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

[Valjean]

One is talking of the requirement of a Science/Scientific Method not of Religion/Religious Method. Right, please?

Regards

There is no "religious method." Religion is not an investigational modality.

 

[Valjean]

I am not confused, rather it is the confusion of the Atheism people who don't hold any specific Method of their own to know reality. Right, please?

Atheism is just a lack of belief. It is not a 'method' or a way of knowing reality

Atheism is neither supported by Science/Scientific Method, nor by Religion/Religious Method, they just play a game of jargons of Philosophy, I understand. Right, please?

Atheism isn't a doctrine or belief system. There is no "they," Atheists aren't a group.

And again, what is the "religious method?"

 

[Valjean]

AGAIN, the arguments typically provided by apologetics (fine tuining, kalam, resurrection, etc.) are good enough for me………….my question is what kind of evidence would you personally accept as “good evidence”?.

"Good enough for me?" The arguments are either flawed or they're not. It has nothing to do with you.

2+2=5 is not "good enough."

 

[Heyo]

I see a lot of disagreement and misunderstanding here.
I may be able to help if that is OK with all participants. (I don't even know if I'm on @leroy's ignore list, he usually doesn't answer my questions.)

I suggest the good old method of discourse to first establish the common ground before venturing into the disputed points.

1. Can we agree on this method of discourse?

2. Can we agree that there is a fine tuning problem?
(Fine tuning problem defined as the fact that we don't have a theory explaining the constants of nature.)

 

[paarsurrey]

I see a lot of disagreement and misunderstanding here.
I may be able to help if that is OK with all participants. (I don't even know if I'm on @leroy's ignore list, he usually doesn't answer my questions.)

I suggest the good old method of discourse to first establish the common ground before venturing into the disputed points.

1. Can we agree on this method of discourse?

2. Can we agree that there is a fine tuning problem?
(Fine tuning problem defined as the fact that we don't have a theory explaining the constants of nature.)

Is one's discourse supported by Science/Scientific Method or Religion/Religious Method or one has one's own Method of discerning reality, please?

Regards

 

[leroy]

What source? I saw a joke.

And no. I made no such assertion.

Ok so care to spot your specific points of disagreement?

 

[leroy]

I see a lot of disagreement and misunderstanding here.
I may be able to help if that is OK with all participants. (I don't even know if I'm on @leroy's ignore list, he usually doesn't answer my questions.)

I suggest the good old method of discourse to first establish the common ground before venturing into the disputed points.

1. Can we agree on this method of discourse?

2. Can we agree that there is a fine tuning problem?
(Fine tuning problem defined as the fact that we don't have a theory explaining the constants of nature.)

Yes to both points

But based on my experience you wont get a direct yes or no answer from atheist in this forum

 

[leroy]

You don't understand what evidence is. You fail to grasp what numerous corrective posts have pointed out
.

Related to fine tunning....

Care to quote a single post where i said something wrong and was then corrected?

 

[leroy]

No
Atheists have no 'method'. .

Yes Internet atheist have their method
The atheist method

1 avoid the burden proof at all cost

2 never answer questions directly clearly and unambiguously

3 apply unrealistically high standards with claims that support the existence of God

4 just claim "god of the gaps" when you cant answer to a specific line of evidence.

5 never accept nor deny a specific claim, keep your position ambiguous

6 never provide your specific points of disagreement for an argument

 

[leroy]

And here it is: Leroy; Your premise is flawed. Therefore the conclusion is flawed.

The end.

Perhaps i skipped your comment.


Which premise is flawed? Why?

 

[Heyo]

Is one's discourse supported by Science/Scientific Method or Religion/Religious Method or one has one's own Method of discerning reality, please?

Regards

It's neither scientific nor religious (and it's at this time not even about discerning reality). It's simply a method of communication that is more practical at reaching results.

 

[leroy]

A multiverse could still have different constants and laws making Boltzman brains not as likely. The multiverse is an unknown property and hard to make definite predictions about.

Sure, bjt if the values are randomly given by some mechanism, bolzman brains would be more common than normal observers....... Any disagreement from your part?

Theism expectations naturalism expectations
-universe expected to show fine tuning for life - universe shows far over-tuning, entropy far lower than needed

Well for example the pyramids in Egypt are also over tunned,...... They are unnecessary big and complex for there purpose of burying a dead body.

But you wouldn't say "therefore pyramids are not designed" would you?


Not to mention that it is precisely the fact of overturning that makes any chance hypothesis and any anthropic principle aproach fail.

 

[paarsurrey]

Atheism is just a lack of belief. It is not a 'method' or a way of knowing reality
Atheism isn't a doctrine or belief system. There is no "they," Atheists aren't a group.

And again, what is the "religious method?"

So, one doesn't have a set Method of discerning reality/Truth, then, will one just criticize others, please?
Is it a reasonable approach, please?

Regards
__________________
Religious Method
It was read out with its application authored by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 in the Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore in 1896 in the then British India. The lecture titled " The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam" has since been translated in many world languages and is available online.
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf
The principle is elaborated in first two pages of it:
" It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book."

 

[leroy]

"Good enough for me?" The arguments are either flawed or they're not. It has nothing to do with you.

2+2=5 is not "good enough."

The arguments are good because the premises are likely to be true,.... If you disagree feel free to spot your points of disagreement.


I am still waiting for an answer..... What discovery or observation would count as evidence for God, that couldn't be dismissed by god of the gaps or spaghetti monster?

 

[leroy]

Gravity? Do you know what general relativity is?
Obviously not. You don't know what we know or why we know it. You assume we're just speculating or pulling facts out our hats.
Science is not faith based. There is no equivalence between your Christian doctrine and scientific fact.
y.

Gravity is not a thing, it is just an arbitrary label that you use to explain things that we dont understand

1 Why apples fall from trees? Gravity did it

2 why the water of the planet doesn't fall to outer space? Gravity

3 why the planet orbits the sun? Gravity

4 why do clocks tick slower at the sea level, than in mountains? Gravity

5 why the sun formed? Gravity


One can just as easily change gravity for fairies or spaghetti monster


The truth is that we don't know why this things happen, but that is not a justification for "gravity did it"



Besides if gravity caused all that stuff, the what caused gravity in the first place? Where did gravity come from,?


Therefore gravity almost certainly doesn't exist

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Ohh that is just a “gravity of the gaps argument”, we don’t understand why things attract to each other “gravity dun it”

It's observable. Full stop.

Besides, why gravity? Why not fairies? Or the spaghetti monster?

Sure... you want to call it "fairies" or "Spaghetti Monster?" Doesn't matter what name we attach to it... it is still the description of an observable phenomenon has been found can be modeled and its effects predicted using mathematical principles. Do you have anything like that for "God?" No, you don't. Not observable in the first place, and absolutely no way to demonstrate, predict or model His behavior. This is getting tedious.

And finally you have to show that gravity exist before claiming “gravity did it”

What we call gravity does, indeed, exist, and can be DEMONSTRATED at any current moment, nearly anywhere in the universe. All I have to do to evidence its existence here on Earth is drop something, call the effect that makes it attracted to Earth "gravity" and we're done with this silly little game. Now... do something similar to demonstrate your God. I DARE you.

See? Using your irrational atheist logic one can dismantle any evidence

Your thoughts on this matter are ridiculous. At this point I struggle to even care what you have to say further.

The answer is “I don’t know” stop shifting the burden proof.

I'll admit we don't know the "why" behind gravity. There may not even be one. So yes, the answer to "why gravity exists" is "I don't know." So? Gravity itself? Just try claiming it doesn't exist. Just try. You will find yourself in conflict with behaviors that can be observed THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Give me a break.

Why is it that when some theists can't get their silly little way in an argument they try and DECONSTRUCT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND OUR BODY OF KNOWLEDGE SURROUNDING ITS CONTENTS??! It is just so monumentally DUMB.

 

[Darkstorn]

Perhaps i skipped your comment.


Which premise is flawed? Why?

I honestly tried to do a more extensive refutation. But you're making this REALLY hard. Every single one of your "premises" is in fact a claim that doesn't follow. Therefore your conclusion is flawed.

Your argument was so poorly constructed that my refutation is also extremely simplistic. Because i can't go deeper into such a flawed argument. Your premise 2 doesn't follow from 1, and 3 doesn't follow from 2. Therefore your conclusion is equivalent to my morning dump.

Here's how your argument looks like when reduced to its most base elements:

A.

B.

C.

Therefore D.

That's not how logic works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so care to spot your specific points of disagreement?

No, it is not worth my time. Are you willing to learn what is and what is not evidence? Until you learn most explanations will be beyond your understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gravity is not a thing, it is just an arbitrary label that you use to explain things that we dont understand

1 Why apples fall from trees? Gravity did it

2 why the water of the planet doesn't fall to outer space? Gravity

3 why the planet orbits the sun? Gravity

4 why do clocks tick slower at the sea level, than in mountains? Gravity

5 why the sun formed? Gravity


One can just as easily change gravity for fairies or spaghetti monster


The truth is that we don't know why this things happen, but that is not a justification for "gravity did it"



Besides if gravity caused all that stuff, the what caused gravity in the first place? Where did gravity come from,?


Therefore gravity almost certainly doesn't exist

It is so much more than an arbitrary label and confirms that you don't understand the concept of evidence.

It does not take too long to learn, why don't you give it a shot?

 

[paarsurrey]

No, it is not worth my time. Are you willing to learn what is and what is not evidence? Until you learn most explanations will be beyond your understanding.

OK, tell us what is "evidence" according to the "Atheism Method", please.
Regards