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

[leroy]

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

Care to show an acctual example of me begging the question?

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok, but nobody is in disagreement on any maths provided by Carol

The problem is that neither you nor WLC did any math either. You merely misquoted physicists that did the math.

Ok can you quote any comment mine or WLC's where physicists where misquoted?

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.

Maybe but that is not the objection that i am refuting

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

While its hard to define life, we can all agree that at the very list we need atoms.to have life.

Agree?

And you know this how?

Because the existance of atoms molecules stars etc depend on a delicate balance of multiple independent values.

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.

Maybe but that is an other objection..... Feel free to develop an argument under those lines

] that you did not understand your errors.

Can you quote a single error?

 

[paarsurrey]

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".

Did one seek evidence of one's father and mother? One identified them without evidence, please? How did one recognize them as one's father and mother, please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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


You dont see the circular logic?....

Oh, no - I'll accept any valid argument for God that you've got. It's just that the argument you're calling "the best argument for God" is irrational crap.

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

Not really, but thanks for trying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Now now, this is not honest. I do not care to do so.

You need to show that you can learn first. You have run out of the ability to make demands.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did one seek evidence of one's father and mother? One identified them without evidence, please? How did one recognize them as one's father and mother, please? Right, please?

Regards

No, the evidence is there. So wrong, as usual.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Care to show an acctual example of me begging the question?

Like I said:

- you're arguing that God exists because - supposedly - God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

- for God to be any sort of explanation for the universe, you would need to establish that God exists.

IOW, you're assuming your conclusion is true in order to argue that your conclusion is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Not what he said or implied. Why not learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[Heyo]

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

Premise 2 is technically a non sequitur. It reasons from zero to a conclusion.
Less technically it is called "hand waving", "jumping to conclusions" or "making **** up".

WLC repeats that fallacy when trying to mend premise 2. He assumes probabilities from thin air.

What he really tries to hide is an argument from ignorance. (We don't know therefore god.) We don't know if the universe is necessary or the chance of an universe to be life permitting if there are multiple universes. By declaring to know (and failing to show) it really is a "god of the gaps" argument.

Another way of "jumping to conclusions" is to scrutinize the first two possibilities in his trilemma (or better, waving them away) but not his preferred option.
I could argue that
"Goddidit" has never ever been a correct answer, therefore we can dismiss that option. The universe must therefore be necessary or by chance.

 

[Heyo]

Like I said:

- you're arguing that God exists because - supposedly - God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

- for God to be any sort of explanation for the universe, you would need to establish that God exists.

IOW, you're assuming your conclusion is true in order to argue that your conclusion is true.

Nope.
I have to defend @leroy here. This is neither circular reasoning nor begging the question.
The syllogism is valid. We have
1. A, B or C
2. Not A and not B
3. Therefore C

And I might add that you are using a straw man. He never argued for a god. The argument is that the universe is designed.

 

[joelr]

yes you did inm post 217

Yes, I did use Sean Caroll's term way back. But in the post you were responding to I said a universe that came by "happenstance". The point was there may be no tuning, overtunning or undertuning so I was trying to get away from that term.

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

No you said Sean Caroll has 5 arguments to the FT argument. #161

I picked his last argument which is a theism vs naturalism comparison where he stated there is no one specific thing but a cumulative effect of making observations.

Theism expectations naturalism expectations

-universe expected to show fine tuning for life - universe shows far over-tuning, entropy far lower than needed
- particles favor life creation -particle zoo is a mess
-life plays special role in universe - life is insignificant
-unified religion, God easy to find -poor evidence
-unified universal religious beliefs - different beliefs in cultures
- religious text last long time - - text change to adapt to social conditions
-moral teachings to be consistent -morals change with cultures
-sacred text would teach good science - sacred text teaches only science of ancient times
-perfect universe -kind of a messy design

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

No, this is why I'm trying to avoid this term. I'm not sure why he says "over-tuned" because it could also be "under-tuned" depending on how he's looking at it and I don't know? But as an observation it doesn't support the idea the universe was designed 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.

The early universe wasn't a chair. The early universe was 2 types of atoms, some basic particles and governed by the rules of quantum mechanics which say the universe is indeterministic and uncertainty is built into the the structure of reality.
A better analogy would be saying step #1 in building a chair is having a big bang.

You do not know if the energy and quantum fields are going to produce either a chair builder or a chair.
You can go to special pleading - "my God knew in advance" but this special pleading doesn't make the observation rule in favor of theism.

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.

Maybe if I used the term "over-tuning" but the whole point of not using it last post was because we don't know if anything was "tuned"?
No one is making any claim either? Not the way you are strawmanning it.

The claim is not a definitive statement about no Gods or no design. It's simply that it doesn't look designed.

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.

I don't know everything Sean is thinking. That was his first of nine points regarding observations. My take on this point is things were far to simple and ordered to expect that this was a good way to create life. The fact that life happened is a post facto argument that isn't changing the observation.

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?

I don't think that's the same argument? But his point was made while looking at an image of galaxy clusters with billions and billions of stars and thinking how silly it is to say "all this was created this way so we could be here".
To that point I think he's correct.
Especially considering how short of a time we have been here and how easily a pandemic or asteroid could wipe up right out and the universe will keep going just fine. In that perspective the idea that the universe was created for humans is absurd.

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

I've covered both already. The only burden of proof I care about is trying to discover what's true. I have no burden to those who are uninterested in finding truth. To strawman my position seems like an attempt to avoid some truth.
I never said any of these observations means "no design". I said they do not make definitive statements or definitive premise and I said dieism concepts can never be known true or untrue 100%.
But we can make observations and we can make predictions based on theism vs naturalism. These observations do not favor theism without some weird special pleading.
You really expect Sean Caroll to say "well the early universe didn't favor life at all because carbon didn't exist yet (or pick a reason), but God knew exactly what he was doing"?

 

[leroy]

Like I said:

- you're arguing that God exists because - supposedly - God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe.

- for God to be any sort of explanation for the universe, you would need to establish that God exists.

IOW, you're assuming your conclusion is true in order to argue that your conclusion is true.

QUOTE my actual words and show an example of me begging the question

 

[leroy]

Premise 2 is technically a non sequitur. It reasons from zero to a conclusion.
Less technically it is called "hand waving", "jumping to conclusions" or "making **** up".

WLC repeats that fallacy when trying to mend premise 2. He assumes probabilities from thin air.

What he really tries to hide is an argument from ignorance. (We don't know therefore god.) We don't know if the universe is necessary or the chance of an universe to be life permitting if there are multiple universes. By declaring to know (and failing to show) it really is a "god of the gaps" argument.

Another way of "jumping to conclusions" is to scrutinize the first two possibilities in his trilemma (or better, waving them away) but not his preferred option.
I could argue that
"Goddidit" has never ever been a correct answer, therefore we can dismiss that option. The universe must therefore be necessary or by chance.

That is not true WLC and I have provided testable and falsifiable reasons for premise 2.

 

[Heyo]

That is not true WLC and I have provided testable and falsifiable reasons for premise 2.

Even if I'd grant you that they are testable and falsifiable, they aren't tested or verified. So, as long as they aren't, you argue from ignorance.

 

[leroy]

Something like String Theory (misnomer) could at least predict all the properties of all the particles.
And as I said our universe isn't that much life producing, we are a fluke.

String theory doesn't predict those specific values, string theory would be consistent with a wide rage of values, most of which are life prohibiting


Ie

, but let me take you to a Gedankenexperiment. Let's assume, without any reason, that our universe with 100 billion galaxies is a really big universe, even the biggest possible. Let's also assume an even distribution of sizes. (We again have no reason to do so but we also have no reason not to do so.)
Now, how many universes are there with a 10 digit number of galaxies, how many with a 9 digit number, how many with 8. You see where this is going?

No i don't see where is this going..... A universe with 10 digit stars would be less likely than a 9 digit.... But i dont see your point.

Now, how likely are simple universes?

Roger Penrose calculated that the ptobability of having a complex universe like ours by chance (considering just the entropy) is 10^10^129

The probability of a sinple universe say as big as our solar system 10^10^60

So in a multiverse observers that live in simple universes would be much more abundant than observers that live in complex universes.

Any disagreement?

 

[paarsurrey]

No, the evidence is there. So wrong, as usual.

What evidence was there, please?
Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope.
I have to defend @leroy here. This is neither circular reasoning nor begging the question.
The syllogism is valid. We have
1. A, B or C
2. Not A and not B
3. Therefore C

It seems like you think this proves your point somehow, but I'm at a loss as to how it could. Your syllogism still has two premises that have to be assumed (#1 and #2).

And that syllogism is no more valid than this one:

1. A, B or C
2. Not B and not C
3. Therefore A

... so until the question of whether "C" is possible is resolved, the question of which syllogism is appropriate to use - and therefore which conclusion should be reached - is an open one.

In any case, @leroy 's logical fallacies are more in his arguments that premise 1 and premise 2 are actually true.

And I might add that you are using a straw man. He never argued for a god. The argument is that the universe is designed.

Right in the OP, he presented it not only as an argument for God, but as "the best" argument for God.

He also told us that more details on the argument could be found at the links he provided in the OP. At those links, the argument is described as an argument for God, and as an argument for not just design but "divine design."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

QUOTE my actual words and show an example of me begging the question

Sure... and I'll point out two more of your fallacies for good measure:

The argument

0 The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life


--
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

0 uses the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: you assume a particular consequence had to have been the predetermined endpoint or goal of the process.

1 uses argument from ignorance: you never bother - AFAICT - to establish that your list of possibilities is actually exhaustive.

2 is begging the question: you never bother - AFAICT - to establish that your preferred option is possible or that all the others are impossible.

 

[Heyo]

It seems like you think this proves your point somehow, but I'm at a loss as to how it could. Your syllogism still has two premises that have to be assumed (#1 and #2).

And that syllogism is no more valid than this one:

1. A, B or C
2. Not B and not C
3. Therefore A

... so until the question of whether "C" is possible is resolved, the question of which syllogism is appropriate to use - and therefore which conclusion should be reached - is an open one.

You should look up the difference between valid and sound again.

Right in the OP, he presented it not only as an argument for God, but as "the best" argument for God.

He also told us that more details on the argument could be found at the links he provided in the OP. At those links, the argument is described as an argument for God, and as an argument for not just design but "divine design."

Fair argument when you take the OP in its entirety. I was only referring to the syllogism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You should look up the difference between valid and sound again.

If you think I don't know the difference, then it's you who needs to read more carefully.

Fair argument when you take the OP in its entirety. I was only referring to the syllogism.

Right: you jumped in with some bad assumptions and took the thread off track.