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

[Valjean]

" 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?

No!
As Darkstorm said, it's just a tool; an investigational modality, like multiplication or radiometric dating. If it's useful in an argument, anyone's free to use it.
Most atheists, though, wouldn't be able tell you what methodological naturalism even was.

 

[Valjean]

" 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?

If you make a proposition, any interlocutor -- religious or not -- is free to criticize it.
If you make the same assertions and arguments, over and over again, even after one's explained the flaws to you, wouldn't it be reasonable to consider you obtuse?
Right, please?

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Everything in natural space that is round or to tends to be round is speaking loudly of the One-Creator, who has set it in motion, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

Nope, not at all. For large objects it only speaks loudly of gravity. And if gravity is your God you are in essence claiming that God sucks.

And gravity is not artificial, G-d has created it and not the human beings, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Everything in natural space that is round or to tends to be round is speaking loudly of the One-Creator, who has set it in motion, I understand. Right, please?

No, it speaks loudly of basic physics and geometry.

And gravity is not artificial, G-d has created it and not the human beings, please. Right, please?

Are you saying it's not natural?
Why do you think an intentional, invisible created it? What evidence do you have for this?[/quote]

 

[leroy]

If you are Christian then why not expect evidence as written in your bible? Yahweh was once heard by folks in the desert and appearing as a pillar of smoke and fire and another time he was riding a chariot accompanied by winged hybrid creatures. He did fight a sea monster as well but that is more metaphor. He spoke a lot as well and sent Satan to plague a city. Lot of angels, a demigod son who has miracle abilities. Human locusts, 7 headed beasts, dragons, they are supposed to show up sometime.
So if you get one of these type experiences on video or something that would help.

For anything that cannot be shown then we cannot know. Scientists thought God was responsible for the motion of the planets. Whoops, they got that wrong and after a few of those it became silly to invoke God without evidence because if you don't know the answer to something any old science could come along and fix that. And it did. Many times.

Well if you observe a pillar of smoke talking to you and claiming to be God........ What would stop you from saying "ohhhhh its a god of the gaps fallacy"..... just because we don't know what caused the taking smoke it doesn't mean "god did it

 

[leroy]

Atheism is just that the evidence for theism is crap.
l.

The problem is that you have to support that assertion....... Why is the evidence for theism presented in this crap?...... Can you quote a single relevant piece of data ether from my comments or sources that you would consider wrong of fallacious? (please quote the specific text)


If you present evidence for a round earth and i say that the evidence is crap....... You would ask me to support that assertion right? You would ask me to go to the evidence presented and identify the flaws right.

 

[leroy]

This observation doesn't make any definitive premise or statement. It just favors the universe being natural.
e.

How? Why is the fact that entropy is much lower than what it needs to be favoring naturalism?

Imagine that you have a chair that can resist 2,000Kg of weight..... So this chair is overtooned because if chairs are designed to support humans and there are no 2,000kg humans

So the chair is more resistant than it needs to be, would you say that this favors nature over design? When it comes to tje origin of a chair?

 

[leroy]

As a means to oppose reality.

Once again avoiding direct answers?

I'll tell you what....... This thread is already 400+ long..... So if there is any comment ether mine or from my sources that you disagree with please quote such comment and explain why you disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So if you disagree with the fact that the universe is FT, please let me know why.

It's still not at all clear what you mean by "fine tuned."

If you just mean that the universe is exactly what it is, then sure... this a tautology, so it's true, but trivial.

If you mean something more, then please tell us what you mean.

 

[leroy]

It's still not at all clear what you mean by "fine tuned."

If you just mean that the universe is exactly what it is, then sure... this a tautology, so it's true, but trivial.

If you mean something more, then please tell us what you mean.

That the universe has many "values" such that if any of them would have been a little bit stronger or weaker we wouldn't have atoms, molecule, stars, planets..... And/or other stuff necessary for life.

For example if gravity would have been a little bit stronger the universe would have collapsed in a black hole soon after the big bang, making life impossible in such universe.

This is what I mean by FT..... Do you accept that the universe is FT or do you have any disagreement?

 

[Heyo]

That the universe has many "values" such that if any of them would have been a little bit stronger or weaker we wouldn't have atoms, molecule, stars, planets..... And/or other stuff necessary for life.

For example if gravity would have been a little bit stronger the universe would have collapsed in a black hole soon after the big bang, making life impossible in such universe.

This is what I mean by FT..... Do you accept that the universe is FT or do you have any disagreement?

I suppose an other, almost equivalent, definition. (Yours already contains interpretation.)
The fine tuning problem is the fact that there are constants of nature that can't be derived from the theories about nature.
I think that is the most neutral formulation that should be acceptable by any scientist or anyone arguing against the fine tuning argument. I accept it.

 

[leroy]

I suppose an other, almost equivalent, definition. (Yours already contains interpretation.)
The fine tuning problem is the fact that there are constants of nature that can't be derived from the theories about nature.
I think that is the most neutral formulation that should be acceptable by any scientist or anyone arguing against the fine tuning argument. I accept it.

The issue is not only that they cant be derived...... The issue is that they have the specific values needed for a life permitting universe......


Based on the definition that i provided do you grant thatvthe universe is FT? If not why not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That the universe has many "values" such that if any of them would have been a little bit stronger or weaker we wouldn't have atoms, molecule, stars, planets..... And/or other stuff necessary for life.

For example if gravity would have been a little bit stronger the universe would have collapsed in a black hole soon after the big bang, making life impossible in such universe.

This is what I mean by FT..... Do you accept that the universe is FT or do you have any disagreement?

I accept that the universe is exactly as it is, and if it were different, then it would be different.

I don't accept that it's reasonable to call this "fine tuning."

 

[Heyo]

The issue is not only that they cant be derived...... The issue is that they have the specific values needed for a life permitting universe......


Based on the definition that i provided do you grant thatvthe universe is FT? If not why not?

It is already interpretation. We don't know if the constants can be any other. We don't know the ranges they could be different. We don't know how universes would look if several constants were different. (Changes in one could be cancelled by changes in another.)

It is not important for the original argument which definition we use. With my definition it is easier for opponents to your position to accept premises 0 and 1.
(Although my objections return when discussing premise 2.)

 

[leroy]

I accept that the universe is exactly as it is, and if it were different, then it would be different.

I don't accept that it's reasonable to call this "fine tuning."

Dont label it fine tunning if you dont whant..... What label do you suggest?

Do you accept that the universe has the property that I label as fine tuning?

 

[leroy]

It is already interpretation. We don't know if the constants can be any other. We don't know the ranges they could be different.

Irrelevant the universe would be FT independently of whether if the values could have been different

We don't know how universes would look if several constants were different. (Changes in one could be cancelled by changes in another.)

Yes we know it (with high degree of confidence).... Scientists can run simulations and see what would happen if say gravity would have been 1% stronger.

It happend to be the case that life prohibiting universes are vasttly more abundant than life permitting universes.

(Although my objections return when discussing premise 2.)

Ok whats wrong with premise 2?

 

[Valjean]

Dont label it fine tunning if you dont whant..... What label do you suggest?

Do you accept that the universe has the property that I label as fine tuning?

"Fine tuning" implies preconceived design for a specific purpose. There is no evidence for that.
We see organisms all around us evolving to fit an existing design, we see nothing designed to fit a pre-existing organism.

 

[Heyo]

Irrelevant the universe would be FT independently of whether if the values could have been different

I don't like that you try to smuggle an independent premise into the first.
Let's make that
1.a. We can't explain the constants of nature.
1.b. Only the current constants (or very close to these) could have led to life.

Yes we know it (with high degree of confidence).... Scientists can run simulations and see what would happen if say gravity would have been 1% stronger.

It happend to be the case that life prohibiting universes are vasttly more abundant than life permitting universes.

Which may or may not be true. We don't know. There may even be universes that are more conductive to life than ours:
Our Universe Isn't As Special As We'd Like to Believe | Live Science
And, from what we know, our universe isn't very conductive to life. With 100 billion galaxies, each containing 100 billion stars on average, each having one planet in the habitable zone on average, we know of just one carrying life. We are a random fluke within our universe as far as we know.

Ok whats wrong with premise 2?

You stopped answering after Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dont label it fine tunning if you dont whant..... What label do you suggest?

Nothing. It's not remarkable. We don't need a special word to describe when something is what it is.

Do you accept that the universe has the property that I label as fine tuning?

No, I don't.

 

[leroy]

No, I don't.

Why not?