Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[YoursTrue]

The fine tuning argument is that conditions on the planet Earth are absolutely perfect for sustaining life and especially human life and that those conditions would necessarily HAVE to have been created and fine-tuned by some creator being.

The fallacy with this argument is the same as the fallacy as the water in a puddle after a rain storm concluding that since the depression in the ground fits the water PERFECTLY that some intelligence MUST have specifically designed the depression in the ground for the purpose of holding the water perfectly.

The problem is that it wasn't the depression in the ground that accommodated the rain water, it was the rain water than conformed to the shape of the depression. Thus it wasn't the planet that was 'designed' to accommodate human life. It was human life that conformed to the conditions present on the planet Earth.

I can agree that conditions on this earth are perfect (?) for sustaining life. Here's why the question mark: humans are quite successfully ruining the earth and many scientists are getting kind of worried. Nevertheless, humans continue making plastic, and ruining the ozone layer, among other situations. Now I'm not sure how much I can say here 'cause I don't want to get into trouble for -- um -- saying things like God will put an end to the devastation of the earth. And that isn't "fine tuning." That's taking it on logic and faith.

 

[Valjean]

I am not sure there IS a perfect circle, but I do know this: if I were traveling through a barren land and suddenly saw a steel monolithic structure standing there, I would figure someone made it and put it there. I hope that helps to clarify my position.

The old watchmaker argument, eh?

 

[idea]

I do love the laws of nature, and find the universe to be an incredible place. I do not see "fine tuning" as supporting Christianity per say, but see it more in line with the Tao. the existence and nature of life/death, conscience, self-awareness - these are fascinating.

 

[leroy]

So what? What does any of that have to do with evidence for a creator god? All it's evidence of is that if things had been a bit different the universe wouldn't exist as it does. In order for what you've said to be of any significance you'd first need to demonstrate and provide evidence that some creator being INTENDED the universe to exist in the form that it currently exists.

Can you?

In order to have atoms, molecules, stars, planets chemistry etc.... You need a delicate balance of arround 20 independent values........ This pattern cant be explained by chance nor physical necesity so we conclude design

This is the argument for God...... Every time we find this kind of patterns we conclude design..... So why making an exception with the universe?

 

[leroy]

Oh my! Not even close. There is massive evidence for a UCA, for a god, not so much.

Yes but I will ignore all the evidence for UCA...... First you have to show that UCA is possible

Then we can talk about the evidence.

Do you see the flaws of this type of reasoning?

 

[leroy]

I am not sure there IS a perfect circle, but I do know this: if I were traveling through a barren land and suddenly saw a steel monolithic structure standing there, I would figure someone made it and put it there. I hope that helps to clarify my position.

Why would you conclude design in that situation?

Why not saying "well and unknown natural mechanism caused the monolithic structure?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In order to have atoms, molecules, stars, planets chemistry etc.... You need a delicate balance of arround 20 independent values........ This pattern cant be explained by chance nor physical necesity so we conclude design

This is the argument for God...... Every time we find this kind of patterns we conclude design..... So why making an exception with the universe?

Sorry, but we do not know enough to say that it was not by necessity. And you are back to your classic argument from ignorance as a result.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes but I will ignore all the evidence for UCA...... First you have to show that UCA is possible

Then we can talk about the evidence.

Do you see the flaws of this type of reasoning?

Since life exists a UCA is possible. You need to think things through a bit more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would you conclude design in that situation?

Why not saying "well and unknown natural mechanism caused the monolithic structure?

We recognize built structures because we know how to build them.

 

[YoursTrue]

The old watchmaker argument, eh?

It could be. But again, if I saw a monolithic structure made of steel in the middle of an uninhabited place, I, as well as you, would figure someone made it. Don't like the argument? Maybe your assumptions just aren't correct.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would you conclude design in that situation?

Why not saying "well and unknown natural mechanism caused the monolithic structure?

LOL, thanks, I enjoyed that and needed that laugh.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do love the laws of nature, and find the universe to be an incredible place. I do not see "fine tuning" as supporting Christianity per say, but see it more in line with the Tao. the existence and nature of life/death, conscience, self-awareness - these are fascinating.

Once again, not sure what Tao says about this, but the "fine tuning" doesn't have anything to do with aberrations of certain kinds. As some would have it.

 

[Quagmire]

Yeah, that analogy is about as clear as mud.

Well, something dark brown and gooey is obviously obscuring your vision.
(That's one of the hazards of keeping your head up there)

Okay... let's see if I can dissect this steaming pile of crap.

I assume that 'Bob' is supposed to be the creator of the thread.

Well duh.

Unfortunately the only thing that Bob does in your example is make a claim... but he fails to provide the promised evidence. In THIS thread the OP made the claim that a creator god exists and THEN they offered up fine-tuning as the EVIDENCE.

Yes, analogies aren't supposed to fit all the pieces together perfectly, just as many as is required to make a point, which mine did, and which you obviously missed.

I have to assume that 'Alvin' is supposed to be me.

Again: well duh.

But of course I didn't simply reply that "I know god doesn't exist!" In fact, all I did was point out how poor the 'evidence' that was given actually is. And then I provided the rain puddle analogy to point out just how poor the evidence is.

Still missing the point.

You then must be 'Wilber'.

Well, someone has to be.

But of course in reality you didn't dismiss what I said because of any claim that I made - since I didn't make any claims - just that my analogy didn't work... but you've failed to explain why it doesn't work.

I explained why it didn't work, you just failed to grasp it ( wouldn't be surprised if you're the only one in here who did too).

Apparently this whole analogy concept is just a bit too complex for you to comprehend.

Hardly. In fact, just the opposite: I understood yours, cliche and done-to-death as it is, then I came up with one of my own, which apparently involved stringing more thoughts together than you were capable of processing in one sitting.

I'm okay with that as long as anyone else who bothered to read it got what I was saying, which I'm sure they would have.

But as far as you go:
Would it help if I used hand puppets?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1 If you what to afirm that it is incoherent, then the burden proof is on you

2 if you what to claim that it is impossible, the burden proof is no you

3 I woudl love to do that, share your favorite explanation and lets see which one is better based on explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, etc.

Think this through for a minute:

- if nobody made any arguments at all, we'd be at "maybe the universe had a designer; maybe it didn't. We don't know."
- you come along and say "no, no - the universe definitely did have a designer. Here's how we know."
- but your chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Your argument's conclusion is no more certain than your most doubtful premise.
- this means that even if there's any reasonable doubt about any of your premises, all you get is "we don't know," but you already had this at the beginning.
- IOW, it's not necessary to demonstrate that your premises are necessarily false for your argument to fail; it's only necessary for them to be doubtful.
- IOW, you most definitely have the burden of proof.

... so unless you can actually explain how the concept of a "designer of the universe" is coherent, your argument dies.

So please: explain to us how "design" would work in a spaceless, timeless context beyond the universe. The explanation is either coherent or incoherent, and as long as we can say that it might be incoherent, then you haven't established your conclusion.

 

[paarsurrey]

Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

Friend @leroy!

One presented "Atheist Method" vide one's post #159 in this thread. One is engaged with "Atheism" and now the current post is 630 plus.
How would one amend or add the points enumerated with one's experience with Atheism, please?
I am curious, please!

Regards

 

[idea]

Once again, not sure what Tao says about this....

Perhaps you should read the Tao Te Ching. Cool thing about the Tao, it works - no one is on here debating anything written in that book, because there is nothing to debate in it It is something that is actually inspired by a higher power.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

Friend @leroy!

One presented "Atheist Method" vide one's post #159 in this thread. One is engaged with "Atheism" and now the current post is 630 plus.
How would one amend or add the points enumerated with one's experience with Atheism, please?
I am curious, please!

Regards

Why call him friend when that list was all falsehoods. One cannot have any education and make those claims honestly.

The problem was that almost all of those were his sins, not the sins of atheists.

 

[gnostic]

In order to have atoms, molecules, stars, planets chemistry etc.... You need a delicate balance of arround 20 independent values........ This pattern cant be explained by chance nor physical necesity so we conclude design

This is the argument for God...... Every time we find this kind of patterns we conclude design..... So why making an exception with the universe?

You are still making up assumptions and they are assumptions without objective verifiable evidence.

You have concluded that God being the Designer, but there are no known verifiable evidence to even support the existence of god, let alone God “designing” or “creating” anything.

You are still using superstition, the same as any religious person ever did, past and present, not science. You have already decided your conclusion, before there were ever evidence to test your concept of “Design”.

This is why Intelligent Design is a theological and religious concept, not evidence-tested science.

In science, no model (explanatory/predictive model, eg hypothesis or theory) can be concluded to be true, until the model has been tested with empirical evidence that support the model.

All any followers of Intelligent Design have, are concept that already have conclusion, but no evidence that the Designer existed. The conclusion is only based on faulty assumptions that cannot be proven, let alone be tested.

 

[QuestioningMind]

In order to have atoms, molecules, stars, planets chemistry etc.... You need a delicate balance of arround 20 independent values........ This pattern cant be explained by chance nor physical necesity so we conclude design

This is the argument for God...... Every time we find this kind of patterns we conclude design..... So why making an exception with the universe?

This pattern cant be explained by chance

Any evidence for this claim?

 

[osgart]

This pattern cant be explained by chance

Any evidence for this claim?

Then what is the evidence that chance produces anything life?