Fallacies in the Fine Tuning argument (challenge)

[F1fan]

To be honest in my opinion it is very simple, an intelligent designer can create Finely Tuned (FT) stuff or non FT stuff………..

Why would it allow cancer, defects, and other diseases? Offer your opinion why it tuned life to include those horrible things.

the fact that an intelligent designer

First, demonstrate an intelligent designer exists outside of your imgination. Then you can assert it a fact. Until then this is 100% incorrect.

decided

And demonstrate that the intelligent designer can think and make decisions, like allowing cancer in small children.

to create a FT object

And that the intelligent designer can create anything at all.

doesn’t mean that he is being constrained by that object, nor by anything else

You can't draw any conclusion without facts. So you have work to do.

 

[leroy]

Here is a hint, when you use the word "metaphysical" in a physics discussion you are admitting that you are wrong.+

Internet atheist are funny

 

[Subduction Zone]

Internet atheist are funny

No, that is a simple fact. It is also a tendency of yours to use terms that you do not understand and cannot define.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would it allow cancer, defects, and other diseases? Offer your opinion why it tuned life to include those horrible things.

He never said how intelligent it was.

 

[Heyo]

No, that is a simple fact. It is also a tendency of yours to use terms that you do not understand and cannot define.

He isn't the only one. I already pointed out that the article uses "naturalism" without defining it (or specifying which version of the existing definitions they use). And I asked @leroy to clarify - without success so far.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There may be no argument for God which will convince the hardcore atheist.

What you call the hardcore atheist is what I call the critically thinking strict empiricist. Such a person has standards for belief which the hardcore theist can't meet. The theist lacks a criterion for his god belief better than that it seems or feels right.

maybe one day you will open your heart, and you will know

Open your heart is code for shutting down critical thought and beginning to think like the theist, admitting ideas into one's belief set for no better reason than the theist has. Sure, if he cripples his defenses against acquiring false and unfalsifiable beliefs, that can happen.

Hey, maybe someday you'll soften YOUR heart and start believing in vampires.

God, I’m sure, can accomplish that for you.

Only if it exists. So far, no word from your god or any of the others.

The biggest argument against naturalism, that I can think of, involves humans. If we assume, we as humans are a product of natural selection, which is consistent with naturalism and natural forces, why are we, as humans, not limited to only what can be sensed by our naturally formed five senses? Science would be very primitive if we did not have science tools, that extend our senses.

Your argument against naturalism is the existence human invention? And that's your best argument?

Incidentally, we still use only native senses even with our machines. A Geiger counter turns radioactivity into clicks that can be heard, but we're still using our native sense of hearing. Space telescopes create images for eyes even in frequencies outside of the visible spectrum. Your phone lets you know when it has got something for you by making sound or vibrating in your pocket.

Also, there are more than five senses. You probably mean the exteroceptors - those which senses what is on or near the body. What is commonly called touch is actually many senses including tickle, pressure, vibration, and temperature. There are also sensors that detect the position and movement of the limbs and body, detectors in the viscera that manifest as things like heartburn and needing to urinate, and chemical sensors such as those that tell us that we need water or our blood oxygen level is too low.

Our natural senses have not kept up in terms of the naturalism that is defined by science.

Evolution hasn't proceeded faster than it has, so for you, that's an argument for a god or gods?

one is required to have faith in what cannot be seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled.

One should not believe ideas that cannot be confirmed by the senses (empirically). It's not essential that one believe by faith, by which I mean insufficiently justified belief (justified belief is also called faith, but that's a different word spelled and pronounced the same, i.e., a homonym that is both a homograph and a homophone). One can train himself to avoid that kind of thinking.

 

[F1fan]

He never said how intelligent it was.

It's my problem for being way over the curve of the Designer (and creationists). Odd that it created higher intelligence that itself (as represented in atheists).

I wonder if @leroy will address my post 81. It is surely an uncomfortable thing to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's my problem for being way over the curve of the Designer (and creationists). Odd that it created higher intelligence that itself (as represented in atheists).

I wonder if @leroy will address my post 81. It is surely an uncomfortable thing to do.

My reply was rather tongue in cheek but it is a bit odd that he cannot see that his supposed intelligence created life with even more intelligence than it has.

 

[F1fan]

My reply was rather tongue in cheek but it is a bit odd that he cannot see that his supposed intelligence created life with even more intelligence than it has.

He tends to disappear for a while when he has uncomfortable and confounding questions to deal with. It's funny how these creationists have no answers to such questions.

 

[Pogo]

He tends to disappear for a while when he has uncomfortable and confounding questions to deal with. It's funny how these creationists have no answers to such questions.

Because none of it is about a real understanding of the concepts, only a superficial understanding of various words that can be strung together to potentially mean what they want them to mean.

 

[Heyo]

Also, there are more than five senses. You probably mean the exteroceptors - those which senses what is on or near the body. What is commonly called touch is actually many senses including tickle, pressure, vibration, and temperature. There are also sensors that detect the position and movement of the limbs and body, detectors in the viscera that manifest as things like heartburn and needing to urinate, and chemical sensors such as those that tell us that we need water or our blood oxygen level is too low.

Good summary, only one thing: we actually don't know if our oxygen level is too low, we only know when the CO2 level is too high.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Good summary

Thanks.

we actually don't know if our oxygen level is too low, we only know when the CO2 level is too high.

It sounds like you know some human physiology. If so, you are probably familiar with words like dyspnea, hypoxemia (low plasma oxygen = low p02), and hypercapnia (too much CO2 = high pCO2). This used to be my bailiwick (internal medicine), but I am 15 years retired now and a bit rusty. Still, I recall the basics. Let's review:

What we know is that we are short of breath (dyspneic), not why.

Yes, hypercapnia normally causes dyspnea and triggers an increase in respiratory rate. This is an important factor in lung diseases like asthma and pneumonia, in which both hypoxemia and hypercapnia are typically present in severe forms of these diseases, and each contribute to dyspnea.

I said "normally" because in COPD (emphysema and/or chronic bronchitis), the physiological response to hypercapnia is blunted, which is why giving too much supplemental oxygen to such patients, which corrects the hypoxemia but not the hypercapnia, besides leading to respiratory acidosis (too low a blood pH due to acid buildup as CO2 is converted to H2CO3 = carbonic acid by combining it with H2O), can lead to a loss of respiratory stimulus and hypoventilation or apnea.

But there are also conditions in which there is just hypoxemia without hypercapnia such as severe anemia and being at too high altitudes. These also lead to dyspnea.

Whereas central (brainstem) chemoreceptors detect hypercapnia (but not hypoxemia) in the cerebrospinal fluid, hypoxemia and hypercapnia are both detected by peripheral chemoreceptors on the aorta and carotid artery. Besides causing the experience of dyspnea, both cause rapid breathing (tachypnea) and heart rate (tachycardia) through autonomic reflexes.

 

[Pogo]

Thanks.


It sounds like you know some human physiology. If so, you are probably familiar with words like dyspnea, hypoxemia (low plasma oxygen = low p02), and hypercapnia (too much CO2 = high pCO2). This used to be my bailiwick (internal medicine), but I am 15 years retired now and a bit rusty. Still, I recall the basics. Let's review:

What we know is that we are short of breath (dyspneic), not why.

Yes, hypercapnia normally causes dyspnea and triggers an increase in respiratory rate. This is an important factor in lung diseases like asthma and pneumonia, in which both hypoxemia and hypercapnia are typically present in severe forms of these diseases, and each contribute to dyspnea.

I said "normally" because in COPD (emphysema and/or chronic bronchitis), the physiological response to hypercapnia is blunted, which is why giving too much supplemental oxygen to such patients, which corrects the hypoxemia but not the hypercapnia, besides leading to respiratory acidosis (too low a blood pH due to acid buildup as CO2 is converted to H2CO3 = carbonic acid by combining it with H2O), can lead to a loss of respiratory stimulus and hypoventilation or apnea.

But there are also conditions in which there is just hypoxemia without hypercapnia such as severe anemia and being at too high altitudes. These also lead to dyspnea.

Whereas central (brainstem) chemoreceptors detect hypercapnia (but not hypoxemia) in the cerebrospinal fluid, hypoxemia and hypercapnia are both detected by peripheral chemoreceptors on the aorta and carotid artery. Besides causing the experience of dyspnea, both cause rapid breathing (tachypnea) and heart rate (tachycardia) through autonomic reflexes.

Just a niggle or more, "what we know" is that we are breathing harder, whether that is because we are actually responding to pCO2 or pO2 yet from there you go to mentioning hypercapnia and the response to it which leaves me with the question of why you argue that it is primarily hypoxia we respond to or more realistically a combination of both. Curious to see @Heyo's evidence/explanation.

 

[Heyo]

Thanks.


It sounds like you know some human physiology. If so, you are probably familiar with words like dyspnea, hypoxemia (low plasma oxygen = low p02), and hypercapnia (too much CO2 = high pCO2). This used to be my bailiwick (internal medicine), but I am 15 years retired now and a bit rusty. Still, I recall the basics. Let's review:

What we know is that we are short of breath (dyspneic), not why.

Yes, hypercapnia normally causes dyspnea and triggers an increase in respiratory rate. This is an important factor in lung diseases like asthma and pneumonia, in which both hypoxemia and hypercapnia are typically present in severe forms of these diseases, and each contribute to dyspnea.

I said "normally" because in COPD (emphysema and/or chronic bronchitis), the physiological response to hypercapnia is blunted, which is why giving too much supplemental oxygen to such patients, which corrects the hypoxemia but not the hypercapnia, besides leading to respiratory acidosis (too low a blood pH due to acid buildup as CO2 is converted to H2CO3 = carbonic acid by combining it with H2O), can lead to a loss of respiratory stimulus and hypoventilation or apnea.

But there are also conditions in which there is just hypoxemia without hypercapnia such as severe anemia and being at too high altitudes. These also lead to dyspnea.

Whereas central (brainstem) chemoreceptors detect hypercapnia (but not hypoxemia) in the cerebrospinal fluid, hypoxemia and hypercapnia are both detected by peripheral chemoreceptors on the aorta and carotid artery. Besides causing the experience of dyspnea, both cause rapid breathing (tachypnea) and heart rate (tachycardia) through autonomic reflexes.

The thing is that hypoxemia alone doesn't lead to dyspnea (at least not at rest). That's why people who take more than one breath of helium (or other inert gases) pass out without experiencing dyspnea. The same goes for hypobaric hypoxia. Here's a video of a simulation:

Note that none of the participants noted dyspnea as a symptom.

 

[Pogo]

The thing is that hypoxemia alone doesn't lead to dyspnea (at least not at rest). That's why people who take more than one breath of helium (or other inert gases) pass out without experiencing dyspnea. The same goes for hypobaric hypoxia. Here's a video of a simulation:

Note that none of the participants noted dyspnea as a symptom.

Hmm, sounds like science here, is that actually allowed here?

Have we studies of elevated environmental CO2? O2 saturation in blood is one thing, but CO2 saturation? I could ask a hundred questions, but you would do well just to tell me about Google Scholar and get more of an education. LOL

 

[Heyo]

Hmm, sounds like science here, is that actually allowed here?

Have we studies of elevated environmental CO2? O2 saturation in blood is one thing, but CO2 saturation? I could ask a hundred questions, but you would do well just to tell me about Google Scholar and get more of an education. LOL

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf

 

[Pogo]

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf

Ok, I have to punt since I can't quite decide if I am chronically short of breath or intermittently. Sorry doctors when you ask me questions like this but thanks @Heyo for at least a partial answer to why I can't answer @It Aint Necessarily So or my pulmonologist clearly in my mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok then support your claim, under what basis do you affirm that the argument has many logical fallacies, which fallacies have you observed?

Have you observed any fallacies in an article written by a scholar?

Did you even read the post you replied to?
You say "ok", and then go on writing as if you hadn't read the post at all.