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

[paarsurrey]

It is an example of cherry picking to only rely on one out of date source. Though a very good physicist we have advanced since Roger Penrose's time. Meanwhile you totally ignored the work of Sean Carroll. He has the advantage of not only Penrose's knowledge, but also the knowledge and experiments that followed his time. He pretty much shreds the Fine Tuning Argument here:

By the way, this topic is too broad to fit into a peer reviewed paper. Too many concepts are addressed for peer review which is always very focused research. So you will find refutations of it only in videos and amateur papers.

What it has to do with Atheism, please? Atheism is not a work of Science, and Science does not support Atheism, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

What it has to do with Atheism, please? Atheism is not a work of Science, and Science does not support Atheism, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

The Fine Tuning argument is a failed argument for God and it is based upon science. Meanwhile atheism is "scientific". At least in one sense. In the sciences ideas without evidence are not accepted. You may be confused about what atheism is. Many theists do not understand it. Atheism is not a claim that God does not exist. Atheism is a lack of belief in God. Since there is no reliable evidence for a God the scientific standard would be to reject the God hypothesis.

 

[paarsurrey]

The scientific method gave us anti-biotics, vaccines, etc.
The religious method gave us bloodletting and exorcisms.
I'll stick to the scientific method.

Please stick to presenting the fruits of Atheism, please don't present the fruits of Scientific Method, Atheism is not a work of Scientific Method and does not support Atheism as I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please stick to presenting the fruits of Atheism, please don't present the fruits of Scientific Method, Atheism is not a work of Scientific Method and does not support Atheism as I understand. Right, please?

Regards

Why doesn't the scientific method support atheism? Do you even understand the scientific method? Do you understand atheism? I am thinking that the answer is no to both questions.

 

[paarsurrey]

Atheism isn't a belief system, religion or science. It doesn't investigate anything. There is no how, why or who.

Shouldn't they, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Shouldn't they, please?

Regards

Why?

 

[paarsurrey]

Atheism is not a method of discerning or understanding reality. It doesn't investigate anything. It's just a lack of belief in one specific thing.

Our "criticism" is just pointing out incorrect facts or reasoning. I assume you're interested in truth and want to be right. Don't you want people to point out when you've made a logical error or drawn a conclusion from an unsupported fact?

"Reasonable" is exactly the correct word. Reason is what atheism is based on.
Do you believe in the Norse god Thor, Paarsurrey? Is your a-thorism a method of discerning reality? Is it a method at all?
This is an analogy to atheism, Paarsurrey. Do you see our point?

Regards.
__________________
No. This is not necessary. It is necessary that claims be based on tangible facts and tested conclusions.
There are lots of scriptures claiming to be 'revealed'. How are we to discern which one is correct? I could claim The Chronicles of Narnia or the Tao te Ching were revealed scriptures.

This is just theology. It's preaching. Like most theology, it's based on unsupported claims and unreasonable conclusions.

Answer to what I colored in magenta above:

Had Atheism been reasonable it would have a reasonable Set Method of its own? Do Atheism just rely on conjectures, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Answer to what I colored in magenta above:

Had Atheism been reasonable it would have a reasonable Set Method of its own? Do Atheism just rely on conjectures, please?

Regards

Why would it need or want a method of its own? That makes no sense. And no atheism does not rely on conjecture. I don't think that you understand what atheism is.

 

[Valjean]

Shouldn't they, please?

Regards

What would you have them investigate, The Kennedy assassination? Colony collapse disorder? Covid vaccines?

Do you believe in pink unicorns? No? Shouldn't you a-unicornists be investigating something?

I think you still fail to grasp what atheism is. It's not a belief, religion, theory or movement. All it is is a lack of belief in God, like your lack of belief in unicorns.

 

[Valjean]

Answer to what I colored in magenta above:

Had Atheism been reasonable it would have a reasonable Set Method of its own? Do Atheism just rely on conjectures, please?

Regards

A method for what?

Atheism is the factory default, a blank hard drive.
You were born atheist. It's not something added later -- like religion or the concept of God.

A conjecture is an unsupported opinion or theory. Atheism is neither an opinion nor a theory.
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

Does one mean that Atheism are so unreasonable that it has not even a Method of enquiry/investigation of its own. It simply rely on conjecture or hide behind Science, please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What would you have them investigate, The Kennedy assassination? Colony collapse disorder? Covid vaccines?

Do you believe in pink unicorns? No? Shouldn't you a-unicornists be investigating something?

I think you still fail to grasp what atheism is. It's not a belief, religion, theory or movement. All it is is a lack of belief in God, like your lack of belief in unicorns.

But one does not belong to Atheism, please? Does one, please?
If yes, Atheism may investigate no harm , for instance, "Pink Unicorn" that they talk of so much in these forums or "Bigfoot" in their next endeavor. When they finish the above two then I may suggest them to investigate the "flying kettle" and "elephant in its garage", please.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

Does one mean that Atheism are so unreasonable that it has not even a Method of enquiry/investigation of its own. It simply rely on conjecture or hide behind Science, please? Right, please?

Regards

What is it about atheism that you find unreasonable? What theories, conjectures or beliefs do you think atheists have?

It's not unreasonable to withhold belief in something with no evidence of existing.

 

[paarsurrey]

No. One is talking about reason and evidence, which are the same everywhere for everyone.

Religion does not have a "method." It does not test or investigate. It does not look for flaws. In fact, it discourages investigation and testing. It relies on blind faith and belief in unsupported claims.
It is completely the opposite of science, in this regard.
Please explain what this "atheist method" is.

Atheists have no 'method'. Atheism is not a doctrine or belief system. It's not an investigational modality.

Since Atheism are shy to describe "Atheism Method" our friend @leroy has done it out of courtesy vide his post #159,please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

But one does not belong to Atheism, please? Does one, please?
If yes, Atheism may investigate no harm , for instance, "Pink Unicorn" that they talk of so much in these forums or "Bigfoot" in their next endeavor. When they finish the above two then I may suggest them to investigate the "flying kettle" and "elephant in its garage", please.
Right, please?

"Belong to?" That's an odd way of putting it. Do you belong to your lack of belief in the many things you don't believe in?

If we were making an assertion that something existed -- like the theists are -- then I could see a burden of proof attaching, but we're not the one's making any such assertions.

Review Bertrand Russel's teapot analogy that you cited. This is it's whole point.
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia
"Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does one mean that Atheism are so unreasonable that it has not even a Method of enquiry/investigation of its own. It simply rely on conjecture or hide behind Science, please? Right, please?

Regards

No, atheism is reasonable. Where did you get the rather insane idea that it is not reasonable. It does not rely on conjecture. Atheism is the starting point.

You really do not have a clue as to what atheism is in the first place. Why do you oppose it so strongly?

 

[Heyo]

Does one mean that Atheism are so unreasonable that it has not even a Method of enquiry/investigation of its own. It simply rely on conjecture or hide behind Science, please? Right, please?

Regards

Wrong.
I didn't say anything about atheism. I only said something about communicating efficiently.
But I guess that isn't high on the agenda of the participants on this thread.

 

[paarsurrey]

We have a thing called methodological naturalism. And as extension, the scientific method. Note: These are NOT "Method of Atheism." They are just methods, that both you and i can use.

There is no "method" of Atheism. Atheists simply do not believe in gods. That's all. It's not even meant to be a truth. It's simply non-belief. Everything else you see, is your doing.



Atheism isn't a method. There isn't any method. It's a question of belief: Not truth or knowledge. Atheists simply don't believe in gods. Agnostic atheists haven't SEEN a god, but have no evidence to make a positive claim. I am an agnostic atheist.

I do not say "god doesn't exist." I say "i haven't seen anything to suggest that god exists."

And i could still be wrong.



There isn't going to be any jargon. The only "methods" atheists use have nothing to do with atheism. Instead, every atheist is a different person with different motivations.

" We have a thing called methodological naturalism."

Does one mean from the above expression that Atheism have faith/trust/ in or subscribe to Methodological Naturalism or believe in it or follow it religiously, please?
Right, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

Since Atheism are shy to describe "Atheism Method" our friend @leroy has done it out of courtesy vide his post #159,please. Right, please?

But there is no "method!" Atheists aren't 'shy', we're not hiding anything. There's simply nothing to hide.

Leroy's list:
1 avoid the burden proof at all cost. Atheists have no burden. they make no assertions needing proof.
2 never answer questions directly clearly and unambiguously. We answer clearly, It's you with the fixed preconception that apparently colors your whole concept of atheism.
3 apply unrealistically high standards with claims that support the existence of God. We apply the same standards we do for everything. Asking for a single shred of real evidence isn't unrealistic, or even a very high standard.
4 just claim "god of the gaps" when you cant answer to a specific line of evidence. Leroy doesn't understand what the "god of the gaps" argument is.
5 never accept nor deny a specific claim, keep your position ambiguous. Our position is clear -- we have no position, we're making no claims.
6 never provide your specific points of disagreement for an argument. But we do -- repeatedly. Over and over again theists make the same arguments, and over and over again we show you their logical &/or factual flaws. The burden is on the one making the assertion. The atheists don't need to make an argument, all we reasonably have to do is show your assertion is unfounded and the default -- atheism -- stands.

Do you not see the flaws in Leroy's list? He misrepresents everything.

 

[paarsurrey]

The "Atheist method" is an obvious falsehood propagated by a lone theist(Leroy.) I don't understand why you would want to be part of this intentional falsehood with such conviction. It would make you complicit.

Maybe you shouldn't take one biased source's claims at face value. Or you risk being confused as a person who openly propagates falsehoods.

" The "Atheist method" is an obvious falsehood propagated by a lone theist(Leroy.)"

Does one deem that only "Atheism" is entitled to or have a license to criticize/deride/ridicule/mock and "Atheism" is above board, please. Right, please?

Regards