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

[Subduction Zone]

I am going back to the OP. I doubt if this will do any good.

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

Okay, this is not bad. It gives three possible choices. There may be more, but for now let's assume that this is the case.

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

And right away we go off the rails. This is a claim. This is not known at all. It may be due to physical necessity. It may be due to chance. We do not know that it was not due to this at best all the OP can only claim "It is not know if it is not due to physical necessity or chance". This is what makes the argument a "God of the Gaps" argument. At best there is a case of "we don't know" and you try to make the following conclusion:

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

We do not know this. There is no evidence for design. In fact if anything it appears that there was no design.

 

[Darkstorn]

Oh and i just watched WLC's video. It's pretty hilarious. Pretty equivalent to this claim:

If the ground was lava, it would suck REALLY bad.

 

[joelr]

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?

A multiverse is a whole lot of unknown properties. A Boltzman Brain should arise in a quantum vacuum in 10^10^50 years. A multiverse has no properties we can reasonably speculate on, there are endless variables and unknowns.

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.

No the pyramids were built to be exactly what they are. The Pharro didn't say "build a tomb" and the workers were like "crap it's uneven, make another layer.....ah it's still uneven, make another layer" until they ended up with giant structures? The pyramids were planned out to be that exact size, probably something to do with reaching the heavens. The cosmology of people back then was the celestial realms were in the upper atmosphere.
With naturalism the universe ends up looking a predictable way in many areas. Every way favors naturalism. He goes through that list and demonstrates that all these disparate facts about the universe favor a random and naturalistic explanation

 

[joelr]

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

We do understand gravity?

 

[leroy]

All of it because it's an unsound syllogism.

Well why is it unsound? I know that the atheist community told you that can make assertions without supporting them …. Perhaps you can make an expiation in this thread and actually support your assertions


Honestly I don’t have time nor energy for your 10yo games so……I´ll tell you what (this is also for “ @Subduction Zone “ ) the only way you can have a conversation with me is if you spot a specific comment, ether mine or from my sources, that you disagree with, and explain why do you disagree…. Only then we can have a conversation…………..if you don’t do that I will simply ignore your posts.

 

[leroy]

Now now, let's not be dishonest. Why do you run away from learning the basics? Is it because you know that you would not have a leg to stand on once you do?

I am not running away………….if you think I have “the basics wrong” quote any comment where I made the mistake, and explain why I was wrong

 

[Heyo]

Well why is it unsound? I know that the atheist community told you that can make assertions without supporting them …. Perhaps you can make an expiation in this thread and actually support your assertions


Honestly I don’t have time nor energy for your 10yo games so……I´ll tell you what (this is also for “ @Subduction Zone “ ) the only way you can have a conversation with me is if you spot a specific comment, ether mine or from my sources, that you disagree with, and explain why do you disagree…. Only then we can have a conversation…………..if you don’t do that I will simply ignore your posts.

I think @Subduction Zone did exactly that in post #281.

Your (WLCs) second premise is a rhetoric technique known as "hand waving". He dismisses necessity and chance without explaining why.
I know that WLC hasn't explained it sufficiently till today. Maybe you can help him out?

 

[Darkstorn]

Well why is it unsound? I know that the atheist community told you that can make assertions without supporting them …. Perhaps you can make an expiation in this thread and actually support your assertions

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, design, or it was pooped into existence by yours truly.

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

3. Therefore, it is due to being pooped into existence by yours truly.

This SHOULD demonstrate why your OP is flawed.

Honestly I don’t have time nor energy for your 10yo games so……I´ll tell you what (this is also for “ @Subduction Zone “ ) the only way you can have a conversation with me is if you spot a specific comment, ether mine or from my sources, that you disagree with, and explain why do you disagree…. Only then we can have a conversation…………..if you don’t do that I will simply ignore your posts.

Someone else looks to be playing games. I literally posted that while you were still reading this thread yesterday, and replying. Then you quit. Then you come back later as if nothing happened. I already explained, thoroughly, the problem of your argument, AND WLC's.

Your arguments are poor. They are not a substitute for evidence. I demonstrated this with my corruption of your original argument. And here's a newsflash: My corrupted version is equally logically valid, but also equally unsound. I have no trouble admitting this.

TLDR: Your syllogism is unsound because your premises are untrue, and the only way to fix this divide, is to show evidence for your premises.

NOT more weak arguments.

 

[viole]

The thing is that if the FT problem can be explained by "it's just a tautology".....

The why are scientist proposing more complex and sofisticated explanations? Like multiverses, cosmic evolution, and so on.

Ether
1 scientists are stupid and unable to discover the simple explanation that you seem to propose

2 you are missing something.


Obviously I cant tell exactly what you are missing, because you havent elaborate an explanation......

Because scientists are not invoking the multiverse to explain away fine tuning, if any. Scientists are not interested in possible theological implications of anything. If they did, they would try to defeat the BB.

they do because they are a consequence of the same equations that explain so well other things.

Now, even if we did not have these equations, it would still be possible to invoke the multiverse, to defuse the necessity of a fine tuner.

with what evidence? The same of the tuner. Ergo, ceteris paribus, a conscious fine tuner can be equally defeated by a naturalistic explanation with the same power of explanation and evidence.

ergo, fine tuning is not a logical necessity. Out of simple logic.

ciao

- viole

 

[Darkstorn]

I am not running away………….if you think I have “the basics wrong” quote any comment where I made the mistake, and explain why I was wrong

You are trying to run away. You are failing at it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not running away………….if you think I have “the basics wrong” quote any comment where I made the mistake, and explain why I was wrong

I did. See @Heyo 's post.

 

[Scott C.]

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

First, I admit I didn't watch the video. I'm a firm believer in God and believe there are logically persuasive arguments for his existence. The argument of design is good. But, I don't believe it's possible to prove the existence of God by logical debate. When I look at creation and contemplate it all, it seems hard to believe this could have happened without an intelligent creator. But more importantly, I "feel and see and sense" God in his creations. I feel the Holy Spirit. God made the world, he made us, and he's in our lives. Obviously many will laugh at this notion and call it, well anything other than true. But when it comes down to it, we know, are convinced, or believe in God primarily from experiencing God in personal and profound ways. We know, we know we know, and we know God knows we know. Don't get me wrong. I believe it is logical and reasonable to believe in God. But it's personal experience, that deep conviction that resonates in the soul, that motivates one to follow God or Christ specifically. A reasoned conviction alone, is insufficient for us to give our all for our convictions.

 

[Darkstorn]

First, I admit I didn't watch the video. I'm a firm believer in God and believe there are logically persuasive arguments for his existence. The argument of design is good. But, I don't believe it's possible to prove the existence of God by logical debate. When I look at creation and contemplate it all, it seems hard to believe this could have happened without an intelligent creator. But more importantly, I "feel and see and sense" God in his creations. I feel the Holy Spirit. God made the world, he made us, and he's in our lives. Obviously many will laugh at this notion and call it, well anything other than true. But when it comes down to it, we know, are convinced, or believe in God primarily from experiencing God in personal and profound ways. We know, we know we know, and we know God knows we know. Don't get me wrong. I believe it is logical and reasonable to believe in God. But it's personal experience, that deep conviction that resonates in the soul, that motivates one to follow God or Christ specifically. A reasoned conviction alone, is insufficient for us to give our all for our convictions.

I like your approach. And i agree that it is impossible to prove either the existence or non-existence of any deity by logical debate. Even evidence is suspect enough for me to repeat that i can't with full confidence claim knowledge regarding either possibility also.

I think it's sad some people don't realize the limits of their own cognition. The limit is this: Claims of this kind aren't knowledge claims, but belief claims. I personally cannot justify gnosis regarding either theism or atheism.

 

[paarsurrey]

Because scientists are not invoking the multiverse to explain away fine tuning, if any. Scientists are not interested in possible theological implications of anything. If they did, they would try to defeat the BB.

they do because they are a consequence of the same equations that explain so well other things.

Now, even if we did not have these equations, it would still be possible to invoke the multiverse, to defuse the necessity of a fine tuner.

with what evidence? The same of the tuner. Ergo, ceteris paribus, a conscious fine tuner can be equally defeated by a naturalistic explanation with the same power of explanation and evidence.

ergo, fine tuning is not a logical necessity. Out of simple logic.

ciao

- viole

G-d created/s through the natural processes, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

G-d created through the natural processes, please. Right, please?

Regards

We do not know that. If you want to make this claim then you need to be able to post evidence that supports it. You might as well say B-gf--t created the natural processes. Both claims have equal validity.

 

[Valjean]

Well why is it unsound? I know that the atheist community told you that can make assertions without supporting them …. Perhaps you can make an expiation in this thread and actually support your assertions

There's an atheist community? with an agenda? Wh have I not been informed?

 

[Valjean]

G-d created/s through the natural processes, please. Right, please?

Regards

First you meed to establish the existance of this god, they we can examine his methods.

 

[Darkstorn]

There's an atheist community? with an agenda? Wh have I not been informed?

Last page. There is now. Subduction Zone is the pope.

(His regnal name is Grand Pope Hilarious I)

 

[leroy]

@Darkstorn

TLDR: Your syllogism is unsound because your premises are untrue, and the only way to fix this divide, is to show evidence for your premises.

NOT more weak arguments.

Justify your assertion, which premise is wrong? Why?

Evidence for the premises was shown both in comments and in the sources………..it is your job to spot your points of disagreement and explain why you disagree.

 

[Darkstorn]

Justify your assertion, which premise is wrong? Why?

Why are you pretending i haven't already answered this twice?

Evidence for the premises was shown both in comments and in the sources………..it is your job to spot your points of disagreement and explain why you disagree.

No, you just have a bunch of different arguments. You are once more conflating arguments with evidence. Once more for good measure:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, design, or it was pooped into existence by yours truly.

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

3. Therefore, it is due to being pooped into existence by yours truly.

This SHOULD demonstrate why your OP is flawed.