A challenge for atheist (From Youtube)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I DONT UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, this is a hypothetical example so I can invent any values to answer your questions

Wait - you weren't trying to make an analogy about God creating the universe?

The only point that I am making is that if you are sitting in a park and note that an arrow hits the center of a bulls eye, you will assume that there is an archer (design) even if you don’t have prior evidence for the existence of this archer.

... because you already know what an arrow and a bulls eye are, and you know that both are designed and that arrows are shot with intention. You're begging the question.

Here's a proper analogy:

- you find an object that you haven't already established as designed.
- you notice that this object has ended up in a place or configuration that's surprising, unlikely and serendipitous.

Start with that and then try to establish a designer. That would be a fair analogy, not the question-begging crap you're trying to serve us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are only 3 possible explanations for the FT of the universe (feel free to propose a 4th alternative)

Before trying to explain "the FT of the universe," how about first establishing that the universe is fine tuned?

 

[leroy]

So you have to assume there's a target... IOW, you have to beg the question: you need to assume that something with intention exists in order to conclude that a particular outcome was a "target."

A target is just “any pattern” that is independent from the laws of nature. For example hitting the center of a bulls eye gives you the maximum score and the rules or archery are independent from the direction in which the wind blows.

In the case of the universe the “target” is just a life permitting universe, the assumption is that natural laws by themselves don’t have any “bias” nor interest in producing a life permitting universe.

Throw a dart blindly up in the air and it will land at a very specific point at a very specific angle that would be difficult if not impossible to replicate deliberately.

Ok but if the dart hits the center of a bulls eye you will conclude design right? The difference is that the center of a bulls eye is not a random point, but rather the point that gives you the maximum score.

An other example

1 If win the lottery 10 times in a row with the same combination of numbers you will conclude that someone is manipulating the lottery in my favor (design)

2 if 10 different individuals win the lottery each with a different number you will not conclude design.

3 the probabilities of 1 and 2 are the same, having the exact same numbers 10 times in a row is as unlikely as any other combination

So why would you conclude design in “1” and no design in “2”? the answer is that “1! Has a pattern. If I was unable to explain the concept of pattern correctly then simply answer the question yourself, why would you conclude design in “1” and “no design in “2”?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A target is just “any pattern” that is independent from the laws of nature.

You mean like a snowflake? A snowflake has a pattern.

For example hitting the center of a bulls eye gives you the maximum score and the rules or archery are independent from the direction in which the wind blows.

In the case of the universe the “target” is just a life permitting universe, the assumption is that natural laws by themselves don’t have any “bias” nor interest in producing a life permitting universe.

Why would a life-permitting universe necessarily be a "target"?

Ok but if the dart hits the center of a bulls eye you will conclude design right? The difference is that the center of a bulls eye is not a random point, but rather the point that gives you the maximum score.

I hope you realize how solipsistic and egocentric your position is.

Because you find the bullseye significant, you've decided that hitting it needs more of an explanation than hitting, say, an exact point on the manufacturer's logo around the edge of the board, even if the odds of hitting that point on the logo are lower.

An other example

1 If win the lottery 10 times in a row with the same combination of numbers you will conclude that someone is manipulating the lottery in my favor (design)

Well, no. I would conclude that the lottery isn't random. This fact alone doesn't tell us whether this non-randomness is intentional.

Maybe the balls for your specific numbers ended up heavier because of a manufacturing flaw. Maybe there's a problem with the machine that makes some balls less likely to be drawn. Maybe your specific numbers are the only balls in the machine.

2 if 10 different individuals win the lottery each with a different number you will not conclude design.

3 the probabilities of 1 and 2 are the same, having the exact same numbers 10 times in a row is as unlikely as any other combination

So why would you conclude design in “1” and no design in “2”? the answer is that “1! Has a pattern. If I was unable to explain the concept of pattern correctly then simply answer the question yourself, why would you conclude design in “1” and “no design in “2”?

If it's a lottery, I would assume that the apparent randomness in #2 is by design, because I have prior knowledge of how lotteries work.

 

[leroy]

Wait - you weren't trying to make an analogy about God creating the universe?

Yes,

The angle, distance, speed, mass of the arrow, etc. in analogous to gravity, mass of the electron , electromagnetic force and all the other values that are claimed to be FT)

Hitting the center of a bulls eye is analogous to having a life permitting universe.

... because you already know what an arrow and a bulls eye are, and you know that both are designed and that arrows are shot with intention. You're begging the question.

So what? Suppose that you have never seen an arrow nor an archer in your life, wouldn’t you still conclude design?

Here's a proper analogy:

- you find an object that you haven't already established as designed.
- you notice that this object has ended up in a place or configuration that's surprising, unlikely and serendipitous.

Start with that and then try to establish a designer. That would be a fair analogy, not the question-begging crap you're trying to serve us.

- you find an object that you haven't already established as designed.

How about this text? You haven’t seen me, and you have no prior knowledge if I am a human, or just a mouse walking and typing random keys form a key board.

So how do you know that I am a human and not a mouse?

This particular combination of letters is as unlikely as any combinations of random letters that a mouse might type, so how do you know that I am not a mouse? How do you know that this text is designed?

The answer is simple, the combination of letter s is unlikely and we have an independent pattern, (meaningful words and sentences) this pattern is independent from the keys that a mouse can type.

I would argue that this is analogous to the universe.

We have an “unlikely” combination of values and we have a pattern (life permitting range)

 

[leroy]

You mean like a snowflake? A snowflake has a pattern.


Why would a life-permitting universe necessarily be a "target"?


I hope you realize how solipsistic and egocentric your position is.

Because you find the bullseye significant, you've decided that hitting it needs more of an explanation than hitting, say, an exact point on the manufacturer's logo around the edge of the board, even if the odds of hitting that point on the logo are lower.



Well, no. I would conclude that the lottery isn't random. This fact alone doesn't tell us whether this non-randomness is intentional.

Maybe the balls for your specific numbers ended up heavier because of a manufacturing flaw. Maybe there's a problem with the machine that makes some balls less likely to be drawn. Maybe your specific numbers are the only balls in the machine.


If it's a lottery, I would assume that the apparent randomness in #2 is by design, because I have prior knowledge of how lotteries work.

good point,

assume tha I win the lottery 10 times in a row each time with different numbers.

There are 1,000,000,000, tikets on each game, Would you conclude design?

 

[leroy]

You mean like a snowflake? A snowflake has a pattern.

.

this is what I said (note the red letters)

A target is just “any pattern” that is independent from the laws of nature.

The pattern in a snowflake is not independent, the laws of nature what* to produce e} hexagonal patterns.


This would be analogous to having a powerful magnet in the bulls eye, such that you will always hit it no matter the direction of the arrow

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

this is what I said (note the red letters)


The pattern in a snowflake is not independent, the laws of nature what* to produce e} hexagonal patterns.


This would be analogous to having a powerful magnet in the bulls eye, such that you will always hit it no matter the direction of the arrow

But you also talked about life. The laws of nature are what produce the self-replicating molecules that got life going.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

good point,

assume tha I win the lottery 10 times in a row each time with different numbers.

There are 1,000,000,000, tikets on each game, Would you conclude design?

Did God design 10 different universes with life? How do you know?

 

[leroy]

But you also talked about life. The laws of nature are what produce the self-replicating molecules that got life going.

But in order to have those self replicating molecules firs you need stars, low entropy, planets, molecules, atoms etc.

In order to have that stuff you need very specific values of multiple independent constants and initial conditions

 

[leroy]

Did God design 10 different universes with life? How do you know?

why are you avoiding the question?

there are 1,000,000,000, tikets on each game, Would you conclude design?

Did God design 10 different universes with life?

Irrelevant

You can change my example for winning a single lottery with 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 tikets, the point is that in order to get this result multiple independent values have to be very precise for me to win such lottery.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes,

The angle, distance, speed, mass of the arrow, etc. in analogous to gravity, mass of the electron , electromagnetic force and all the other values that are claimed to be FT)

Hitting the center of a bulls eye is analogous to having a life permitting universe.





So what? Suppose that you have never seen an arrow nor an archer in your life, wouldn’t you still conclude design?








How about this text? You haven’t seen me, and you have no prior knowledge if I am a human, or just a mouse walking and typing random keys form a key board.

So how do you know that I am a human and not a mouse?

This particular combination of letters is as unlikely as any combinations of random letters that a mouse might type, so how do you know that I am not a mouse? How do you know that this text is designed?

The answer is simple, the combination of letter s is unlikely and we have an independent pattern, (meaningful words and sentences) this pattern is independent from the keys that a mouse can type.

I would argue that this is analogous to the universe.

We have an “unlikely” combination of values and we have a pattern (life permitting range)

Is there any reason - besides your own ego, I mean - to conclude that having a "life-permitting universe" is special in the way that hitting a bullseye is special?

What is the "life-permitting range"? How do you know?

You say that being in this "life-permitting range" is unlikely; what other parameters for the universe are possible? How do you know?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

why are you avoiding the question?

Just trying to keep the conversation from going off on a tangent.

Irrelevant

It's entirely relevant. We have one universe. Your analogy used a trend. In reality, there is no trend.

You ask, effectively, "what if this unlikely event was repeated many times?" Doesn't matter. You have one event. One beginning of one universe. You have a single event that you claim - in a claim you haven't backed up - is unlikely. You don't have a trend of unlikely events, so your analogy with a trend of unlikely events is useless.

You can change my example for winning a single lottery with 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 tikets, the point is that in order to get this result multiple independent values have to be very precise for me to win such lottery.

Which values are independent? How could you possibly know?

 

[leroy]

Is there any reason - besides your own ego, I mean - to conclude that having a "life-permitting universe" is special in the way that hitting a bullseye is special?[

The rage is narrow, this is what makes life “special” or more specifically rage that allows for the existence of molecules, atoms, stars, palanets and other stuff that life requires is narrow.

If “black hole” permitting values were also narrow, they would also be “special”……. I am just using “special” because I can think on a better word,

What is the "life-permitting range"? How do you know?

for example the cosmological constant

Cosmological constant (which controls the expansion speed of the universe) refers to the balance of the attractive force of gravity with a hypothesized repulsive force of space observable only at very large size scales. It must be very close to zero, that is, these two forces must be nearly perfectly balanced. To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10¨..120. (a number with 120 zeros) If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.https://www.discovery.org/m/2020/06/Fine-Tuning-Parameters-Jay-Richards.pdf

How do you know?

Its easy, scientists can run simulations on what would happen if say the cosmological constant would have been 1% stronger.

You say that being in this "life-permitting range" is unlikely; what other parameters for the universe are possible? How do you know?

I don know how many values are actually possible (according to physics) but its irrelevant, you can assume any number and the argument would still work equally good. You can even assume that there is only 1 possible value for each constant and the argument would still work.

Imagine that the archer is a robot with a software that forces him to throw the arrow at a specific speed/distance/angle etc. such that the robot could have not done anything different . this would also indicate design, ¿why would the robot have this specific software if there is no design/intent?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The rage is narrow, this is what makes life “special” or more specifically rage that allows for the existence of molecules, atoms, stars, palanets and other stuff that life requires is narrow.

If “black hole” permitting values were also narrow, they would also be “special”……. I am just using “special” because I can think on a better word,

You didn't answer my question.

Let's take as given for the moment that if the universe were significantly different, life could not exist... so what? Would a universe without life be less special than one with life?

for example the cosmological constant


Its easy, scientists can run simulations on what would happen if say the cosmological constant would have been 1% stronger.

What's the possible range of values for the cosmological constant? How do you know that range is possible?

I don know how many values are actually possible (according to physics) but its irrelevant, you can assume any number and the argument would still work equally good. You can even assume that there is only 1 possible value for each constant and the argument would still work.

If there were only one possible value for each constant, then this would mean that the universe we have was inevitable without a designer.

Imagine that the archer is a robot with a software that forces him to throw the arrow at a specific speed/distance/angle etc. such that the robot could have not done anything different . this would also indicate design, ¿why would the robot have this specific software if there is no design/intent?

Could you lay off the question-begging for maybe just one page of this thread?

 

[leroy]

Just trying to keep the conversation from going off on a tangent.

Ok so unless you clarify otherwise I will assume that you agree that an arrow hitting the target and me wining the lotery 10 times in a row or winning a single loterry with 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 tikets would indicate design.

It's entirely relevant. We have one universe. Your analogy used a trend. In reality, there is no trend

.
Forget the trend,

The relevant thing is that we have an unlikely event + an independent pattern

Which values are independent? How could you possibly know?

Well imagine that for the lottery chose the first 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 digits of “PI” obviously the number “Pi” and the numbers that the lottery staff will randomly pick formt he tumble are independent

 

[leroy]

You didn't answer my question.

what question am I suppose to answer?

Let's take as given for the moment that if the universe were significantly different, life could not exist... so what? Would a universe without life be less special than one with life?

It would be like comparing an arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye and an arrow hitting a random spot of the field.

Obviously the first is “special” and one could infer design, the other could have been a random shot.

What's the possible range of values for the cosmological constant? How do you know that range is possible?

From a logical point of view the rage is potentially infinite (any value is logically possible) from the point of view of physics we don’t know, but who cares? Any number of possible values would be equally good for the argument.
There are only 3 possibilities

1 ether the value was given by a deterministic source

2 it was given by a random source

3 it was given by a personal source (with intent and foresight)

The fist alternatives is dubious, why would such deterministic source have the exact value that life requires

The second: itis extremy unlikely to have that by random chance we happened to have the desired values

The third seems to be the only reasonable alternative, someone with will intent and foresight can freely select that values that he wants in order to get a given result ……………….if you think I am wrong the propose an alternative and explain why is your alternative better than mine.

If there were only one possible value for each constant, then this would mean that the universe we have was inevitable without a designer.

again that doenst solve the problem
I already explained why

Could you lay off the question-begging for maybe just one page of this thread?

Its not question begging, and the fact that you are just playing semantics rather than proposing a solution for the FT problem, strongly indicates that you are aware of this problem but you don’t what to admit it.

The reality is that scientist agree that there is a FT problem and they are working in the search for solutions to this problem.

If this FT problem where only a triviality or a tautology scientists would be wasting time on this problem.

 

[joelr]

Sure maybe, but that claim requires justification.

It has some lines of evidence. The etymology of the character is very mythical and is exactly how all Gods of legend were formed. Yahweh didn't show up and say "write this down, I'm the supreme God of everything, I'm tri-omni, in a dimension beyond spacetime and so forth.

He started out as a Canaanite deity, was paired with Ashera, became a national warrior deity of Israel, the myths he was involved in can be traced back to earlier versions, he lived literally in outer space (the blue sky is the celestial water above heaven), above the level where the planets and stars dwelled (7 levels), had an agent do work for him (Satan). Later he's upgraded to supreme (a Hellenistic concept), Satan becomes his mortal enemy (Persian myth), and then when astronomy becomes a science, the 7 heavens gets replaced by "another dimension" and the Platonic tri-omni concepts get put on him by theologians from the Middle Ages.
To name a few things. Like all myths, it evolves as it encounters myths in other societies. That is evidence of a fictional character. Besides the obvious, Gods have not been demonstrated to be real. They are claims.