Some quantum physics models predict the multiverse

The same models that predict white holes, disembodied brains, and pretty much anything and everything imaginable. A model is meant to be descriptive and predictive, but the confidence in that model is related to the empirical evidence found to support it. A model can be internally consistent, but the math does not make the reality so.

2) There are anomalies in the CBR that is explainable by the multiverse

The anomalies could be anything outside this universe. You have no evidential or even logical grounds to assume it is another universe. You would be describing something outside this universe (which is technically the realm of the super natural) with something observed from inside this universe. This is no reason to assume it can even be described as such.

These anomalies can just as easily be applied as evidence for God (defined as a non-material disembodied mind of sufficient power to create a universe). And being that God is less assumptions and entities then a multiverse, using Occam's razor as a heuristic, would make God a more reasonable assumption.


2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

As has been done in other threads and by many people evidence gleaned from an understanding of physics, statistics, and logic support the negation of purely necessity or likely hood by chance.

No matter how unlikely it might be, the option of chance never disappears.
As well as that, there is no evidence that says that a universe that is different than ours is even possible (which would make the chance of this universe being the way it is 100%)


This is a reasonable contention with the premise. There is no evidence for other universes being possible, a universe like ours may be the only kind of universe possible. It seems counter intuitive. The problem is detecting another universe is hard enough, now to detect another universe in enough resolution to determine how different it is even harder.

The experimental data to this point is that the quantum mechanics of the universe are probabilistic not deterministic.

Physical necessity is usually argued as if physical existence if not a necessary truth then not physical necessity, but physically contingent. contingent on what? the values of these universal constants. I do not see how you can discern from rules that can not change at all, and rules that a God sets. (being that if God sets a Rule it is unbreakable)

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

hence the conclusion logical follows that the remaining option is most likely. Based on the evidence and experiments conducted so far this is a rational conclusion.

Or statistical necessity, or chance.

Also, when you take into consideration the different time theories, we can actually rule out design in premise 2. This is because physics currently supports the B-Theory of Time. Under the B-Theory of Time, the universe has no cause. If there is a designer, would it not have a cause?

I'm a proponent of B-theory and I think it is perfectly compliant with an existing God. I think it is a combination of B-theory and entropic arrow of time. That from a super-observer perspective all time is existent statically. But from other observer perspectives the timeline is dynamic.

Does the multiverse need a bigger multiverse? When looking for first cause you eventually have to answer with something that does not have a cause.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 9:49:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 9:42:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I am starting to get a little busy at the moment so I cannot respond to everything at this time, but there is something I would like to point out.

The Fine Tuning argument uses rationalism (not empiricism) as a foundation, it is mostly philosophical.

To every objection to the fine tuning argument that is made, you have been trying to counter the objections by pointing out the lack of empiricism within the points.

If the fine tuning argument was an empirically based argument, then this would be a more valid objection. Since is is not, the objections are, themselves, flawed.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 9:52:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 9:28:43 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

again you assert that the universe is fine tuned, I don't call if fine tuned, the laws and constants just are what they are, I don't know why. The fact that they are what they are and that they are does in no way necessitate that one conclude it was "designed" this way

If there other options please insert them. We can take all possible causes of the universe and scientifically and falsifiable examine them to see if evidence supports any of these options.

inflationary cosmology
multiverse
oscillatory universe
bubble universe theory
top down cosmology
alien design

discuss any of them you wish

Why don't you present one and discuss it and I'll offer my contentions after you make an argument for chance, physical necessity or anything other than design.


2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

How do you know?


3. Therefore, it is due to design.

hence the conclusion logical follows that the remaining option is most likely. Based on the evidence and experiments conducted so far this is a rational conclusion.

from this conclusion theist will define this designer as God. Deist will accept it as a being simple enough to account for being the universe designer, the similarities conclude that God is a sufficient label for such a designer.

An atheist, well they just reject the logical conclusion, and from what i have read in this thread none of them can say why they reject other than to say God does not exist so it can't be God. Which is circular reasoning.

Or you take the road like the trolls and not even address the argument, just make up your own and say " nah nah I'm the ginger bread man and you can't catch me".

Scientifically the conclusion is always short from identifying any designer. When it comes to finding out if a painting is made the actual artist the "proof" is a scientifically discerned. there is no test to see if painting A is painted by painter B. What is done is a couple of tests on the canvas, on the paint, on the under drawing, etc.. all to look for anything that would outright reject painter B as possible.

note neither A or B is "god did it"

Yeah especially if the painting is well recognized as something produced from a painter.


And OH my gosh that is the same procedure being applied to the universe to conclude premise 3..

Seriously it is scientific because it can be falsified by experimental data, or a looser definition of science can be falsified by statistics, and scientific evidence is NOT the only evidence valuable to discerning truth. But still this argument is falsifiable by logical contentions, statistics, and examining the inferences or leaps made form one premise to the next.

talk all you want the existence of a deistic or theistic god cannot be proven so again your argument cannot be falsified. You say god did it. No one can prove that he didn't but even if I grant you that it is #3, how do you leap from that to stating for a fact that YOUR god was the designer?

That's a different question, different argument and different inquiry.


how do you know little green aliens didn't design it

From this argument alone, I don't. Are you admitting the logical conclusion is design.

how do you know that the flying spaghetti monster didn't design it

From this argument alone, I don't. Are you admitting the logical conclusion is design.

how do you know that a magical pink unicorn didn't design it

From this argument alone, I don't. Are you admitting the logical conclusion is design.


use all of whatever you want to claim as your evidence for design, fine tuning go ahead take it - I give it to you - for arguments sake I will grant you that the universe was designed -- now kind sir, ---- tell us how you arrive at the 100 percent certain fact that it was the god that you speak of, any god of any other religion, prove that it couldn't be the flying spaghetti monster, or the aliens that keep abducting people

I'll wait

Things that are contingent on the universe being the way it is, are impossible to have caused the universe as a whole.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 9:53:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 9:30:40 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 9:28:43 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

again you assert that the universe is fine tuned, I don't call if fine tuned, the laws and constants just are what they are, I don't know why. The fact that they are what they are and that they are does in no way necessitate that one conclude it was "designed" this way


Please watch the video in the OP. Martymer addresses this issue.

I just watched it. I am having trouble finding anything that he said that I don't agree with.
having a discussion with a believer is like arguing with a brick, it is so evident that "fine tuning" is a huge point against a universe designed by a god that I can't believe that they continue to try and use it to prove their point, but somehow they do.
I have been making that point for days now - fine tuning in no way means that anyone or anything necessarily did it for life -

great video
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 10:01:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 9:53:14 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/27/2014 9:30:40 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 9:28:43 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

again you assert that the universe is fine tuned, I don't call if fine tuned, the laws and constants just are what they are, I don't know why. The fact that they are what they are and that they are does in no way necessitate that one conclude it was "designed" this way


Please watch the video in the OP. Martymer addresses this issue.

I just watched it. I am having trouble finding anything that he said that I don't agree with.
having a discussion with a believer is like arguing with a brick, it is so evident that "fine tuning" is a huge point against a universe designed by a god that I can't believe that they continue to try and use it to prove their point, but somehow they do.
I have been making that point for days now - fine tuning in no way means that anyone or anything necessarily did it for life -

great video

You are addressing someone who rejects the multiverse (meaning he rejects the statistical necessity point), and takes the position that if a chance is so small that it cannot be (taking chance out of the picture), we cannot know if the universe's "tuning" is physically necessary (he says it cannot be, though I do not know why yet), which leaves design.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 10:06:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 9:49:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 9:42:21 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I am starting to get a little busy at the moment so I cannot respond to everything at this time, but there is something I would like to point out.

The Fine Tuning argument uses rationalism (not empiricism) as a foundation, it is mostly philosophical.

To every objection to the fine tuning argument that is made, you have been trying to counter the objections by pointing out the lack of empiricism within the points.

If the fine tuning argument was an empirically based argument, then this would be a more valid objection. Since is is not, the objections are, themselves, flawed.

When Einstein and Bohr disagreed on the mechanism of entanglement the discussion was moved to the realm of philosophy, under the impression that the issue was untestable. But eventually John Bell came up with a statistical method of deciding a winner. John Clauser and Stuart Freedman created the machine and experiment to Statistically analyze a multitude of entangled particles.

A deciding factor in a believe or conclusion is how consistent with reality it is. The argument is primarily a philosophical argument. Because as with my painter example, there is no test performed that confirms painter B painted picture A. Maybe if Painters signed there work with a bloody finger print authenticating artwork would not be so subjective and hard.

But the empirical part of the argument is in support of the premise 2. Not chance, not necessity. At that level in the argument the conditions fall in the realm of falsification and testing. A statistical analyzes, contingent factors of chemical interactions, ect... all can now be presented.
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 10:38:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Why don't you present one and discuss it and I'll offer my contentions after you make an argument for chance, physical necessity or anything other than design.

my assumption is that the universe came into existence by chance. The constants we see in the universe are simply what they are and if you want to call this fine tuning fine. However this fine tuning is the result of what happened after the big bang and not a stirring of the natural order by any entity. It certainly isn't a physical necessity, whatever that is supposed to suggest, why would a universe be necessary?
Darwin gave us the best explanation for what we observe in nature evolution by natural selection. life forms either evolve or die off just like about 99 % of every species on earth has done throughout history. there is evidence of finches with perfectly evolved beaks that crack nuts the only food source for them in their environment. Since the evolutionary process is slow, not all organisms evolve quickly enough to deal with changes in their environment whether they be physical, climate, or a loss of food/water supply. this would certainly not be a problem if there was a theistic god watching or caring for his creations, or a deistic one who so finely tuned the universe that his creations could survive.
What a design that 99.9 % of the creations of the "designer" to ever live are now extinct. It is painfully obvious that the universe and everything in it happen by "chance" and that through evolution and natural selection over the course of billions of years we are here having this discussion






from this conclusion theist will define this designer as God. Deist will accept it as a being simple enough to account for being the universe designer, the similarities conclude that God is a sufficient label for such a designer.

mute point since there is no evidence for design, or designer

An atheist, well they just reject the logical conclusion, and from what i have read in this thread none of them can say why they reject other than to say God does not exist so it can't be God. Which is circular reasoning.

Why would you say that it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster?

Or you take the road like the trolls and not even address the argument, just make up your own and say " nah nah I'm the ginger bread man and you can't catch me".

I am no ginger bread man. I am humble enough to say I have a strong opinion, which is based on empirical evidence, and can't follow the design theory because I think having faith in anything without evidence is childish and should be left behind.

Scientifically the conclusion is always short from identifying any designer. When it comes to finding out if a painting is made the actual artist the "proof" is a scientifically discerned. there is no test to see if painting A is painted by painter B. What is done is a couple of tests on the canvas, on the paint, on the under drawing, etc.. all to look for anything that would outright reject painter B as possible.

note neither A or B is "god did it"

Yeah especially if the painting is well recognized as something produced from a painter.
well recognized or never seen before no one looks at a painting and says "god did it" not even the Sistine chapel ceiling


And OH my gosh that is the same procedure being applied to the universe to conclude premise 3..

Seriously it is scientific because it can be falsified by experimental data, or a looser definition of science can be falsified by statistics, and scientific evidence is NOT the only evidence valuable to discerning truth. But still this argument is falsifiable by logical contentions, statistics, and examining the inferences or leaps made form one premise to the next.

there is no experimental data that exists now nor in the past that can prove or disprove the existence of a god/designer/ flying spaghetti monster. No scientific evidence is not the only evidence valuable in discerning truth. Eyewitness accounts can be helpful although they must be weighed against certain criteria.
logical contentions can be used to try and falsify the premise that a god designed the universe, but the existence of this god is at the end of the day is not falsifiable.

talk all you want the existence of a deistic or theistic god cannot be proven so again your argument cannot be falsified. You say god did it. No one can prove that he didn't but even if I grant you that it is #3, how do you leap from that to stating for a fact that YOUR god was the designer?

That's a different question, different argument and different inquiry.

way to duck the question champ - that is exactly how you stay alive when you have no argument


how do you know little green aliens didn't design it

From this argument alone, I don't. Are you admitting the logical conclusion is design.

how do you know that the flying spaghetti monster didn't design it

From this argument alone, I don't. Are you admitting the logical conclusion is design.

how do you know that a magical pink unicorn didn't design it

From this argument alone, I don't. Are you admitting the logical conclusion is design.

read what I said "for arguments sake alone" let's say I grant you that it was designed, now stop ducking and answer the questions.

use all of whatever you want to claim as your evidence for design, fine tuning go ahead take it - I give it to you - for arguments sake I will grant you that the universe was designed -- now kind sir, ---- tell us how you arrive at the 100 percent certain fact that it was the god that you speak of, any god of any other religion, prove that it couldn't be the flying spaghetti monster, or the aliens that keep abducting people

I'll wait

Things that are contingent on the universe being the way it is, are impossible to have caused the universe as a whole.

not sure how you know what an alien is dependent upon to live.
And legend has it that the flying spaghetti monster exists outside of space and time so he certainly doesn't require this fine tuning you speak of for his existence, so again stop ducking and answer the question

I'll wait
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 10:42:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 10:01:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 9:53:14 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/27/2014 9:30:40 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 9:28:43 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

again you assert that the universe is fine tuned, I don't call if fine tuned, the laws and constants just are what they are, I don't know why. The fact that they are what they are and that they are does in no way necessitate that one conclude it was "designed" this way


Please watch the video in the OP. Martymer addresses this issue.

I just watched it. I am having trouble finding anything that he said that I don't agree with.
having a discussion with a believer is like arguing with a brick, it is so evident that "fine tuning" is a huge point against a universe designed by a god that I can't believe that they continue to try and use it to prove their point, but somehow they do.
I have been making that point for days now - fine tuning in no way means that anyone or anything necessarily did it for life -

great video

You are addressing someone who rejects the multiverse (meaning he rejects the statistical necessity point), and takes the position that if a chance is so small that it cannot be (taking chance out of the picture), we cannot know if the universe's "tuning" is physically necessary (he says it cannot be, though I do not know why yet), which leaves design.

because he likes speaking on things he knows nothing about. He uses a probability argument on the idea of "chance" - he then asserts that it is of a probability near zero, I would love to see his math on that, but if he knew statistics he would know that even zero probability events occur. So chance cannot be taken out
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 10:50:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If the constants were different we wouldn't be having this discussion, it must be a muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurical
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin