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

[leroy]

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

Ok appart from your semantic games do you have any other point of disagreement?


Would you agree that "statistics hypothesis" fail due to the Bolzman brain paradox?(or for any other reason)

Or would you afirm that these hypothesis successfully solve the FT problem?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok appart from your semantic games do you have any other point of disagreement?


Would you agree that "statistics hypothesis" fail due to the Bolzman brain paradox?(or for any other reason)

Or would you afirm that these hypothesis successfully solve the FT problem?

I am not playing semantic games. In fact since you tried to use loaded language that description applies to you. You were corrected by others on this and yet you persisted.

Would you care to try again without the false accusations?

 

[rational experiences]

Thinking. Just a human on earth thinking.

His world thinker theist. Just science theisms. For science as science.

Fine tuning as a creator. His human inventions are fine tuned. His thinking does not know forces in space as they are not machines. Never did represent power or forces.

Fine tuning for human creations. Machines.

Human observing scientist. Cause and effect of him claiming his thinking invented me. When his sperm in an ovary did. His words human imposed claimed they spoke on behalf of everything.

By thinking and speaking.

His false preaching.

Egotism. False group owned human controlled status that goes hand in hand with greed want theism the want of one group control. And a lifestyle owning anything they desire.

If you ask a scientist did you really want the forces in space to interact with your machine? Logically no.... greedily yes.

If you ask him how did you learn a new theme as you destroyed earth God mass already historic and modern? Never realised before in reactive phases?

A new theory. New information science only?

Because earth. As God. Seeing God was male humans own old science quotes. Transmitted in radio waves new advice. Why he s******s talking about meaning of fine tuned. The visionary model fed back showing the destruction of God mass.

Particle loss. Conversion.

By newly gained UFO massed radiation transmitted feedback. Visions in mind.

In particle earth converting.

Fission did not own that reasoning before as how to. How one destructive act goes one more into destructive ideas. As destroyer warnings to self.

Claimed it new ideas. Was already occurring but not previously identified by his psyche.

Not a creation. Is a removal function of sin. To own sacrificed son life. Not God body. Living inside heavens.

God the planet also sits inside the heavens.

False mind condition.

When you discuss a subject. It is the subject. A vision atom is just an atom. It owns only the description. What an atom is. Then the description how to end convert the atom.

We get life sacrificed. Not by the atom. A string of information that states extra radiation unsealed from earth attacks life.

How science falsified science thinking.

Claiming human body harmed as they owned the atom. The atom is itself. A self body existing in its form.

When you look.at my life. As a female. A human. A mother living inside a heavenly body I own the physical creation of life. Life continuance. Human babies. All modern day science lives son and baby link memory back to its human mother. Not to a fake spatial womb maths theory.

I am not the subject an atom.

I am not maths or womb of space.

After the ice age first human father NOT the scientist. His DNA life body less in evolution than baby son.

Son born became adult scientist. Son brother scientist did it to his self.

Father of science died.

Father origin life changed. But survived.

Scientist self removed in DNA.

Fact.

Human womb reasoning. Only a human baby science son used that reason.

Researched original male historic science.

Proof he called space a womb. Comparing. Only a modern day life thesis.

Theme science origin reckoning. Flooded earth theory.

Life sacrificed study. Temple pyramid did it. Vision said did it before. Destroyed all life.

To know. Previous human experience. Cannot claim I know unless it pre existed.

Says. My science God theist dies. I live on as original father human self spiritual.

Scientist leaves us. We live on without him mutated. We heal DNA no science change. He then returns by body and thoughts. Died did it again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is there any evidence that a "Boltzmann brain" has ever formed out there in the void? And if I am one (complete with very specific "human" memories of time spent here on Earth in this universe) then how would I evidence this to myself as the observer? If the answer is that I cannot, then why should this idea be taken seriously? In the end, I will still need to react to the stimulus I actually appear to be receiving in order to continue to be an observer. Without evidence it is no better than fiction. If, however, you have come across evidence that these "Boltzmann brains" exist, or that some portion of humanity is one of these random-formulated brains, then by all means, present it and we'll talk. I have less faith in you being able to provide any evidence on this score than I do your ability to provide evidence of God, however - so be forewarned that the evidence had better be pretty compelling.

You can always count on cdesign proponentsists to use "evidence" of things indistinguishable from fiction, to "support" things indistinguishable from fiction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So is there any potential evidence that you wouldn’t explain with “it´s a God of the gaps”……….it seems to me that no matter what evidence is presented you can always run away by saying “ohhh it’s a God of the gaps”

Still not making any sense.

Either you don't know what the god-of-the-gaps fallacy is, or you don't understand the difference between observation and explanation. And evidence.

"god of the gaps" is not an explanation, nore is it something that addresses evidence or observation.
It's rather something that addresses specific arguments that meet certain criteria.

ie: there's a gap in knowledge and rather then just say you don't know, you insert your god into it.

like "I don't know why the constants of the universe are the way they are. so god must have dun it"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The same kind of logic can be used by flatt earthers……..”We don’t know why the stars look different in Australia and in USA, therefore you invoke a “globe of the gaps fallacy”

No, because we actually DO KNOW why the stars look different in australia. It's properly explained, with testable and independently verifiable evidence.

The fact is that there is a gap in our knowledge, and we most find the best explanation availbale to fill in that gap, if you have a better explanation than God feel free to share it.

We've been over this. "god dun it" has zero explanatory power, as it doesn't make ANY testable prediction and thus doesn't explain ANYTHING, and therefor does not qualify as an "explanation".

Instead, it's just a bare assertion without evidence.

 

[Valjean]

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

Please stop it with this "atheist logic." You know perfectly well this makes no more sense that atheist geometry or algebra.

Your list is absurd.
1. It doesn't matter what we call them. We know what they are, what they do and how they work.
2. Nucleic acids break apart or are created spontaneously. From there natural selection will select those snippets that can code for their own duplication, thus continuing their existence.
3. The gaps fallacy rests on a sequence. No sequence is being proposed. You're throwing around a term you don't understand -- and we do know, so we don't have to invent anything.
4. A viral proof from virus deniers? Don't hold your breath.

These responses don't reflect the posts you've been getting from rational, informed posters. You clearly don't understand the points we're making.
You're also ignorant of the facts involved and how we know what we do. Repeated corrections and explanations are just ignored, and you repeat the same errors and misconceptions over and over again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And my response is that the bolzman brain paradox refutes any chance hypothesis and the fact that there are multiple independent values refutes any physical necessity hypothesis. any disagreement?

Yes. I disagree with all of it.

You're just piling on assertions. No evidence whatsoever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well I would say that the bolzman brain paradox represents a devastating objection to the multiverse explanation. (assuming that you are arguing that we are just a random member of this universe)

You "say" a lot of things. But you support very little.

Even if I would accept your unsupported "bolzman brain" thingy for which you also present no evidence, it in no way excludes that actual individual biological organisms can exist. In fact, it explicitly doesn't.

Meanwhile, a multiverse is still a prediction that naturally flows from inflation theory.
While by itself untestable, the very fact that it actually flows naturally from an existing theory, makes it already by leaps and bounds a better candidate then any entity indistinguishable from fiction and which isn't predicted or supported by ANYTHING that your imagination can produce.

Even if we grant that there is a multiverse with potentially infinite universes, statistically speaking its more likely to have observers that live in a “not so FT universe” than observers in a FT universe like ours.

Ever heard the story of throwing bricks while living in a glass house?
That's what you are doing here. Your entire FT nonsense is predicated on the assumption that the values are REQUIRED to be the way they are for us to be able to even exist. Even only for ATOMS to be able to exist.

Now, you're telling me that there are plenty of configurations that make life possible just as well? Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Also, and I pointed this out earlier already and you simply ignored it: how is that STATISTICALLY so?

Statistics require a set of MORE then ONE.

How many universe have you gauged to be able to say that STATISTICALLY, it is so?

It is more likely to have an observer that is currently dreaming / imagining / hallucinating a FT universe, than an observer that lives in an actual FT universe.

You continue to claim this. Are you going to support it with actual evidence, or planning to do so any time soon?

I'll just go ahead and dismiss your bare claims until you do.
Because what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

As an analogy, sure if you play the lottery for a potentially infinite amount of time, you will eventually win the lottery 1,000 times in a row, but in the meantime you will have billions of “dreams” where you won the lottery 1,000 times in a row………..so any observation of you winning the lottery is more likely to be a dream.

And yet, by the very nature of infinity, there will be an infinite amount of occurrences where one actually wins the lottery.

In the same way, any observation of you living in a FT universe is more likely to be a dream. Which would be a “Reductio ad absurdum” which is why this paradox constitutes a devastating objection.

By the very nature of infinity, any probability will happen an infinite amount of times.
How is that "devastating"?

You should get your fictional arguments straight. And think about probabilities a bit more.

Your only alternatives are

1 Disagree and argue that this is not a devastating objection

2 provide an even more devastating argument against God being the cause of the FT of the universe.

3. ignore claims / assertions without supporting evidence.

Otherwise your assertion “the multiverse is better than God” is not justified.

I already addressed this.
The multiverse is a prediction that naturally flows from an actual scientific theory.
No theory predicts any kind of gods.

That, in and of itself, makes the multiverse an actual candidate.
While that, also in and of itself, actually disqualifies god as a candidate, because there is nothing, NOTHING, to suggest it. At all.

WHY?

Because the natural can be shown to actually exist.

 

[Valjean]

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 ?

Show us some real evidence. You keep regurgitating long debunked evidences and ignoring well evidenced facts and conclusions.

You haven't provided good evidence. You complain that we ignore your evidence, but you ignore the explanations we give for rejecting your evidence.
It's faulty evidence, but you fail to understand why it's faulty despite repeated explanations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So by that logic nothing will ever count as evidence for God right?.....................

No. Rather: by that logic, humans merely making claims indistinguishable from sheer fantasy, will never count as actual evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do scientists "explain the fine tuning problem away"?

Theists / apologists also like to pretend as if the "fine tuning problem" is an actual big problem in physics.
In reality, it isn't.

Every "debate" I ever saw between a physicist and an apologist, it was always the apologist who made a big deal out of it. While the physicist mostly spends his time trying to make the apologist understand how he misunderstands the "problem" and how it is misrepresented in their arguments.

But off course, the apologist doesn't listen and happily continues arguing strawmen and arguments from ignorance. Pretty much like a pigeon playing chess by crapping all over the board, knocking over all the pieces and then fly away claiming victory.

In fact, it resembles a lot the rather stupid argument of certain apologists who "calculated" that life originating has a chance of one in 10^120 or some such ridiculous number. Biochemists can then only point out that their calculation is ill-informed, based on loads of unwarranted assumptions and also completely ignores biochemical processes that seriously impact such things.

And like always with apologists who will clinge to any argument that can make them sound "sciency" and "sophisticated", they just ignore all that and simply repeat their shenannigans ad nauseum, pretending they are making a valid scientific point.

 

[Heyo]

you fail to understand why it's faulty despite repeated explanations.

Maybe we are just not good at explaining?
As I have learned as a tutor, the problem in such cases is often not the subject itself but a deeper concept. It may be simple logic that is the problem here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

" Have you ever even contemplated the types of evidence we mostly all DO accept for various things and ideas?"

In Science, the evidences are given as per the Scientific Method, and in Religion the proofs are given as per the Religious Method, according to the nature of the problems. Right, please?

The scientific method gave us anti-biotics, vaccines, etc.
The religious method gave us bloodletting and exorcisms.


I'll stick to the scientific method.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whats the point of a God who has a body to show and shows himself like you wish?

What's the point of one that doesn't?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why should God "appear" and what would it solve? lets just follow your argument?

For starters, it might prevent muslims killing other muslims for being the "wrong kind" of muslims.

 

[firedragon]

Theists / apologists also like to pretend as if the "fine tuning problem" is an actual big problem in physics.
In reality, it isn't.

Every "debate" I ever saw between a physicist and an apologist, it was always the apologist who made a big deal out of it. While the physicist mostly spends his time trying to make the apologist understand how he misunderstands the "problem" and how it is misrepresented in their arguments.

But off course, the apologist doesn't listen and happily continues arguing strawmen and arguments from ignorance. Pretty much like a pigeon playing chess by crapping all over the board, knocking over all the pieces and then fly away claiming victory.

In fact, it resembles a lot the rather stupid argument of certain apologists who "calculated" that life originating has a chance of one in 10^120 or some such ridiculous number. Biochemists can then only point out that their calculation is ill-informed, based on loads of unwarranted assumptions and also completely ignores biochemical processes that seriously impact such things.

And like always with apologists who will clinge to any argument that can make them sound "sciency" and "sophisticated", they just ignore all that and simply repeat their shenannigans ad nauseum, pretending they are making a valid scientific point.

Great, lengthy. Very good.

 

[firedragon]

For starters, it might prevent muslims killing other muslims for being the "wrong kind" of muslims.

Shah. Very clever. Genius.

 

[firedragon]

What's the point of one that doesn't?

Yeah. What’s the point?

 

[firedragon]

For starters, it might prevent muslims killing other muslims for being the "wrong kind" of muslims.

Maybe this kind of thing will prevent cheap characters insulting other people’s wives for arguments sake. Some morals missing naturally maybe. Hmmm.