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

[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?

Not with an intentional shooter -- unless s/he was a really bad archer.

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

First, I'd want to establish that there is an archer. Then I'd want to determine what other mechanisms might account for the bull's eye.

In biology and cosmogeny there are well-evidenced, natural explanations for the order we observe. There is no reason to posit a magician manipulating things behind the scenes.

 

[YoursTrue]

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'.

There are natural inclinations of recognition. For instance, if I saw a hill with newly planted moss or grass on it, I might think someone dumped soul or garbage and made a hill. But if I saw a mountain, now that's an entirely different way of thinking about it.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Ok. When I was an atheist, or claimed to be, it all was a big cloud in my mind. I couldn't believe God existed because of all the suffering I saw I saw no way out of the circumstances. But then...a series of circumstances happened that turned my mind around.

 

[gnostic]

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

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?

FIRST.

There is no such thing as "Atheist Method" or even "Theist Method".

When an atheist say -

"I don't believe in any god"​

...or...

"I lack belief in any god"​

That's just a personal belief or personal philosophical stance ONLY concerning with the "existence of deity" or deities. That's not a method.

And when a theist say:

"I believe in god"​

That's just a personal belief in god existence. That's not a method.

Do not confuse a personal belief or disbelief with method, paarsurrey.

There is a SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is a process of formulating a hypothesis and testing the hypothesis. Is one of the criterias for science that a hypothesis must pass. The other criterias are Falsifiability and Peer Review.

There are no Atheist Method and there are no Theist Method.

This Atheist Method is simply another ploy for leroy (post 159).

SECOND.

The video that joelr posted in post 157, was about Sean Caroll presentation of Naturalism vs Fine Tuning, not about Atheism vs Fine Tuning.

Naturalism and Atheism are two different things. One is looking at nature, the later is a position towards the existence of God.

So DO NOT CONFUSE God with nature.

Anyone can be naturalists. Both theists and atheists can be naturalists...or DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT, paarsurrey?

You really have no idea what you are talking about, paarsurrey. You keep confusing science with atheism, because you keep repeating the same bloody mistakes over and over again. And now you are confusing naturalism with atheism.

Are you incapable of learning from your mistakes, paarsurrey?

I have noticed in many of threads, that you ask for clarification, followed by this question: "Right, please?"

Are you really asking question for clarification, to understand what you don't understand? Or is this simply your ploy to play games?

Because I have noticed that you don't seem to want to understand, because you keep repeating the same mistakes, just like many of creationists do.

Are you really wanting to understand science? Or are you playing games with us?

 

[Valjean]

Ok. When I was an atheist, or claimed to be, it all was a big cloud in my mind. I couldn't believe God existed because of all the suffering I saw I saw no way out of the circumstances. But then...a series of circumstances happened that turned my mind around.

Resentment, dissatisfaction and confusion seems a very strange reason not to believe in God.
I think most atheists have no confusion about the matter and see no reason to blame someone and, in effect, put him on ignore for their dissatisfaction with the world.

I don't expect to see or understand the Big Picture. Nor do I feel a need to create/imagine a Big Picture to satisfy some personal emptyness. Atheism is a cold, ontological position, not a personal one.

 

[leroy]

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.

Yes you are running away.

 

[leroy]

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

And how would you resoond to an skeptic like @gnostic who would argue :


No no no, first you have to establish the existance of aliens, only then we can look at the art work and consider the possibility of aliens

 

[leroy]

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

Well that is analogous to the FT argument

In the case of art work it would be very unlikely to get say a bunch o symmetrical geometrical figures made out of rock by chance (errotion, wind, etc)

And based on what we know, the laws of nature dont have a tendency for creating geometrical figures in rocks...... Therefore design becomes the best explanation

..

This is analogous to the FT of the universe, it is very unlikely that these values where given by chance, for example of all the possible configurations in which matter/energy can excist, we had a big bang that started with low entropy, despite the fact that high entropy is more much more likely.

And based on what we know, there is not a tendency in the laws of nature where life permitting values would naturally emerge.

So design become the best explanation for FT, for the same reason design would be the best explanation for art work in mars.

 

[leroy]

Not with an intentional shooter -- unless s/he was a really bad archer.

In this example you never saw the archer, all you saw is an arrow flying in the middle of the forest hitting a bulls eye.

Would you conclude design or would you say
"nah the center of a bulls eye is as unlikely as any other point in the planet, there is nothing special about the bulls eye."

In biology and cosmogeny there are well-evidenced, natural explanations for the order we observe. There is no reason to posit a magician manipulating things behind the scenes.

Well what explanation do you suggest for say the low entropy of the early universe?

 

[leroy]

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.

FT simply means that there are serveral values that if where a little bit different we wouldn't have atoms molecules chemestry stars planets etc.(and life wouldn't exist) .... In this sense FT is widely accepted as true in the scientific community...

A number of explanations have been suggested

Inflationary multiverses cyclc universe, top down cosmology, cosmic evolution, design, FT is only a missinirerpretation, the values are not so narrow, anthropic principle etc.

I am simply suggesting that design is the best explanation of all of those that have been suggested


If anyone from this forum disagree I invite him to share his favorite explanation and explain why is it better than design....... But for some reason atheist run from this challenge.

..

 

[leroy]

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.

Why is that idea ridiculous?

 

[leroy]

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

My point is that we can infer design even if we dont have prior evidence for the designer...... Agree?

 

[gnostic]

And how would you resoond to an skeptic like @gnostic who would argue :


No no no, first you have to establish the existance of aliens, only then we can look at the art work and consider the possibility of aliens

You don't get it.

As I said my answer, is simply this: there are no artwork on Mars, so to say nonexistent Martian aliens creating some nonexistent art on Mars, is mere speculation, and therefore there can be no real answers.

Providing any answer to your nonsensical scenario, is just pointless.

 

[Valjean]

Well that is analogous to the FT argument

In the case of art work it would be very unlikely to get say a bunch o symmetrical geometrical figures made out of rock by chance (errotion, wind, etc)

And based on what we know, the laws of nature don't have a tendency for creating geometrical figures in rocks...... Therefore design becomes the best explanation

No. A design is a preconceived, purposeful plan. It's not just a fortuitous combination of laws that enables the world you're familiar with.

There's no reason to assume that our particular universe was 'designed'. Had another combination of laws shaken out, some other life form might be making the same argument and thinking its particular world unique and designed just for it. Or maybe no stars, planets or life would be possible, in which case there would be no-one making any argument.
.

This is analogous to the FT of the universe, it is very unlikely that these values where given by chance, for example of all the possible configurations in which matter/energy can excist, we had a big bang that started with low entropy, despite the fact that high entropy is more much more likely.

Entropy shmentropy. The universe is what it is, and I see no reason to think there was any purposive design in it. Why do you think our particular values were anything but chance?
As far as I can see it's just a puddle argument.

And based on what we know, there is not a tendency in the laws of nature where life permitting values would naturally emerge

How can you conclude this? We don't know what values would permit life.We just know that our existing values did. Our sample size is one.
Nor do we know the chances of some other configuration of laws emerging, viable or not.
You're speculating, and your speculation is based on hubris and religious mythology, as far as I can see.

So design become the best explanation for FT, for the same reason design would be the best explanation for art work in mars.

Sorry, but that doesn't follow, nor is art work analogous to life. Unlike art, life arises spontaneously.

 

[Valjean]

In this example you never saw the archer, all you saw is an arrow flying in the middle of the forest hitting a bulls eye.

Would you conclude design or would you say
"nah the center of a bulls eye is as unlikely as any other point in the planet, there is nothing special about the bulls eye."

An arrow is a familiar, manufactured item, as is archery. They are artificial.
Life, planets, &c. have natural, undesigned causes.

Well what explanation do you suggest for say the low entropy of the early universe?

Ask a physicist. We don't yet understand the initial inflation.

 

[Valjean]

FT simply means that there are serveral values that if where a little bit different we wouldn't have atoms molecules chemestry stars planets etc.(and life wouldn't exist) .... In this sense FT is widely accepted as true in the scientific community...

The scientific community accepts the laws and constants of this universe as they exist. The probability of other configurations is unknown, so no fine tuning argument can be derived, nor can the probability of life in some other configuration. There is no reason to assume fine tuning, ie: a preplanned, purposive design.

I am simply suggesting that design is the best explanation of all of those that have been suggested.

No! How do you derive this? "Design" is the one "explanation" that has zero supporting evidence -- and it's not an explanation, plus, it rests on an assumed magical personage, who also has no explanation or supporting evidence.

Design is wishful thinking fueled by a longing for the validation of a familiar, comforting religious mythology

If anyone from this forum disagree I invite him to share his favorite explanation and explain why is it better than design....... But for some reason atheist run from this challenge.

This is a question for physicists, not atheists.

 

[Valjean]

Why is that idea ridiculous?

Because your argument from irreducible complexity is ridiculous -- which is what this argument is.

My point is that we can infer design even if we dont have prior evidence for the designer...... Agree?

Agreed.

 

[leroy]

Providing any answer to your nonsensical scenario, is just pointless.

No, providing an answer would expose your flaws..... That is why you are avoiding an answer

 

[gnostic]

No, providing an answer would expose your flaws..... That is why you are avoiding an answer

Seriously...

The flaw is in your example, leroy.

You want me to give answer of two things that don't exist on Mars: aliens and artwork.

Asking for answer on question of nonexistent objects or entities, would only be speculative conjecture.

Do you have evidence of any work of art on Mars? Do you have evidence that aliens lived on the neighboring planet?

All you doing is playing some pointless "what...if" game...and expecting answers that cannot be answered.

So my answer to your stupid question is that I don't have any answer that's true.

I did answer your stupid questions repeatedly, so I haven't avoid your questions because your example is bloody useless and pointless.

I was a civil engineer during my 20s and mid-30, but I have been computer programmer in the last 20 years. So as an engineer, not a theoretical physicist, I need some more practical than your useless inferring logic, I need evidence and not your useless abstract of inference.

You can infer something that don't exist, all you want, but they are not real, so your game of logic is nothing more than useless fairy-tale of Designer that don't exist.

The real flaws are in your fairy-tale scenario.

 

[joelr]

Sure the universe seems to be like a “Rube Goldberg machine (RGM)”, for example if you what to light a Christmas tree you can ether just press a switch and do it, or you can use a Rube Goldberg machine………..it is completely valid to ask why would someone use a RGM given that there are simpler and more practical mechanisms…….but one doesn’t conclude therefore no design.

No, again, a RGM is created to do a specific task. The early universe has no matter, in fact all of the matter could have been turned into energy and even the basic elements for life (never mind organic compounds) had not been created. Even when life formed it could have stayed as reptilian life until this day and humans never evolving. WAY too many variables.
So therefore this observation does not appear to favor the universe being designed for life. Not at all.

And the Egyptians could have created a small 2m x 1m tomb rather than those big pyramids……….but the answer is very simple, perhaps they had an other goal in mind besides burring a body.

So the same can be said about the universe. Perhaps God has an other goal in mind

Well there you go. Now you admit it doesn't look right for what you want it to be so you are introducing more variables. Special pleading. So the assessment is correct about not looking designed.

Perhaps other stars and galaxies will be usefull by humans in the future, perhaps there is life in other planets who need those stars, perhaps God is an artist and considers that a big universe with many stars is nice, perhaps God created a universe with low entropy simply to make fun of atheist and chance hypothesis.

Again you demonstrate how I am correct by allowing special pleading. "Prehaps this, prehaps that....." Do you not realize every time you add "prehaps this.." then I get to say "prehaps this.." which nullifies your addition?
Stop with all the special pleading. It's like saying I look like Thor. "except".....when he has short hair, and isn't 6'7 and stupid jacked because maybe Hela put a spell on him to make him more human and blah blah.....

The observation fails to look like it was created for life. You didn't even deal with the original premise in your pleading? You first have to establish why a quantum size ball of incredibly dense unified energy, spacetime and laws that allow only probabilities (so nothing can be known for sure) govern future actions, looks like something that was created for life rather than just being a natural event.
Also if a universe was created why was it created for life? Why not for supernova or black holes? Why would life be special to this designer? The universe doesn't favor life for reasons just discussed but black holes seem much more probable. How do you determine this designer doesn't have a use for black holes or the universe involves some science project we cannot comprehend?
Are you going to say myths people wrote in the Bronze Age are reasons to think a designer is a personal God?