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

[Valjean]

First you have to establish that gravity exist………only then you can claim that gravity is responsible for apples falling from trees………..honestly can’t you find the flaws of your logic?

No. explain it to me.
And I can present testable, repeatable, predictive evidence for gravity.

Any argument for the existence of God can be dismissed because by your logic there is no prior evidence for the existence of God…..how can any present arguments or evidence if you always demand prior evidence?

Doesn't matter if it's prior or you just discovered it five minutes ago. Show me any evidence.

 

[Valjean]

" What makes you think that there is a simple and correct answer? "

I find nature out there so beautiful, and it is so simple, every human being enjoys its beauty.
Why can't those who complicate it, do it simple?
It is not fair and equitable!?.

Regards

It is what it is. It's not people who complicate it. Blame God.

 

[joelr]

In the same way we can test that the universe is FT……………you arbitrarily claim “gravity” I claim “God”

@Darkstorn is a transcendent being since I claimed it.
And he is also an invisible guy that likes to push apples to the floor…………why is gravity a better explanation?

Because it's science. An easier example for you might to understand that a virus causes the common cold. You might say Darkstorm is the cause of the common cold and science will say it's a virus. But they will say 1) we are sure that there are microscopic organisms that cause a variety of sickness so there is precedence. 2) we can find a particular virus in the blood of people who have a common cold. 3) They may also test this by exposing some people to this virus and others to a placebo.

Gravity has it's own lines of evidence starting with the establishment of the reality and testability of spacetime with special relativity.
Going with the geometrical interpretation, general relativity then defines gravity as the curvature of spacetime due to mass. This theory expands on the Newtonian equations so we can make many new predictions using the theory.
First we can use it to understand the strange behavior of Mercury's orbit. Then it predicts gravitational lensing, which we observe, it predicts the universe is expanding, gravity waves and like special relativity shows time dilation in a gravity well and exactly how much depending on the mass/distance of the object.
With GPS satellites we find the error correction is exactly what relativity predicted.

Our current physics are why you are sitting at a computer or cell phone.

 

[Heyo]

I am an ordinary man in the street. I wanted to understand as to why the gravitation gets created in the planets. I did not find the answer at the following site:
What Is Gravity? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids
Anybody to explain it please. Right, please?

Regards

You won't find an answer in science. Science answers the "how" question. For the "why" question you have to turn to philosophy or religion.

 

[leroy]

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.





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

The only point that i made with pyramids is that "over tunning" doesn't indicate "no design" as you (or carlol) claim.....

If you disagree feel free to develop an argument, i can help you with that

Premise 1 the universe is over tunned

Premise 2?? ¿????

Therefore No design

What would premise 2 be.

 

[leroy]

Because it's science. An easier example for you might to understand that a virus causes the common cold. You might say Darkstorm is the cause of the common cold and science will say it's a virus. But they will say 1) we are sure that there are microscopic organisms that cause a variety of sickness so there is precedence. 2) we can find a particular virus in the blood of people who have a common cold. 3) They may also test this by exposing some people to this virus and others to a placebo.

Gravity has it's own lines of evidence starting with the establishment of the reality and testability of spacetime with special relativity.
Going with the geometrical interpretation, general relativity then defines gravity as the curvature of spacetime due to mass. This theory expands on the Newtonian equations so we can make many new predictions using the theory.
First we can use it to understand the strange behavior of Mercury's orbit. Then it predicts gravitational lensing, which we observe, it predicts the universe is expanding, gravity waves and like special relativity shows time dilation in a gravity well and exactly how much depending on the mass/distance of the object.
With GPS satellites we find the error correction is exactly what relativity predicted.

Our current physics are why you are sitting at a computer or cell phone.

Agree,

My point is that I can always reject viruses using atheist logic.

1 "how do you know that those tinny things that we see in the microscope are virises and not fairies?

2 If cold caused by virus then where do viruses come from?

3 Ohhhh its just a virus of the gaps fallacy, we dont know therefore virus did it

4 Please provide a source that shows that viruses cause cold, but I won’t accept a source from a “virusist” (someone that believes in the existence of viruses)

5 There is no evidnece for viruses

 

[leroy]

No. explain it to me.
And I can present testable, repeatable, predictive evidence for gravity.
Doesn't matter if it's prior or you just discovered it five minutes ago. Show me any evidence.

The problem is that you won't accept evidence for god unless someone shows that god exists

But how can some show that god exist if you wont accept evidence untill the existence of god is proven ?

 

[leroy]

Hardly a paradox. It is merely an unsupported argument. Why give it any credence at all? This is your claim Merit, the Borden of proof lies upon you.

Yes which is why i acceoted the burden proof and explained why is this a problem for "chance hypothesis"


If you disagree please explain exactly where is your point of disagreement

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes which is why i acceoted the burden proof and explained why is this a problem for "chance hypothesis"


If you disagree please explain exactly where is your point of disagreement

That was just handwaving . You did not prove anything.

Worse yet the "chance hypothesis" is a creationist strawman.

 

[Darkstorn]

This thread is just pigeon chess. Nothing more.

 

[leroy]

That was just handwaving . You did not prove anything.

Worse yet the "chance hypothesis" is a creationist strawman.

It´s not a straw man, some people (including scientists ) try to explain the FT with “chance” we “simply got lucky”…………does this represent your view, yes or no?

 

[Darkstorn]

It´s not a straw man, some people (including scientists ) try to explain the FT with “chance” we “simply got lucky”…………does this represent your view, yes or no?

I don't know of any scientist trying to explain the FT in any way because it's a creationist argument. This is just your incredulity: You cannot imagine an alternative to that so you won't. No matter what. But we're supposed to imagine your chosen alternative like BAM.

Once more: There is no FT until it gets evidenced: WLC's arguments don't "prove" anything because they are poorly thought out arguments based on personal incredulity. And as far as chance goes: Doesn't matter what the chance for anything is after the fact that it has already happened. The chances of us arising naturally in the universe are pretty small because, even with your stupid FT argument, 99,99% of the universe would still be incredibly hostile to all forms of life; Life is rare. But since it DID happen and all evidence points to natural means, then talking about chance or statistic is pointless. And stupid.

/E: And you need evidence instead of poor arguments to try and claim FT real. You still think you can ignore this divide, which leads me to believe this is just pigeon chess.

 

[leroy]

I don't know of any scientist trying to explain the FT in any way because it's a creationist argument. This is just your incredulity: You cannot imagine an alternative to that so you won't. No matter what. But we're supposed to imagine your chosen alternative like BAM.

Once more: There is no FT until it gets evidenced: WLC's arguments don't "prove" anything because they are poorly thought out arguments based on personal incredulity. And as far as chance goes: Doesn't matter what the chance for anything is after the fact that it has already happened. The chances of us arising naturally in the universe are pretty small because, even with your stupid FT argument, 99,99% of the universe would still be incredibly hostile to all forms of life; Life is rare. But since it DID happen and all evidence points to natural means, then talking about chance or statistic is pointless. And stupid.

/E: And you need evidence instead of poor arguments to try and claim FT real. You still think you can ignore this divide, which leads me to believe this is just pigeon chess.

Yesterday I provided a peer reviewd source showing that the universe is FT

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


So ether agree with the source, agree that the universe is FT and move un to your next point of disagreement.................or explain why is the source wrong?.....................OR
Act like a 12yo and ignore the evidence as you usually do

 

[Darkstorn]

Yesterday I provided a peer reviewd source showing that the universe is FT

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


So ether agree with the source, agree that the universe is FT and move un to your next point of disagreement.................or explain why is the source wrong?.....................OR
Act like a 12yo and ignore the evidence as you usually do

I can only access the abstract which means I can't comment much about it. I don't think you can either.

 

[leroy]

I can only access the abstract which means I can't comment much about it. I don't think you can either.

reed the whole article here
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.03928.pdf

So ether agree that the universe is FT or spot your specific point of disagreement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It´s not a straw man, some people (including scientists ) try to explain the FT with “chance” we “simply got lucky”…………does this represent your view, yes or no?

I have not seen the "we just got lucky" claim. Please find a valid source.

 

[Darkstorn]

reed the whole article here
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.03928.pdf

So ether agree that the universe is FT or spot your specific point of disagreement.

Thanks. Now i must make a decision whether or not i want to spend all that time reading such a long article just to argue it later with a guy who's denying the existence of gravity, even though this paper is contingent on gravity existing in the first place.

I might or i might not read it, and i might or might not argue you about it. Because that's a lot of time on my part, just to argue it on an internet forum with a person who's literally denying gravity. I will have to weigh in my options. Namely; That i could also not spend all that time just to waste it.

Hypothetically speaking, would you be interested in reading about General Relativity before i have to read this? Because i'm fairly certain you haven't read any of that.

Oh and one more thing: Have you read this paper?

 

[leroy]

I have not seen the "we just got lucky" claim. Please find a valid source.

Multiverse hypothesis are examples of chance hypothesis “there are many universes, a small portion of universes is FT, we simply happened to live in a universe that is FT”


That is what I mean by chance hypothesis …. Do assert/claim/belive … that the FT of the universe was a product of chance?

The Multiverse hypothesis proposes the existence of many universes with different physical constants, some of which are hospitable to intelligent life (see multiverse: anthropic principle). Because we are intelligent beings, it is unsurprising that we find ourselves in a hospitable universe if there is such a multiverse. The Multiverse hypothesis is therefore thought to provide an elegant explanation of the finding that we exist despite the required fine-tuning. (See [1] for a detailed discussion of the arguments for and against this suggested explanation.)

 

[leroy]

Thanks. Now i must make a decision whether or not i want to spend all that time reading such a long article just to argue it later .

You don’t have to read the whole article, you can read the abstract and the conclusions, and simply trust scientist and the process of peer review,

That the universe is FT is not a controversial fact, scientists in general agree that the universe is FT, the first time I read about it was in a book by Stephen Hawkins “The grand Design”………..this is not a “religios thing”

with a guy who's denying the existence of gravity, even though this paper is contingent on gravity existing in the first place

I don’t deny gravity, I simply lack a belief in Gravity. … (just kidding)…. My point with gravity is that using atheist methodology once can deny gravity, viruses, or any other idea…………………..all you have to do is claim “ohhhh gravity of the gaps fallacy”

I might or i might not read it, and i might or might not argue you about it. Because that's a lot of time on my part, just to argue it on an internet forum with a person who's literally denying gravity. I will have to weigh in my options. Namely; That i could also not spend all that time just to waste it.

So let’s make a summery…

1 I said “the universe is FT

2 You said please provide a source

3 I answerd look at the sources in the OP

4 you answerd: I don’t like William Lane creig

5 I provided the abstract of a peer reviewd article

6 you said “I what the complete article”

7 I provided the complete article

8 you say “I might to read it”

Honestly what exactly are you expecting from me? you are like a 12yo

Oh and one more thing: Have you read this paper?

just a few aragraphs here and there..........

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Multiverse hypothesis are examples of chance hypothesis “there are many universes, a small portion of universes is FT, we simply happened to live in a universe that is FT”


That is what I mean by chance hypothesis …. Do assert/claim/belive … that the FT of the universe was a product of chance?

That isn't "chance". That would be statistics and logic.