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

[leroy]

How would atheism provide a serious argument? Argument for what? Atheism has no beliefs, it has nothing to argue for.
All we can do is continue to point out that atheism is the default, and that you have no solid reasoning.

Well scientists do provide serous alternatives to explain the FT of the universe, why cant you?

 

[leroy]

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?

Note how you avoided the question

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 only question that I am askig is: if we ever find art work in Mars would you consider it evidence for Aliens?

 

[Valjean]

[

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

How have you missed them!?

 

[leroy]

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'.

so woudl you conclude design yes or no?

YoursTrue said: ↑
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.

 

[Valjean]

Well scientists do provide serous alternatives to explain the FT of the universe, why cant you?

We're talking about atheism, here. What do you think atheism is? I get the impression we're talking about two different things.

 

[gnostic]

@leroy

It isn’t the existence of cats that require evidence for...there is no burden of proof here, because many people have seen cats, care for them as pets, they are born and they died...all of them very natural.

But if you are going to say God created cats, or Designer designed cats, or that Fine Tuning cause the existence of cats, then you need to provide evidence for the existence of God or Designer, or provide evidence that Fine Tuning happens, then that burden of proof falls to you, whether It be God, Designer or FT.

Cats are not the problem, Leroy.

No, the assumptions of FT, ID & God are the problems, and making positive claims on any of them, require evidence.

You have warped sense of logic. Your arguments are senseless.

 

[Valjean]

so woudl you conclude design yes or no?

There is intentional design in human-made things. There may be order and function in nature, but there's no evidence of intention. There's no reason to posit anything but unguided chemistry and physics.

 

[Valjean]

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

But there's no 'data' that would point to any intentional creator.

 

[leroy]

There is intentional design in human-made things. There may be order and function in nature, but there's no evidence of intention. There's no reason to posit anything but unguided chemistry and physics.

Talking about the steel monolith standing in the middle of the jungle


Would you conclude design?

 

[leroy]

But there's no 'data' that would point to any intentional creator.

I would say that ID is the best explanation for FT...... If you disagree share your favorite alternative and explain why ia it better than design

 

[Valjean]

Valjean wrote, " "Underlying assumptions of modern science?" "Reasoning?"
Logic, reasoning and the tested, dependable laws of science are how we determine how the universe works."

It is a tall claim, I understand, that science determines how the Universe works, please. Science/Scientific Method had not surfaced yet, but the Universe was working billions of years before, please. Kindly get corrected please? Right friend, please?

Not 'determined' in the controlling sense. Determined in the 'figuring out' sense, like "We determined that water freezes at 0 degrees." We didn't cause or direct the freezing, we just described it.

Science has discovered many of the laws and constants of nature, and from these we predict and describe how the universe works. We don't control it, we describe it.

 

[Valjean]

Please identify the denomination of Vedanta (reform), if one may please?
Regards

Advaita.
"Reform" in that it's not traditionally based.

 

[Valjean]

well ..............
Whats the difference between hitting the center of a bulls eye with an arrow or hitting any other spot?.............all spots are equally probable right?

If you observe an arrow flying and hitting the center of a bulls eye what would you conclude

1 Maybe there is an archer who intended to hit the center of the bulls eye (even if you don’t know who he is, or where did he come from)

2 or would you say, it´s a coincidence, the center of a bulls eye is as unlikely as any other spot, so maybe the wind was blowing it moved the arrow and the arrow simply happened to hit the center of the bulls eye

What if the rings on the target are drawn after the shot is completed?

All these "maybes," but no actual evidence. Is (questionable) statistical improbability your evidence for a God?

 

[Valjean]

Talking about the steel monolith standing in the middle of the jungle
Would you conclude design?

I'd assume human design. I doubt a regular, steel billet would be produced naturally.
Your point?

 

[Valjean]

An eyeball just does what it does and nevermind that it allows you to see. By the laws of motion solely it forms ever so gradually and we can make use of the unintended thing. Same thing for memory, and all the things we use for to do something. Fortuitous events by the bushel. Utterly without meaning do these things exist and take form. Got it! I'm making purpose out of purposeless things about humans.

But that's absurd. Eyes and bodies and minds evolving by chance" Ridiculous! Who'd come up with a silly idea like that?

Certainly not a biologist.

 

[gnostic]

Note how you avoided the question

I didn’t avoid the questions because there are no possible ways to answer such absurd questions.

Both of your premises and your questions are pointless and non sequitur.

You want answers for something that don’t exist on Mars.

My answers to your ridiculous questions about Design, is that I have no answers. My reasons for this answer: Your 1st two premises about Mars are not real, because neither of them exist, therefore it is pointless in “AGREEING” with your conclusion.​

That’s my answer. I didn’t run away like you have been doing whenever the questions of evidence come up.

 

[Valjean]

Well scientists do provide serous alternatives to explain the FT of the universe, why cant you?

No, very few serious "scientists" posit fine tuning. There are a few religious nuts with degrees, of course, but these hardly represent the scientific consensus.
Me, I'm in agreement with the scientists. The Universe is what it is. Any order is a natural result of the laws and constants born of the big bang. No purpose, no intentional design or planning.

 

[Valjean]

Valjean wrote, " "Underlying assumptions of modern science?" "Reasoning?"
Logic, reasoning and the tested, dependable laws of science are how we determine how the universe works." Right friend, please? "

Yes, there are assumption of Science, no surprise friend, please:
Basic assumptions of science - Understanding Science
undsci.berkeley.edu › article › basic_assumptions
Science operates on the assumptions that natural causes explain natural phenomena, that evidence from the natural world can inform us about those causes, and that these causes are consistent.

Yes. Bravo! This is how science works.

Don't these assumptions make science resorting to circular
reasoning sometimes or always, please? Right friend, please?
Regards

No, I don't think so. Could you give me some examples?

 

[Valjean]

Note how you avoided the question



The only question that I am askig is: if we ever find art work in Mars would you consider it evidence for Aliens?

If we found something clearly outside what we'd consider natural, yes, we'd consider aliens a possible explanation.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
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

What does atheism have to do with anything?
You seem to think atheism is some kind of religion, or belief system or lifestyle.

Atheism is not a thing! There is no "method" in atheism!
Atheists have nothing in common but a lack of belief. You, yourself, lack belief in Thor or Cthulu. Does your athorism have any affect on your lifestyle, beliefs or religion?

Paarsurrey, it's astonishing to me how one could have read so many posts about atheism, in this thread alone, and still have no idea what atheism is.

I have given my post #635 again above. Does it mention Atheism to be a "thing" or to be "nothing" or "anything", "religion" or "no-religion" or a "belief" or "no-belief" or "lifestyle" or no "lifestyle"?
Right friend, please?
The closest that comes to the mind Atheism to be "void" or "weird", if one doesn't mind, please. Right friend, please?
One may, understand Atheism to be not one "lack", please add other "lacks" in this "grand void" of Atheism like lack of belief, lack of methodology, lack of reason, lack of understanding, and may be profusion of ignorance, but I won't insist. Right friend, please?

Regards