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

[osgart]

Fine tuning isn't the best argument. The best argument for a creator is in my files

 

[gnostic]

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.

But you are talking about human builders. Humans are not some invisible made up fantasies.

When you talking about Designer about creating the universe and creating life, a Designer that all-powerful, all-knowing, but invisible, unreachable, then that’s whole different ballgame, YoursTrue.

If this monolithic structure, made of out of steel, was recent creation, then you can meet the designer(s), meet the engineers and builders, and it is even possible to trace all the manufacturers involved in fabricating the steel parts needed to build the monolithic structure.

And each person you come across involved in building the structure or manufacturing the steel parts, will have address where he or she lived, his or her qualifications and work experience, his or her family, particularly a father and mother, and so on...all of these are evidence that such a person exist.

But all this is not possible with the ID’s Designer. There are no evidence for the ID’s Designer, and you certainly cannot meet the Designer like you can with human engineers, human builders.

You have been here long enough, for someone what evidence are, and what are baseless opinions, based on faulty assumptions. And Intelligent Design has always nothing more than concept of faulty assumptions, pretending the concept is scientific, without the science.

Even the disgraced biochemist Michael Behe admitted (at the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District trial, 2005) that the Intelligent Design -

• has never been falsifiable,
• has never been tested,
• and has never been reviewed by any peers of any fields in science...

...which are all needed for any model to be “scientific”.

Until someone can show evidence that the Designer physically exist in reality, then the Designer is nothing more than made-up entity.

Your example with the steel monolithic structure only demonstrated that you have not thought your idea through.

You thought that by using your scenario, that you can prove Intelligent Design is true...but all you did, was demonstrated that you are lousy with logic, and even worse in the evidence department.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then what is the evidence that chance produces anything life?

Why do you say "chance"? This indicates a lack of understanding.

And the evidence is that at one point there was no life on Earth and later there was. Since that goes along with the current hypotheses of abiogenesis that is by definition evidence for it. Meanwhile believers in creationism are afraid to form testable hypotheses at all. As a result there is no evidence for creationism. To even begin to have scientific evidence one needs to have a testable hypothesis first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fine tuning isn't the best argument. The best argument for a creator is in my files

So absolutely none at all.

Thank you very much.

 

[osgart]

Why do you say "chance"? This indicates a lack of understanding.

And the evidence is that at one point there was no life on Earth and later there was. Since that goes along with the current hypotheses of abiogenesis that is by definition evidence for it. Meanwhile believers in creationism are afraid to form testable hypotheses at all. As a result there is no evidence for creationism. To even begin to have scientific evidence one needs to have a testable hypothesis first.

I didn't raise chance up, questioning mind did.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis. It's not proven.

 

[osgart]

So absolutely none at all.

Thank you very much.

It's evidence that you simply ignore and can't demonstrate an alternative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't raise chance up, questioning mind did.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis. It's not proven.

Did he? It is not exactly accurate to call what occurs naturally due to the laws of chemistry as "natural". Do snowflakes form by chance?

And I never claimed that it was proven. I gave an example of evidence for it. Nothing in the sciences is proven. If an idea is supported by evidence it is accepted. If not it is rejected. There is evidence for abiogenesis, quite a bit when one studies it. There is none for creationism and that is the fault of creationists. They tend to be cowards when it comes to the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's evidence that you simply ignore and can't demonstrate an alternative.

No, it tells us that you do not understand the nature of evidence.

Why don't we start with that concept first?

 

[osgart]

No, it tells us that you do not understand the nature of evidence.

Why don't we start with that concept first?

Evidence gives cause to reason that something is a particular way. Does it not?

The appearance of design is acknowledged by many opponents of design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence gives cause to reason that something is a particular way. Does it not?

The appearance of design is acknowledged by many opponents of design.

No, in the sciences the demand is clearer. Once again the sciences are based on the scientific method. To even claim to have evidence one needs a testable hypothesis. Otherwise all one has is hand waving and ad hoc arguments.

The "appearance of design" is not evidence since creationists are too afraid to come up with a properly testable hypothesis.

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

 

[osgart]

No, in the sciences the demand is clearer. Once again the sciences are based on the scientific method. To even claim to have evidence one needs a testable hypothesis. Otherwise all one has is hand waving and ad hoc arguments.

The "appearance of design" is not evidence since creationists are too afraid to come up with a properly testable hypothesis.

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

I can make my conclusion without the underlying assumptions modern science makes.

Intelligence is not inferred by measurement of a phenomenon. It is qualitative and requires reasoning to the best explanation.

How does science test qualitative aspects such as qualia? And then all that involves the qualia phenomenon?

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps you should read the Tao Te Ching. Cool thing about the Tao, it works - no one is on here debating anything written in that book, because there is nothing to debate in it It is something that is actually inspired by a higher power.

Ok which power? Besides I am satisfied with the Bible and understanding it.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Friend @leroy!

One presented "Atheist Method" vide one's post #159 in this thread. One is engaged with "Atheism" and now the current post is 630 plus.
How would one amend or add the points enumerated with one's experience with Atheism, please?
I am curious, please!

Regards

Lol good question! I used to say I didn't believe in God because until I began studying the Bible, I couldn't "find Him..." Where was God, I wondered? Why is there so much misery in this world? Then I asked Him finally and He came metaphorically knocking on my door...smile...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In order to have atoms, molecules, stars, planets chemistry etc.... You need a delicate balance of arround 20 independent values........ This pattern cant be explained by chance nor physical necesity so we conclude design

How many values have to be in "delicate balance" for a god to exist?

 

[idea]

Ok which power? Besides I am satisfied with the Bible and understanding it.

The Power ... you know what I do to students who only use one reference on a research paper? Unfortunately, they not only get an F, they are written up for plagiarizing... not trying to be cruel to anyone, just trying to give them a bigger picture, and then encourage them to think for themselves - find their own light (no borrowed light!!)

The Power that is out there created all the diversity on the Earth - the more you explore the more enlightened one becomes, and the more connected and love you feel from your neighbors, and the less you need everyone to conform to one single belief system.

Please read the "stages of faith", the final universalizing comes after a "dark night of the soul" for many, or a midlife crisis for others, but is a beautiful thing.
James W. Fowler - Wikipedia
Unfortunately, those in different stages tend to have ill feelings towards those in other stages. Lessons to be learned through all of it, if one is humble enough to listen to others.

It seems like you are fighting through a lot on this thread - I used to be there too. I'm not to the highest stage yet either, but I know it is there, and it gives me hope and peace for everyone. Blessings to you on your journey!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can make my conclusion without the underlying assumptions modern science makes.

Intelligence is not inferred by measurement of a phenomenon. It is qualitative and requires reasoning to the best explanation.

How does science test qualitative aspects such as qualia? And then all that involves the qualia phenomenon?

Your conclusion appears to be wrong.

 

[osgart]

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

Friend @leroy!

One presented "Atheist Method" vide one's post #159 in this thread. One is engaged with "Atheism" and now the current post is 630 plus.
How would one amend or add the points enumerated with one's experience with Atheism, please?
I am curious, please!

Regards

Post #159 is very much my experience of it as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Post #159 is very much my experience of it as well.

You have to be kidding. But then the problem is that creationists as a rule do not even understand the concept of evidence,. Or that of the burden of proof. So when they are rightfully put in their place they think that others are guilty of their sins.

 

[osgart]

You have to be kidding. But then the problem is that creationists as a rule do not even understand the concept of evidence,. Or that of the burden of proof. So when they are rightfully put in their place they think that others are guilty of their sins.

Isn't there a positive claim out there that no creators are needed and thus everything happens by natural laws that science has already discovered?

There must be reasons that people draw these conclusions.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Power ... you know what I do to students who only use one reference on a research paper? Unfortunately, they not only get an F, they are written up for plagiarizing... not trying to be cruel to anyone, just trying to give them a bigger picture, and then encourage them to think for themselves - find their own light (no borrowed light!!)

The Power that is out there created all the diversity on the Earth - the more you explore the more enlightened one becomes, and the more connected and love you feel from your neighbors, and the less you need everyone to conform to one single belief system.

Please read the "stages of faith", the final universalizing comes after a "dark night of the soul" for many, or a midlife crisis for others, but is a beautiful thing.
James W. Fowler - Wikipedia
Unfortunately, those in different stages tend to have ill feelings towards those in other stages. Lessons to be learned through all of it, if one is humble enough to listen to others.

It seems like you are fighting through a lot on this thread - I used to be there too. I'm not to the highest stage yet either, but I know it is there, and it gives me hope and peace for everyone. Blessings to you on your journey!

lol the highest stage -- ok. Have a goood night. Time to go.