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

[Subduction Zone]

And if we have never seen door makers but concluded that people made the door? Such as a child would do.

You cannot be too sure of what a child would think. They might not even ask where the door came from. But we can see man making similar objects. Once again the same cannot be said about the universe. It is a failed argument. The best thing to do is to admit it and move on.

 

[idea]

You say, "heaven is here." It is? How do you figure that?

Heaven is here, so is hell. I believe heaven is more of a mindset than a place. If people like
Jacques Lusseyran and Victor Frankl can find peace and joy in a concentration camp, while our well-to-do neighbors are in misery over Christmas decorations (currently they want everyone in the neighborhood to turn off the red and blue Christmas lights because they keep thinking there are cops in the neighborhood haha - the Christmas lights are giving them panic attacks) ... in any event, it doesn't seem like heaven or happiness is found in a place, it is found within. That inner testimony, the inner light no one can take and all that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please stick to presenting the fruits of Atheism,

Atheism concerns a single position on a single issue.
It has no "fruits".

I'm sorry that you seem to be utterly unable to comprehend that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since Atheism are shy to describe "Atheism Method"

There's no such thing.

That's like saying that there are rules in a game of "not playing football".

It makes zero sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that you have to support that assertion....... Why is the evidence for theism presented in this crap?...... Can you quote a single relevant piece of data ether from my comments or sources that you would consider wrong of fallacious? (please quote the specific text)


If you present evidence for a round earth and i say that the evidence is crap....... You would ask me to support that assertion right? You would ask me to go to the evidence presented and identify the flaws right.

People, including myself, have repeatedly explained to you how your arguments (well... "your" arguments... they are really WLC's "arguments") are flawed and fallacious.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make that go away.

 

[leroy]

[

People, including myself, have repeatedly explained to you how your arguments (well... "your" arguments... they are really WLC's "arguments") are flawed and fallacious.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make that go away.

Yes you and many others have asserted that the argument is flawd and fallacious..... But none of you have been capable of spoting a logical fallacy nor a factual mistake

 

[leroy]

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

Its a probabilistic argument more values means that design is more likely.

But even 1 value (say the low entropy of the universe) is already hard to explain by naturalism

 

[leroy]

- you come along and say "no, no - the universe definitely did have a designer. Here's how we know."
- n.

No, no, no thst is not what i am saying, I woulnt claim that I hace definite proof for a designer......


What I am saying is:
1 there is a concept labeled as the FT problem

2 we don't know how to explain the FT problem

3 academics have proposed a number of explanations (inflacionary multiverses, top down cosmology, cosmological natural selection, design, cyclic universes, "deeper laws" will solve the problem, the FT is just an illusion / misinterpretation etc.

4 I personaly concluded that design is the best explanation so far.


If you agree with me then we can shake hands and move to a different topic.

If you disagree then all I am asking you is to share your favorite explanation and explain why is it better thsn design....... You dont have to show that your explanation is true, all you have to do is show that it is better than design.

This thread is 35+ long simply because you and @Subduction Zone, @TagliatelliMonster @gnostic etc are running away from this "challenge" and inventing ridiculous excuses such as.............. "first you have to prove that God exists"

You cant simply say "ohhhh its flawd bla bla bla" you have to actually deal with the argument and spot the logical falacies or the mistakes....

 

[osgart]

You cannot be too sure of what a child would think. They might not even ask where the door came from. But we can see man making similar objects. Once again the same cannot be said about the universe. It is a failed argument. The best thing to do is to admit it and move on.

And the reasons it don't apply? You need to see a creator to infer intelligence. And in the act of creating.

You are wrong. Nothing human comes about mindlessly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its a probabilistic argument more values means that design is more likely.

If you haven't dealt with the probability of a designer at all, then you're in no position to say which possibility is "more likely."

But even 1 value (say the low entropy of the universe) is already hard to explain by naturalism

But all the factors that would be needed for a designer to arise by "naturalism;" none of them are hard to explain?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, no, no thst is not what i am saying, I woulnt claim that I hace definite proof for a designer......

Apparently you would, because you did. Go read your OP again.

Go read Craig's argument that you claim represents your position.

Tell you what: you reflect for a while, decide what you're actually going to argue, and then let us all know what you've decided your position is going to be going forward.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This thread is 35+ long simply because you and @Subduction Zone, @TagliatelliMonster @gnostic etc are running away from this "challenge" and inventing ridiculous excuses such as.............. "first you have to prove that God exists"

Don't you think you need a designer for "design" to be an option? How do you think that a universe would be designed without God?

It seems to me that if the "designer" doesn't exist, then the "design" option is impossible, regardless of how unlikely the options are. Do you disagree?

I get that it's frustrating to have people disagree with you over and over, but when you present an argument that's fractally irrational and you refuse to deal with its problems, that's going to happen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

[


Yes you and many others have asserted that the argument is flawd and fallacious.....

No, it was very thoroughly explained how they are flawed and fallacious as well.
As expected, you completely ignored all of it and just continued asserting the same bs that was already addressed.

We have all been pointing out to you to MANY problems with your unsupported premises, your assumed conclusions, your invalid conclusions that don't follow, your mistaken use of words like "statistically" in context of universe where you have a set of exactly 1, your misrepresentation of the physics involved, etc etc etc etc.


All of it fell on deaf ears. You simply repeat your, sorry - WLC's, argument word for word completely unaltered as if nobody ever pointed out any of these problems.

Exactly as I expected.
And exactly as I expect will continue into the future.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

[


Yes you and many others have asserted that the argument is flawd and fallacious..... But none of you have been capable of spoting a logical fallacy nor a factual mistake

Except for all the times we did, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Its a probabilistic argument more values means that design is more likely.

Why? Because you say so?

Also, I'll note once more that you can't even begin to count how many values this entails, because you do not know which of them even CAN be different nore do you have any clue what type of universes potentially could exist in different configurations (if such configurations are even possible in the first place).

It's all just blablabla. All bark and no bite.

It's arguing from ignorance from start to finish.

And off course, let's also not forget the inevitable special pleading that will show up when asked about what values are required for your "designer" to be able to exist.

But even 1 value (say the low entropy of the universe) is already hard to explain by naturalism

So? How does pointing out ignorance in science advance your religious case by even only an inch?

 

[gnostic]

This thread is 35+ long simply because you and @Subduction Zone, @TagliatelliMonster @gnostic etc are running away from this "challenge" and inventing ridiculous excuses such as.............. "first you have to prove that God exist.

I said EVIDENCE, I am not asking you to “prove” or to show “proof”.

As I have told you and other creationists so many times before, evidence and proof don’t mean the same things in science and mathematics.

It is the mathematicians who PROVE equations, by trying to solve the equations. And that PROOF equate to mathematical equations or formulas.

In science, scientists attempt to TEST the model (eg hypothesis or theory), and the only way to test any model, is through OBSERVATION.

OBSERVATIONS include discovering EVIDENCE or through performing EXPERIMENTS.

Proof ISN’T evidence.​

While you will find equations and formulas (proofs) in hypothesis or theory, proofs don’t verify and validate theories being scientifically true, only observations or evidence can do that.

Second, if creationists want to claim that Intelligent Design to be science, then it must have EVIDENCE, especially with the Designer, since it is fundamental to Intelligent Design.

Making a positive claim about the Designer’s existence, then creationists must be the ones to provide evidence for its existence. If they make positive claims, but ignore or refuse to show evidence, then the Intelligent Design concept has failed, and disqualified of being treated as “science”.

You and other creationists have often used physical man-made objects or structures, as examples of requiring designers, but we can show evidence that the human designers exist, designers that you can actually meet, talk to, and show evidence that they have birth certificates, postal addresses, diploma or degrees, employment records, possibly even drivers’ licenses or passports, etc, all of them evidence that these people exist.

The same cannot be said about God in religion or Designer in ID. You cannot demonstrate God’s existence or Designer’s existence.

I think comparing human designers and ID’s Designer is a weak example for Intelligent Design or for Fine Tuning crap.

Both FT & ID are pseudoscience craps.

The only people who ignore evidence, are people like you, who run away when the burden of proof falls on you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, no, no thst is not what i am saying, I woulnt claim that I hace definite proof for a designer......


What I am saying is:
1 there is a concept labeled as the FT problem

2 we don't know how to explain the FT problem

3 academics have proposed a number of explanations (inflacionary multiverses, top down cosmology, cosmological natural selection, design, cyclic universes, "deeper laws" will solve the problem, the FT is just an illusion / misinterpretation etc.

4 I personaly concluded that design is the best explanation so far.

Do you realize how point 2 makes this an acknowledgement of how all this is nothing but an argument from ignorance?

"we don't know therefor god"

uhu.

Great argument you got there.

If you disagree then all I am asking you is to share your favorite explanation

My favorite explanation for things that we don't know is "we don't know".

and explain why is it better thsn design....... You dont have to show that your explanation is true, all you have to do is show that it is better than design.

"god dun it" is not an explanation.
As has been explained to you at length already.

This thread is 35+ long simply because you and @Subduction Zone, @TagliatelliMonster @gnostic etc are running away from this "challenge" and inventing ridiculous excuses such as.............. "first you have to prove that God exists"

Nobody is running away from anything.
The only reason it goes on, is because you handwave away any and all pointing out of your mistakes, misrepresentations, fallacies, etc and simply continue to repeat the same PRATTs over and over again.

It's 35+ long only because of your stubborness.

You cant simply say "ohhhh its flawd bla bla bla" you have to actually deal with the argument and spot the logical falacies or the mistakes....

This already happened in the first 4 pages of the thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you disagree then all I am asking you is to share your favorite explanation and explain why is it better thsn design....... You dont have to show that your explanation is true, all you have to do is show that it is better than design.

That's all I have to do? Great - here's an explanation that's better than design:

My cat did it accidentally.

This explanation has a distinct advantage over a divine designer because I know that my cat exists.

Now... the exact mechanisms involved are a bit unclear. I don't have the slightest idea how my cat could create a universe accidentally, or how my cat's actions could have effects that go backward through time (or even have effects beyond time itself).

... but since we also don't have the slightest idea how a "designer" could design a universe or indeed even how "design" in a spaceless, timeless context could be a coherent concept, I'd say that your God and my cat are tied in that respect.

... still, my cat has confirmed existence going for her, so that gives her the edge over your God.

So there you go: an explanation for the universe that's better than "design." Admittedly, my explanation is a pretty crappy explanation, but asking for a better explanation than "design" isn't exactly a high bar to clear.

 

[leroy]

That's all I have to do? Great - here's an explanation that's better than design:

My cat did it accidentally.

This explanation has a distinct advantage over a divine designer because I know that my cat exists.

Now... the exact mechanisms involved are a bit unclear. I don't have the slightest idea how my cat could create a universe accidentally, or how my cat's actions could have effects that go backward through time (or even have effects beyond time itself).

... but since we also don't have the slightest idea how a "designer" could design a universe or indeed even how "design" in a spaceless, timeless context could be a coherent concept, I'd say that your God and my cat are tied in that respect.

... still, my cat has confirmed existence going for her, so that gives her the edge over your God.

So there you go: an explanation for the universe that's better than "design." Admittedly, my explanation is a pretty crappy explanation, but asking for a better explanation than "design" isn't exactly a high bar to clear.

By your logic, cats are a better explanation for the additional gravity that we observe, than “dark matter” because we know that cats exist, and the existence of dark matter (a thing with gravity that doesn’t interact with the electromagnetic spectrum) has not been established …do you see any flaws in this reasoning?

But in any case, your argument can be easily refuted; your cat can’t exist unless the universe is already FT………..no FT = no atoms and no atoms = no cats……………….your argument is logically incoherent………..so unless you can provide a good positive and devastating argument against God just like I did with your cat, my hypothesis is better than yours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By your logic, cats are a better explanation for the additional gravity that we observe, than “dark matter” because we know that cats exist, and the existence of dark matter (a thing with gravity that doesn’t interact with the electromagnetic spectrum) has not been established …do you see any flaws in this reasoning?

Sounds like you don't understand "my logic."

But in any case, your argument can be easily refuted; your cat can’t exist unless the universe is already FT………..no FT = no atoms and no atoms = no cats……………….your argument is logically incoherent………..so unless you can provide a good positive and devastating argument against God just like I did with your cat, my hypothesis is better than yours.

You think you gave a devastating argument. That's cute.

Like I said: the mechanisms involved are unclear. Still, all we're doing is looking at the origins of this universe, not the origins of whatever caused the universe. My cat creating the universe would certainly imply the existence of some sort of time loop, but if the question of what caused your designer is off the table, then I'm going to take the question of what created this time loop off the table as well.

And a time loop still sounds much more plausible than your explanation.

... if we can even call your preferred conclusion an explanation at all. You still haven't told us what "design" would mean in a spaceless, timeless concept beyond our physical universe.