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

[QuestioningMind]

Then what is the evidence that chance produces anything life?

Ask someone who's making that claim... I'm not. I'm simply asking for evidence for a claim that has been made.

 

[leroy]

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


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.

My issue is not “where your cat came from nor what mechanisms your cant used” my issue is that your cat cant exist unless the universe is already FT. therefore your hypothesis fails.

Not to mention that the fact that you what to ridicule my position rather than providing serious arguments is very telling, if you would have had a good serious and defensible alternative for the FT problem you would have use it to answer to my request

You still haven't told us what "design" would mean in a spaceless, timeless concept beyond our physical universe

If you find it so troubling, you don’t that have to assume a space less and time less designer, just a designer that can exist without fine tuning.

The space less timeless thing comes from other arguments like the KCA, from the FT argument you don’t get a spaceles and timeless God

 

[leroy]

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"

It´s more like “we don’t know” therefore let’s look for the best explanation given the data that we have available.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, it's not "unjustified belief." It depends (faith does) on several things. Faith should be based on something solid. I can't say "I have faith that there are butterflies with human-looking heads somewhere else in the universe" and think that's a justified belief, can I?

A strong point, I agree.

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My issue is not “where your cat came from nor what mechanisms your cant used” my issue is that your cat cant exist unless the universe is already FT. therefore your hypothesis fails.

And the universe can't be designed unless a designer is possible. We're ignoring the plausibility of our "explanations," remember? You decided that.

Not to mention that the fact that you what to ridicule my position rather than providing serious arguments is very telling, if you would have had a good serious and defensible alternative for the FT problem you would have use it to answer to my request

I tried serious arguments. Many times. You refused to listen to reason.

And if you recall, you asked for this. You asked us to give an explanation that was better than the conclusion you jumped to. Well, my cat really is a better explanation for the universe than your god is. If pointing this out is ridicule, it's only because your argument is ridiculous.

If you find it so troubling, you don’t that have to assume a space less and time less designer, just a designer that can exist without fine tuning.

The space less timeless thing comes from other arguments like the KCA, from the FT argument you don’t get a spaceles and timeless God

No, we get that from physics. Spacetime is a property of the universe.

BTW: "the spaceless, timeless thing" is not in the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (which isn't even an argument for God). William Lane Craig likes to package the real argument with a bunch of crap that isn't actually part of the Kalaam argument, and call the whole thing "Kalaam." Maybe try watching fewer of his videos... or at least try getting your information from more than one source.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well, something dark brown and gooey is obviously obscuring your vision.
(That's one of the hazards of keeping your head up there)



Well duh.



Yes, analogies aren't supposed to fit all the pieces together perfectly, just as many as is required to make a point, which mine did, and which you obviously missed.



Again: well duh.



Still missing the point.



Well, someone has to be.



I explained why it didn't work, you just failed to grasp it ( wouldn't be surprised if you're the only one in here who did too).



Hardly. In fact, just the opposite: I understood yours, cliche and done-to-death as it is, then I came up with one of my own, which apparently involved stringing more thoughts together than you were capable of processing in one sitting.

I'm okay with that as long as anyone else who bothered to read it got what I was saying, which I'm sure they would have.

But as far as you go:
Would it help if I used hand puppets?

What would help would be if you actually understood how an analogy works. True, an analogy doesn't have to match up exactly, but at least some of it has to be analogise. Your analogy of my interaction with the OP doesn't match up at all. The only thing that was analogise was that the response you came up with didn't make sense in either example.

You're welcome to try again.

 

[paarsurrey]

My issue is not “where your cat came from nor what mechanisms your cant used” my issue is that your cat cant exist unless the universe is already FT. therefore your hypothesis fails.

Not to mention that the fact that you what to ridicule my position rather than providing serious arguments is very telling, if you would have had a good serious and defensible alternative for the FT problem you would have use it to answer to my request



If you find it so troubling, you don’t that have to assume a space less and time less designer, just a designer that can exist without fine tuning.

The space less timeless thing comes from other arguments like the KCA, from the FT argument you don’t get a spaceles and timeless God

leroy wrote, "you what to ridicule my position rather than providing serious arguments is very telling,"

When Atheism have no solid reasoning Atheism leave providing serious argument and resort to ridicule, is it good point to be added to Atheism Method as one mentioned in one's post #159, please?

Regards

 

[Quagmire]

What would help would be if you actually understood how an analogy works. True, an analogy doesn't have to match up exactly, but at least some of it has to be analogise. Your analogy of my interaction with the OP doesn't match up at all. The only thing that was analogise was that the response you came up with didn't make sense in either example.

You're welcome to try again.

No thanks. Right now I'm too busy trying to teach my cat how to play the piano.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

This is the argument for God...... Every time we find this kind of patterns we conclude design..... So why making an exception with the universe?

Still waiting to hear why this patten can't be explained by chance.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No thanks. Right now I'm too busy trying to teach my cat how to play the piano.

Here's hoping that you're better at that than coming up with analogies. Enjoy!

 

[leroy]

And the universe can't be designed unless a designer is possible. We're ignoring the plausibility of our "explanations," remember? You decided that.


I tried serious arguments. Many times. You refused to listen to reason.

And if you recall, you asked for this. You asked us to give an explanation that was better than the conclusion you jumped to. Well, my cat really is a better explanation for the universe than your god is. If pointing this out is ridicule, it's only because your argument is ridiculous.


No, we get that from physics. Spacetime is a property of the universe.

BTW: "the spaceless, timeless thing" is not in the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (which isn't even an argument for God). William Lane Craig likes to package the real argument with a bunch of crap that isn't actually part of the Kalaam argument, and call the whole thing "Kalaam." Maybe try watching fewer of his videos... or at least try getting your information from more than one source.

I am making the positive claim that the existence of cats without FT (without atoms/molecules/chemistry etc) is impossible because by definition cats are made out of atoms..

If you what to claim that the existence of God is impossible, be my guest, but you have a burden proof just like I do with the cat.?

And if you recall, you asked for this. You asked us to give an explanation that was better than the conclusion you jumped to. Well, my cat really is a better explanation for the universe than your god is. If pointing this out is ridicule, it's only because your argument is ridiculous.

And I showed that my explanation is better because “cats causing FT” is logically impossible and I explained why……… so unless you show that God is impossible My explanation wins

 

[leroy]

Still waiting to hear why this patten can't be explained by chance.

I answered to that multiple times (but perhaps not directed towars you)……….the Bolzman Brain paradox refutes any chance hypothesis.

What the paradox states is that the probabilities of having a FT universe by chance are so low that it would be more likely that our observations are just an illusion or a dream…………we life in a simpler universe (with less FT) but at this moment you happen be dreaming abut living in a FT universe.

With simpler universe I mean for example a universe with just 1 star and 1 planet, or even simpler a single bolzman brain.

This leads to a reductio ad absurdum, because if all your observations are just a dream, then we can’t know anything about the real world. (until you wake up)

This is why chance hypothesis (including my cat did it by accident @9-10ths_Penguin ) fail.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am making the positive that the existence of cats without FT (without atoms/molecules/chemistry etc) is impossible because by definition cats are made out of atoms.

You're thinking too linearly. If closed timelike curves are possible, a physical being from a universe may very well have created this universe in this timeline.

If you what to claim that the existence of God is impossible, be my guest, but you have a burden proof just like I do with the cat.

For me to say that your God is possible or impossible, you would have to express what you mean by "God" coherently enough that I would be able to evaluate the concept. So far, you haven't done this.

And I showed that my explanation is better because “cats causing FT” is logically impossible and I explained why……… so unless you show that God is impossible My explanation wins

No, you actually didn't do this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is why chance hypothesis (including my cat did it by accident @9-10ths_Penguin ) fail.

Don't try to turn my cat into a strawman. Her clumsiness is too pervasive to be called "chance."

 

[leroy]

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

How can I ever provide evidence for God, if you always demand for “prior evidence” ?your rhetoric seems to be

Theist: Look at “A” this is evidence for God

You: No that is not evidence

Theist: why not

You: because there is no evidence for God ……….first you have to provide evidence for the existence of God………..then we can discuss “A”

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.

So what, if we ever find art work and tools in Mars you would say that its evidence for Aliens, despite the fact that there is no prior evidence for aliens……………one can conclude design even if there is no prior evidence for the designer agree? (yes or no)……..

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

In my previous example I cant demonstrate the existence of Aliens, but still “art work in mars” would be evidence for Alens and inteligent design........................agreeee? yes or no?

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

I am not running from any burden proof, feel free to quote any comment mine or from my sources that you disagree with, and I will be happy to support that comment.

My prediction is that you will run away from my previous questions (in red) and you will not answer with a clear yes or a clear no

 

[leroy]

You're thinking too linearly. If closed timelike curves are possible, a physical being from a universe may very well have created this universe in this timeline.

Nope, you still need FT for the cat to even exist.


if you disagree, develop your argument.

For me to say that your God is possible or impossible, you would have to express what you mean by "God" coherently enough that I would be able to evaluate the concept. So far, you haven't done this.

In this context God would be any designer that can exist independently of FT

 

[Valjean]

It could be. But again, if I saw a monolithic structure made of steel in the middle of an uninhabited place, I, as well as you, would figure someone made it. Don't like the argument? Maybe your assumptions just aren't correct.

If I saw a mountain, or a tree, or a person, I would not assume someone made them. I know of other, natural, non-intentional mechanisms to account for them. I don't assume an invisible magician behind it all.
I don't know of any natural mechanism that would account for a steel 'monolith'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can I ever provide evidence for God, if you always demand for “prior evidence” ?your rhetoric seems to be

Theist: Look at “A” this is evidence for God

You: No that is not evidence

Theist: why not

You: because there is no evidence for God ……….first you have to provide evidence for the existence of God………..then we can discuss “A”

Time after time why your so called evidence for God fails. When you refuse to understand people will only point out the fact that what you have is not evidence. You can't expect them to explain the same concepts to you endlessly.

Here is a helpful suggestion, why not try to apply the standard of scientific evidence? It is well defined and has a rather low threshold.

 

[gnostic]

How can I ever provide evidence for God, if you always demand for “prior evidence” ?your rhetoric seems to be

Theist: Look at “A” this is evidence for God

You: No that is not evidence

Theist: why not

You: because there is no evidence for God ……….first you have to provide evidence for the existence of God………..then we can discuss “A”





So what, if we ever find art work and tools in Mars you would say that its evidence for Aliens, despite the fact that there is no prior evidence for aliens……………one can conclude design even if there is no prior evidence for the designer agree? (yes or no)……..





In my previous example I cant demonstrate the existence of Aliens, but still “art work in mars” would be evidence for Alens and inteligent design........................agreeee? yes or no?




I am not running from any burden proof, feel free to quote any comment mine or from my sources that you disagree with, and I will be happy to support that comment.

My prediction is that you will run away from my previous questions (in red) and you will not answer with a clear yes or a clear no

Your examples of artwork and alien’s existence are merely hypothetical questions, with no basis in reality, because there were never any artwork found, ever.

You are trying to making...

1. ...preassumption that artwork exist on Mars (when there are none)...
2. ...and then you making presumption that aliens exist on Mars...
3. ...to reach conclusion of “Design”, which is another presumption about “Design”.

There are no evidence for all 3 presumptions, are perverted attempts at logic, that are just unsubstantiated and speculative rhetoric craps.

You say that I am using “rhetoric” (which is btw, strawman), when all that craps in your reply - artwork/aliens/design scenario - are just that - rhetoric.

How can you presume there to be evidence with your alien scenario, when they are merely bunch of presumptions?

Do you not see the lunacy in your outrageous reasoning in your reply?

 

[Valjean]

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

This is the argument for God...... Every time we find this kind of patterns we conclude design..... So why making an exception with the universe?

You could make the same argument for the universe created by any other configuration of laws and constants, as well, and our own and any other pattern can be explained by chance.

Every time you see pattern you conclude "God." Rational people make no such argument from incredulity.
"This kind of pattern?" What kind is that? Wouldn't any other pattern be just as astonishing?