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

[leroy]

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

yes some people use some sort of chance hypothesis.......for example multiverses and oscillatory hypothesis tend to be "chance hypothesis" in that they claim that the values are given by random mechanisms.

One is an oscillatory universe or a multiverse, where fundamental physical constants are postulated to resolve themselves to random values in different iterations of reality
Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

But as far as I understand, we both reject these kind of hypothesis, so move on

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.

Are you affirming that god is impossible?...... the burden proof is on you, you have to show that “god” is impossible.

your argument amounts to "You cannot explain these numbers, therefore God"

No, it is not an argument of ignorance, God is demonstrably better than any other explanation that has been proposed. If you disagree feel free to share your favorite explanation

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes some people use some sort of chance hypothesis.......for example multiverses and oscillatory hypothesis tend to be "chance hypothesis" in that they claim that the values are given by random mechanisms.


But as far as I understand, we both reject these kind of hypothesis, so move on

Sure move on, you can't see your error.

Are you affirming that god is impossible?...... the burden proof is on you, you have to show that “god” is impossible.

And there you go trying to change the argument again. That is the same as you admitting that you are wrong. Nice try to shift the burden of proof.

No, it is not an argument of ignorance, God is demonstrably better than any other explanation that has been proposed. If you disagree feel free to share your favorite explanation

Of course it is. That has been explained to you countless times. Once again you cannot even show that God is even possible. All you have is an unsubstantiated clam that God is a demonstrably better explanation. Your argument amounts to "You can't explain this, therefore God" classic argument from ignorance and God of the Gaps to be more specific.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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



*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.

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.

Yeah, that analogy is about as clear as mud. Okay... let's see if I can dissect this steaming pile of crap.

I assume that 'Bob' is supposed to be the creator of the thread. Unfortunately the only thing that Bob does in your example is make a claim... but he fails to provide the promised evidence. In THIS thread the OP made the claim that a creator god exists and THEN they offered up fine-tuning as the EVIDENCE.

I have to assume that 'Alvin' is supposed to be me. But of course I didn't simply reply that "I know god doesn't exist!" In fact, all I did was point out how poor the 'evidence' that was given actually is. And then I provided the rain puddle analogy to point out just how poor the evidence is.

You then must be 'Wilber'. But of course in reality you didn't dismiss what I said because of any claim that I made - since I didn't make any claims - just that my analogy didn't work... but you've failed to explain why it doesn't work.

Apparently this whole analogy concept is just a bit too complex for you to comprehend.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

Sure it is. The only difference is that the OP proposes a fine-tuned universe and I simply proposed a fine-tuned planet.

 

[leroy]

Sure move on, you can't see your error.



And there you go trying to change the argument again. That is the same as you admitting that you are wrong. Nice try to shift the burden of proof.



Of course it is. That has been explained to you countless times. Once again you cannot even show that God is even possible. All you have is an unsubstantiated clam that God is a demonstrably better explanation. Your argument amounts to "You can't explain this, therefore God" classic argument from ignorance and God of the Gaps to be more specific.

Its not a God of the gaps its an appeal to the best explanation. If y ou think you have a better explanation feel free to share it………….I honestly don’t understand why are you running away from this request

Once again you cannot even show that God is even possible

.

Everything is possible until proven otherwise………if you don’t have any good reasons to think that God is impossible, then the default answer is that God is possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Nope, your claim, your burden of proof.

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

Did he claim that it was impossible? Once again you admit that you are wrong by trying to change the argument. And you duck the burden of proof again.

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.

And three times you duck the burden of proof. Quack! Quack! Quack!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its not a God of the gaps its an appeal to the best explanation. If y ou think you have a better explanation feel free to share it………….I honestly don’t understand why are you running away from this request

Sorry, denying the obvious does not make it true. You keep complaining how science has not explained this. That makes it a God of the Gaps argument.

.

Everything is possible until proven otherwise………if you don’t have any good reasons to think that God is impossible, then the default answer is that God is possible.

Not so. You are confused again. One cannot say that something is impossible until proven otherwise, but that does not mean that it is possible. You are incorrectly applying a negative.

And if anything the null hypothesis would be that of the atheist position. In other words a lack of belief until sufficient evidence is found for a belief. You do not have any evidence currently.

 

[leroy]

Sure it is. The only difference is that the OP proposes a fine-tuned universe and I simply proposed a fine-tuned planet.

but that is a relevant difference………….sure once you have stars planets and life, there is a wide rage of possibilities where life can evolve and adapt……….if the temperature would have been 1% warmer, we would simply evolve to tolerate that temperature (no problem)

But in the case of the universe, you don’t seem to have anything analogous, if gravity would have been 1% stronger the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole and you wouldn’t even have atoms (there is a problem)

 

[leroy]

Nope, your claim, your burden of proof.



Did he claim that it was impossible? Once again you admit that you are wrong by trying to change the argument. And you duck the burden of proof again.



And three times you duck the burden of proof. Quack! Quack! Quack!

I don’t understand your passion and favor in avoiding the burden proof at all cost…………………there are 2 possibilities ether the existence of God is possible or impossible, if you say that it is possible then we can agree and move on…………..if you say that it is impossible I am simply asking for a justification

 

[leroy]

Sorry, denying the obvious does not make it true. You keep complaining how science has not explained this. That makes it a God of the Gaps argument.



Not so. You are confused again. One cannot say that something is impossible until proven otherwise, but that does not mean that it is possible. You are incorrectly applying a negative.

And if anything the null hypothesis would be that of the atheist position. In other words a lack of belief until sufficient evidence is found for a belief. You do not have any evidence currently.

Yes that is a good example of Null hypothesis.

Another example of null hypothesis would be “A” is possible until proven otherwise.

The existence of Aliens is possible until proven otherwise

The existence of pink elephants is possible, until proven otherwise

The existence of parallel universes is possible, until proven otherwise

The existence of a universal common ancestor is possible until proven otherwise.

The existence of God is possible until proven otherwise

Any disagreement?

 

[Quagmire]

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.

Yeah, that analogy is about as clear as mud. Okay... let's see if I can dissect this steaming pile of crap.

I assume that 'Bob' is supposed to be the creator of the thread. Unfortunately the only thing that Bob does in your example is make a claim... but he fails to provide the promised evidence. In THIS thread the OP made the claim that a creator god exists and THEN they offered up fine-tuning as the EVIDENCE.

I have to assume that 'Alvin' is supposed to be me. But of course I didn't simply reply that "I know god doesn't exist!" In fact, all I did was point out how poor the 'evidence' that was given actually is. And then I provided the rain puddle analogy to point out just how poor the evidence is.

You then must be 'Wilber'. But of course in reality you didn't dismiss what I said because of any claim that I made - since I didn't make any claims - just that my analogy didn't work... but you've failed to explain why it doesn't work.

Apparently this whole analogy concept is just a bit too complex for you to comprehend.

What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[QuestioningMind]

but that is a relevant difference………….sure once you have stars planets and life, there is a wide rage of possibilities where life can evolve and adapt……….if the temperature would have been 1% warmer, we would simply evolve to tolerate that temperature (no problem)

But in the case of the universe, you don’t seem to have anything analogous, if gravity would have been 1% stronger the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole and you wouldn’t even have atoms (there is a problem)

So what? What does any of that have to do with evidence for a creator god? All it's evidence of is that if things had been a bit different the universe wouldn't exist as it does. In order for what you've said to be of any significance you'd first need to demonstrate and provide evidence that some creator being INTENDED the universe to exist in the form that it currently exists.

Can you?

 

[QuestioningMind]

What the hell is wrong with you?

Apparently I was foolish enough to think that you could follow and comprehend basic logic and reasoning as well as a simple analogy. Sadly you've proven me wrong. Don't worry, I won't make that mistake again.

 

[Quagmire]

Apparently I was foolish enough to think that you could follow and comprehend basic logic and reasoning as well as a simple analogy. Sadly you've proven me wrong. Don't worry, I won't make that mistake again.

Whatever it is that makes you act the way you do, you have my sympathy.

Really.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t understand your passion and favor in avoiding the burden proof at all cost…………………there are 2 possibilities ether the existence of God is possible or impossible, if you say that it is possible then we can agree and move on…………..if you say that it is impossible I am simply asking for a justification

Such projection. When I make claims that put a burden of proof upon me I will step up and supply it. I do not repeatedly try to change the arguments of others in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Now, yes, there are two possibilities. The existence of a god may be possible or impossible. We do not know if the existence of a God is impossible or possible. I did not say that God was impossible. I pointed out that you cannot even demonstrate that a god is possible. There is a burden of proof upon you to do at least that before you can even start to claim that the FT argument supports the existence of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that is a good example of Null hypothesis.

Another example of null hypothesis would be “A” is possible until proven otherwise.

No, one cannot make that assumption. That is not covered by the null hypothesis.

The existence of Aliens is possible until proven otherwise

It is possible to demonstrate that aliens are possible. Bad example.

The existence of pink elephants is possible, until proven otherwise

Again, a poor example since color variations are minor. Another poor example. Elephants exist, pink elephants is not that big of a step.

The existence of parallel universes is possible, until proven otherwise

Now that is a bit closer to the god proposition, though there is some mathematical indication of their existence from my understanding so still not quite as poor of an example as the "God" claim.

The existence of a universal common ancestor is possible until proven otherwise.

Oh my! Not even close. There is massive evidence for a UCA, for a god, not so much.

The existence of God is possible until proven otherwise

Any disagreement?

Yep, all of your examples show how poor your god argument is.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Whatever it is that makes you act the way you do, you have my sympathy.

Really.

Do you mean what makes me ask you to clarify your position and attempt to point out the errors in your your posts? I don't know, I guess I was foolish enough to think that you wanted to have a reasonable discussion. Is there some reason that it riles you up so much?

 

[Valjean]

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?

No, circles and spheres are common; favored, in fact, for having the smallest surface/area : volume ratio. That's why this planet we're on is a sphere.
There's also statistics. Why would circle be less common than any other shape, given random chance?

You're conflating chance with an intentional personage. That just doesn't follow. God doesn't follow from an unusual circumstance or event.

 

[paarsurrey]

joelr wrote," The building blocks of the universe obey the laws of quantum mechanics."

Do the building blocks of the Universe even know that there are laws of quantum mechanic it has to obey, please? Right, please?

There are some who say that Mathematics is the language of the Universe and now such people say that the Universe obeys the laws of quantum mechanics so the deaf, dumb and blind Universe is learning in some University, if I am not wrong, please?

Regards
____________
https://www.nature.com/articles/ : quantum mechanics
BBC The Story of Maths. The language of the universe from the BBC.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

I am not sure there IS a perfect circle, but I do know this: if I were traveling through a barren land and suddenly saw a steel monolithic structure standing there, I would figure someone made it and put it there. I hope that helps to clarify my position.