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

[YoursTrue]

The fine tuning argument has been logically debunked a thousand times. The universe is tuned to meet our specific physical needs? How are our particular needs evidence of anything but adaptation to existing conditions?

We are fine-tuned to fit the universe, not vice versa.

We are? What about those born with physical defects?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it´s an appeal to the best explanation, if you think that there is a better explanation than design; feel free to share that explanation.

For "design" to be the best explanation, you would need to:

1. Establish that a "designer of the universe" is a coherent concept.
2. Establish that this designer is even possible.
3 Establish that this designer is more likely than the other possible explanations.

You haven't done step 1 yet. Don't get ahead of yourself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

? What about a not perfectly round hole?

It would indicate a lack of design, presumably, but @leroy is arguing the opposite.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Tell "We" I said hi.

You can do so yourself when you provide us with that evidence. We'll wait.

 

[Quagmire]

You can do so yourself when you provide us with that evidence. We'll wait.

How many people are in there?

 

[QuestioningMind]

How many people are in there?

As many as care to read these posts.

 

[Quagmire]

As many as care to read these posts.

Just you then?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Just you then?

At least me... having trouble locating that evidence?

 

[Quagmire]

At least me... having trouble locating that evidence?

I'm just wondering how many people in here are waiting for me to defend a point I never made, or prove the existence of a God I never claimed to believe in.

(I have a feeling it's just you)

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm just wondering how many people in here are waiting for me to defend a point I never made, or prove the existence of a God I never claimed to believe in.

(I have a feeling it's just you)

Have you forgotten what the subject of this thread is already? It's about the fine-tuning argument.

The thing is: if there is a God, and if this God is in charge of everything, then the depression in the ground was designed to accommodate the water.

Sadly you don't appear to comprehend that what you wrote in response does absolutely NOTHING to advance the notion of the fine-tuning argument.

 

[Quagmire]

Have you forgotten what the subject of this thread is already?

Nope.

It's about the fine-tuning argument.

For most of us it is. For you it seems to have some sort of emotional significance.

The thing is: if there is a God, and if this God is in charge of everything, then the depression in the ground was designed to accommodate the water.

Sadly you don't appear to comprehend that what you wrote in response does absolutely NOTHING to advance the notion of the fine-tuning argument.

Predictably, the point of that post went COMPLETELY over your head.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Nope.



For most of us it is. For you it seems to have some sort of emotional significance.



Predictably, the point of that post went COMPLETELY over your head.

For most of us it is. For you it seems to have some sort of emotional significance.

Don't be silly. If anything you appear to be the one getting emotional just because I pointed out the absurdity of your post.

Predictably, the point of that post went COMPLETELY over your head

Apparently what went completely over your head was that your post didn't defend the concept of fine-tuning in any way shape or form.

 

[Quagmire]

For most of us it is. For you it seems to have some sort of emotional significance.

Don't be silly. If anything you appear to be the one getting emotional just because I pointed out the absurdity of your post.

You believe everything "We" tells you, don't you.

Predictably, the point of that post went COMPLETELY over your head

Apparently what went completely over your head was that your post didn't defend the concept of fine-tuning in any way shape or form.

*sigh* Ok here goes:

I wasn't trying to defend the op, I was just trying to show you why your refutation of the op doesn't work.

I didn't take a stance on the proposition in the op one way or the other.

Show you what I mean:

If Bob says, "Here's evidence unicorns can jump over the moon" (no reflection on the op, just using that as an example) . . .

. . .and Alvin says, "I know unicorns can't jump over the moon because the leprechauns told me", . . .

....and Wilbur says , "That doesn't work because leprechauns don't exist", that doesn't mean Wilbur believes unicorns can jump over the moon, it just means he doesn't believe in leprechauns either.

 

[leroy]

Of course it is. The argument is that evidence for god's existence is that the Earth suits life and human life perfectly and therefore MUST be designed. The puddle after a rainstorm analogy demonstrates the fallacy of such an argument. So you say; But IF God DID create everything THEN the hole in the ground WAS specifically designed for the rain water.

So we're still waiting for your evidence that your creator god actually created anything.

Can you explain the puddle analogy and explain why does it relate to the FT argument?

 

[leroy]

Citation needed. You may be misunderstanding articles.

why is it relevant, we both reject chance, we both agree..........move on

Nope, you would have to show that a god is the best explanation and you cannot even show that a god is possible. Until you do that all you have is an argument from ignorance.

Ok, based on the explanations that have been proposed in the literature that I am aware of, I would argue that design is the best explanation…………If you have some other explanation feel free to share it.

 

[leroy]

For "design" to be the best explanation, you would need to:

1. Establish that a "designer of the universe" is a coherent concept.
2. Establish that this designer is even possible.
3 Establish that this designer is more likely than the other possible explanations.

You haven't done step 1 yet. Don't get ahead of yourself.

1 If you what to afirm that it is incoherent, then the burden proof is on you

2 if you what to claim that it is impossible, the burden proof is no you

3 I woudl love to do that, share your favorite explanation and lets see which one is better based on explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, etc.

 

[leroy]

? What about a not perfectly round hole?

A perfect circle in the sand would indicate design, if the circle is not perfect the design hypothesis would become weaker and weaker.

The reason is because it would be very improbable to have a perfect circle by chance, and there is nothing in the laws of nature that favors a circle………there is nothing in wind and erosion that would favor circular holes…………….any disagreement?..........................do you accept that a perfect circle would indicate design?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Can you explain the puddle analogy and explain why does it relate to the FT argument?

The fine tuning argument is that conditions on the planet Earth are absolutely perfect for sustaining life and especially human life and that those conditions would necessarily HAVE to have been created and fine-tuned by some creator being.

The fallacy with this argument is the same as the fallacy as the water in a puddle after a rain storm concluding that since the depression in the ground fits the water PERFECTLY that some intelligence MUST have specifically designed the depression in the ground for the purpose of holding the water perfectly.

The problem is that it wasn't the depression in the ground that accommodated the rain water, it was the rain water than conformed to the shape of the depression. Thus it wasn't the planet that was 'designed' to accommodate human life. It was human life that conformed to the conditions present on the planet Earth.

 

[leroy]

The fine tuning argument is that conditions on the planet Earth are absolutely perfect for sustaining life and especially human life and that those conditions would necessarily HAVE to have been created and fine-tuned by some creator being.

No that is not the FT argument, at least not the one presented in the OP…………

 

[Subduction Zone]

why is it relevant, we both reject chance, we both agree..........move on
[/qoiute]

No, you seem to claim that others are using chance. But as long as you recognize your error I suppose we could move on.

Ok, based on the explanations that have been proposed in the literature that I am aware of, I would argue that design is the best explanation…………If you have some other explanation feel free to share it.

That is not an indication that a god is even possible. All you have is an argument from ignorance since your argument amounts to "You cannot explain these numbers, therefore God". I do not need another explanation to demonstrate the problems with yours.