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

[joelr]

And why couldn’t a skeptic simply say _”it´s a god of the gaps” just because we don’t know how that stuff happened, it doesn’t mean God did it?

There are still people skeptical of round Earth and evolution. There will always be skeptics. People actually should be skeptical until things have sufficient proof. Why would the supernatural or God be any exception? When something can be studied, tested, predictions made and shown to be true, then our confidence can be increased proportionally.

 

[joelr]

Those are very interesting points, but you said that “overtunning = design is unlikelly” I simply what you to justify that assertion…………..how does “overrunning in the universe is evidnece for “no design”

The claim made by Carlol (and that you supported) indicates that since the universe has many galaxies and many stars (low entropy) and since we simply need 1 star it follows “no design”………I simply what you to justify that assertion.

The chair example was just an analogy, sure a chair that can support 2,000kg is more resistant that what we need if the purpose is to support a human…. But that wouldn’t indicate that the chais was not designed…………..maybe the “chair maker” had an additional purpose in mind,

So please, don’t move away from this particular topic, and explain how does overtunning (low entropy) indicates “no design”?

First I didn't say "overtuned"? That is the point. The universe might not be tuned at all, it just is.
But you are moving the goal post now. So the universe might be tuned for life PLUS another thing (which would account for the low entropy)? That makes less sense.
If you have a thesis that the universe is tuned for life then we can make observations. A low entropy universe does not appear to be tuned for life. You had to do an ad-hoc move and add an "additional purpose". This is dishonest.

The claim by Carol had nothing to do with having many galaxies and many stars? Yes we need one star and one planet. The early universe had zero stars and planets, zero galaxies and going way back was a quantum of unified energy. The antimatter/matter reaction at the beginning alone could have wiped out all matter. A God doesn't need to experiment, it could just create a universe ready to create life.
This observation does not support theism but rather naturalism. While not conclusive proof you seem to agree because you modified the goal from "life" to "life plus additional purpose".

 

[joelr]

Yes, but why? Considering my comments and my sources, ¿where is the mistake? Where is the logical fallacy? Do you have a conclusive defeater? – why is the evidence crap?

Like I explained the evidence for theism is religion. Leaving out deisim/universe creation, the origin of life discussion favors naturalism for reasons already covered in the thread about life's origin.
The evidence for theism is religion. You haven't sourced anything that makes any religion real or even likely?
It's about as probable as any myth, Hercules or Thor or Krishna. I don't have a conclusive defeater for Thor. The evidence is still crap.

 

[leroy]

I am not certain what evidence it would take to convince me. If there was a God he would know. But the fact that no one can present any evidence for a God is rather telling.

And the reason that people keep pointing your use of a God of the Gaps fallacy is because you have presented no evidence. You do not seem to understand what evidence is. An argument from ignorance is not evidence.

I am not asking what evidence would convince you, I am asking what evidence woudl you accept as “good evidence” that you couldn’t dismiss with oooh God of the gaps or spaghetti monster.

 

[leroy]

for example if gravity would have been a little bit stronger the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole.

just to be claer . dp you disgaree with this particular claim?


QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 6921258, member: 63191"]It does not matter if you disagree. The fact is that he can and has done the math. You have not and cannot do the math. It is not because it is an atheist source that it is reliable. It is because it is an actual physicist that understands the topic that it is reliable. Religious views have nothing to do with it. In fact that was your error. You relied upon William Lane Craig. A Christian apologist (aka liar for Jesus) who has no scientific education at all. Of course WLC will get the science wrong.E][/QUOTE]


Math? What math? The objection presented by Carol doesnt use any “math”

His objection is: We don’t really know what life is, we don’t know what exactly do we need for life to evolve, therefore we cannot make any claims related to “FT for life”

My reply to this particular objection is:

1 Agree we don’t know exactly what is life, which means that we don’t know exactly how FT the universe has to be, granted there is a gray area where we don’t know exactly what rage of values are needed.

2 but we can safely assume that a universe without atoms/molecules/stars chemistry etc can have life of any kind (independently on how you what to define life)

3 most universes don’t have ether atoms/molecules/stars chemistry

4 therefore most universes are life prohibiting.-


You may or may not agree with my objection, but the point is that I am being clear on exactly where I disagree and I am providing specific arguments……………..I am not simply saying there is no evidence bla blab la…”it´s an atheist source blabla bla “

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not asking what evidence would convince you, I am asking what evidence woudl you accept as “good evidence” that you couldn’t dismiss with oooh God of the gaps or spaghetti monster.

The biggest problem is that you're going at it backward.

To establish that God created the universe - or even that God is the best explanation for the universe - you would first have to establish that God exists.

Anything that doesn't exist can't be a good explanation for any real effect. Any argument that relies on God being the best explanation for something in order to justify the conclusion the God exists at all is begging the question, effectively.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not asking what evidence would convince you, I am asking what evidence woudl you accept as “good evidence” that you couldn’t dismiss with oooh God of the gaps or spaghetti monster.

Anything that passes the tests for scientific evidence would clearly be acceptable. Logical fallacies of the sort that you rely upon, not so much. Your arguments have all been of the easily dismissible sort. You should not get mad at others for your failures.


Most people really do not understand the concept of evidence. When that is pointed out to them they do not bother trying to find out what is and what is not reliable evidence, instead they tend to get terribly offended. That of course makes no sense at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The biggest problem is that you're going at it backward.

To establish that God created the universe - or even that God is the best explanation for the universe - you would first have to establish that God exists.

Anything that doesn't exist can't be a good explanation for any real effect. Any argument that relies on God being the best explanation for something in order to justify the conclusion the God exists at all is begging the question, effectively.

Or even possible. We don't know if God exists, we do not even know if a god is possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

just to be claer . dp you disgaree with this particular claim?


QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 6921258, member: 63191"]It does not matter if you disagree. The fact is that he can and has done the math. You have not and cannot do the math. It is not because it is an atheist source that it is reliable. It is because it is an actual physicist that understands the topic that it is reliable. Religious views have nothing to do with it. In fact that was your error. You relied upon William Lane Craig. A Christian apologist (aka liar for Jesus) who has no scientific education at all. Of course WLC will get the science wrong.E


Math? What math? The objection presented by Carol doesnt use any “math”

He does not do any math in his argument. I did not claim that he did. I pointed out that he can and has done the math. He could probably refer to peer reviewed papers where he has done the math. The problem is that neither you nor WLC did any math either. You merely misquoted physicists that did the math.

His objection is: We don’t really know what life is, we don’t know what exactly do we need for life to evolve, therefore we cannot make any claims related to “FT for life”

My reply to this particular objection is:

1 Agree we don’t know exactly what is life, which means that we don’t know exactly how FT the universe has to be, granted there is a gray area where we don’t know exactly what rage of values are needed.

And that refutes a huge part of the FT argument. Is it FT? If the constants were different life might still exist buy be different.

2 but we can safely assume that a universe without atoms/molecules/stars chemistry etc can have life of any kind (independently on how you what to define life)

It would take quite a change not to have atoms/molecules/stars etc.

3 most universes don’t have ether atoms/molecules/stars chemistry

And you know this how?

4 therefore most universes are life prohibiting.-

Failed premise means a failed conclusion. And so what? The vast majority of our universe is not "fine tuned" for life. The vast majority of multiverses may be inhospitable to life. We of course would only find ourselves in one that is hospitable.

You may or may not agree with my objection, but the point is that I am being clear on exactly where I disagree and I am providing specific arguments……………..I am not simply saying there is no evidence bla blab la…”it´s an atheist source blabla bla “

Please, don't complain when you screw up. You repeatedly used poor arguments that were not supported by evidence and were based upon logical fallacies. Acting as if this unsupported nonsense is better than the reactions to your nonsense only demonstrates that you did not understand your errors.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or even possible. We don't know if God exists, we do not even know if a god is possible.

Indeed.

It's interesting to see so many internet apologists not understand that if they haven't established that God even exists, then they'll never establish that God did something in particular (like create the universe), and they'll never establish that God exists if they haven't established that God is even possible.

I suppose it's only natural for it to be difficult for someone to step outside themselves and question the most fundamental assumptions in their life, but it's still frustrating to try to talk to someone (or past someone, I guess) when there's no common ground.

 

[paarsurrey]

The biggest problem is that you're going at it backward.

To establish that God created the universe - or even that God is the best explanation for the universe - you would first have to establish that God exists.

Anything that doesn't exist can't be a good explanation for any real effect. Any argument that relies on God being the best explanation for something in order to justify the conclusion the God exists at all is begging the question, effectively.

" God exists"

God does exist and requires no Evidence.
Aren't there things/living-beings that are evident but one did accept them without asking evidence. Right, please?

Regards
____________
[14:11] قَالَتۡ رُسُلُہُمۡ اَفِی اللّٰہِ شَکٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ یَدۡعُوۡکُمۡ لِیَغۡفِرَ لَکُمۡ مِّنۡ ذُنُوۡبِکُمۡ وَ یُؤَخِّرَکُمۡ اِلٰۤی اَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّی ؕ قَالُوۡۤا اِنۡ اَنۡتُمۡ اِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثۡلُنَا ؕ تُرِیۡدُوۡنَ اَنۡ تَصُدُّوۡنَا عَمَّا کَانَ یَعۡبُدُ اٰبَآؤُنَا فَاۡتُوۡنَا بِسُلۡطٰنٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ ﴿۱۱﴾
Their Messengers said, ‘Are you in doubt concerning Allah, Maker of the heavens and the earth? He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term.’ They said, ‘You are but men like ourselves; you desire to turn us away from that which our fathers used to worship. Bring us, then, a clear proof.’

 

[Subduction Zone]

" God exists"

God does exist and requires no Evidence.
Aren't there things/living-beings that are evident but one did accept them without asking evidence. Right, please?

Regards
____________
[14:11] قَالَتۡ رُسُلُہُمۡ اَفِی اللّٰہِ شَکٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ یَدۡعُوۡکُمۡ لِیَغۡفِرَ لَکُمۡ مِّنۡ ذُنُوۡبِکُمۡ وَ یُؤَخِّرَکُمۡ اِلٰۤی اَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّی ؕ قَالُوۡۤا اِنۡ اَنۡتُمۡ اِلَّا بَشَرٌ مِّثۡلُنَا ؕ تُرِیۡدُوۡنَ اَنۡ تَصُدُّوۡنَا عَمَّا کَانَ یَعۡبُدُ اٰبَآؤُنَا فَاۡتُوۡنَا بِسُلۡطٰنٍ مُّبِیۡنٍ ﴿۱۱﴾
Their Messengers said, ‘Are you in doubt concerning Allah, Maker of the heavens and the earth? He calls you that He may forgive you your sins, and grant you respite till an appointed term.’ They said, ‘You are but men like ourselves; you desire to turn us away from that which our fathers used to worship. Bring us, then, a clear proof.’

Everything requires evidence. Otherwise I am just as justified to say "Bigfoot exists and needs no evidence". "The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and needs no evidence".

 

[leroy]

First I didn't say "overtuned"? That is the point. The universe might not be tuned at all, it just is.

yes you did inm post 217

Theism expectations naturalism expectations
-universe expected to show fine tuning for life - universe shows far over-tuning, entropy far lower than needed

YOU quoted 5 objections by Sean Carol … then I asked you to choose the best objection and you choose “the overrunning objection”

Basically the objection says that the universe is more FT than the minimal necessary for life .

As an analogy, imagine a chair that can resist 2,000kg when all you need is a chair that can resist at least 200kg …. While it would be interesting to know and understand why did the designer create the chair such that it can resist 2,000kg …. I don’t think this would make the design hypothesis any weaker.

But you are moving the goal post now. So the universe might be tuned for life PLUS another thing (which would account for the low entropy)? That makes less sense.

Sure the designer had more than 1 goal in mind, I don’t see why is this problem… but in any case the burden proof is no you …. You/Carol is the one who is making the claim that “overtunning = no design.

If you have a thesis that the universe is tuned for life then we can make observations. A low entropy universe does not appear to be tuned for life.

You don’t understand, the lower the entropy the better for life……….Carlos point is that the entropy could have been higher and life would still be possible….. honestly I don’t see why is this a good counter argument.

The claim by Carol had nothing to do with having many galaxies and many stars? Yes we need one star and one planet.

Yes the lower the entropy, the grater the number of stars, Carlos point is “If we only need 1 star, why creating billions?” I personally don’t find that argument good………….do you?


If you think is a good argument, then carry your burden proof and show that “low entropy” or “many stars” = no-design.

 

[leroy]

Anything that passes the tests for scientific evidence would clearly be acceptable. Logical fallacies of the sort that you rely upon, not so much. Your arguments have all been of the easily dismissible sort. You should not get mad at others for your failures.

care to quote a single logical fallacie? ether mine or from my sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

care to quote a single logical fallacie? ether mine or from my sources.

No, if you do not understand them by now, they have all been repeated to you ad nauseum, quoting them again will be just more spam of your posts. How many times did you **** and moan because your use of the God of the Gaps and arguments from ignorance were used. You are in no position to demand, it is your turn to at least try to learn.

 

[leroy]

Indeed.

It's interesting to see so many internet apologists not understand that if they haven't established that God even exists, then they'll never establish that God did something in particular (like create the universe), and they'll never establish that God exists if they haven't established that God is even possible.

I suppose it's only natural for it to be difficult for someone to step outside themselves and question the most fundamental assumptions in their life, but it's still frustrating to try to talk to someone (or past someone, I guess) when there's no common ground.

Its amazing that you still cant see the flaws of your logic......


That is circular reasoning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its amazing that you still cant see the flaws of your logic......


That is circular reasoning.

Oh, please share.

This should be good.

 

[leroy]

No, if you do not understand them by now, they have all been repeated to you ad nauseum, quoting them again will be just more spam of your posts. How many times did you **** and moan because your use of the God of the Gaps and arguments from ignorance were used. You are in no position to demand, it is your turn to at least try to learn.

Ok you are unable to quote a logical fallacy,... You are just making random and unsupported accusations

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok you are unable to quote a logical fallacy,... You are just making random and unsupported accusations

Begging the question seems to be your favourite, but I'm sure it's not the only one.

 

[leroy]

Oh, please share.

This should be good.

You won't accept any argument for God/// unless the exista of god has been stablished


You dont see the circular logic?....


That is like saying......... " you cant say that gravity is the cause for apples falling from trees." unless you proof that gravity exists