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

[leroy]

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

Agreed.

I Am taking about The idea that the eye evoled/appeared by chance.... Why is that a ridiculous idea?

 

[leroy]

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

Well Valijean did answer..... So why cant you?

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

Do you disagree with @Valjean? On what points would you correct him?

 

[leroy]

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.

Well how do you go from

1 all of the matter could have been turned into energy (but it didn't happen)

To

Therefore no design? (or design is unlikely)

You are obviously missing some steps in your argument

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.

Well pyramids still look design despite the fact that they had aditional purpuses other than burring bodies

The observation fails to look like it was created for life.

Sure the universe doesn't look as if it was created just* for life

The universe is obviously not designed to optimize the amout of life

Your point?

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.

Because it would have been very unlikely for this quantum size ball to evolve in to a life permitting universe.... (many things could have gone wrong producing a life prohibiting universe)


Just like with a RGM, its obvious that a designer was in charged of putting everything in the correct order such that the initial conditions would lead to our current life permitting universe.

Also if a universe was created why was it created for life?

Why not for supernova or black holes?

Because black holes can exist within a wider rage of values you dont need FT to create black holes permitting universes.

If life where like black holes in this sense the FT argument would collapse

Why would life be special to this designer?

Because life can only exist within a narow rage of values, the fact that we happen to have this values suggest that life was in the plans of a 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?

How do you know that the purpose of this RGM is to light a Christmas tree?

I will also like to clarify that the FT argument is not committed to the view that life is the only, or even the most important goal of the designer.

 

[gnostic]

Well Valijean did answer..... So why cant you?


Do you disagree with @Valjean? On what points would you correct him?

I have honesty given you my answers, repeatedly, but you are too ignorant to understand what I am saying.

My answers are not going to change just to please your ego.

How about you just accepting the answers way they are given, and move on?

 

[leroy]

I have honesty given you my answers, repeatedly, but you are too ignorant to understand what I am saying.

My answers are not going to change just to please your ego.

How about you just accepting the answers way they are given, and move on?

I am just providing a hypothetical scenario and asking if you would accept it as evidence for aliens

We both know that you dont what to answer direvtly with a clear yes or no becsuse you are cornered if you answer yes your main objection to FT would collapse....... And if you answer no you will sound as irrational and close minded as a flatearther

So your only alternative...... Avoid a direct answer

 

[gnostic]

I am just providing a hypothetical scenario and asking if you would accept it as evidence for aliens

We both know that you dont what to answer direvtly with a clear yes or no becsuse you are cornered if you answer yes your main objection to FT would collapse....... And if you answer no you will sound as irrational and close minded as a flatearther

So your only alternative...... Avoid a direct answer

I have given you my full answer.

And hypothetical scenario without evidence to determine the correct course, isn’t reality, it is simply make-believe fairytale.

But I shouldn’t be to surprise by this, considering you believe in non-reality superstition.

 

[Valjean]

I Am taking about The idea that the eye evoled/appeared by chance.... Why is that a ridiculous idea?

I agree that the eye evolved. What I'm criticizing is the popular creationist argument from irreducible complexity, and it's examples of either an eye, a watch, or a bacterial flagellum.

 

[leroy]

I agree that the eye evolved. What I'm criticizing is the popular creationist argument from irreducible complexity, and it's examples of either an eye, a watch, or a bacterial flagellum.

You said that the idea of eyes evolving by chance is ridiculous........ Why?

Valjean said: ↑
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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said that the idea of eyes evolving by chance is ridiculous........ Why?


Why is that idea ridiculous?

Strawman arguments are almost always ridiculous.

 

[Valjean]

You said that the idea of eyes evolving by chance is ridiculous........ Why?


Why is that idea ridiculous?

It's not. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek. I even added the biologist bit to make sure everyone understood the mockery.

You've been reading my posts for a long time. Don't you know my stand on creationism vs selection by now?

 

[paarsurrey]

Valjean said: ↑

paarsurrey said: ↑

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?

Anybody else please.

Regards

 

[Valjean]

Atheism is like your own lack of belief in little green men from the moon. Does your a-LGMism affect anything in your life -- your politics, religion, beliefs, attitudes, behavior?

Do you see the similarity, please?

 

[joelr]

Well how do you go from

1 all of the matter could have been turned into energy (but it didn't happen)

To

Therefore no design? (or design is unlikely)

You are obviously missing some steps in your argument

Why are you simplifying what I said? I said the early universe does not appear to be created for life. One thing that could have happened is antimtter/matter annihilation which gets rid of matter. But stars have to form, elements have to be created, many many things have to happen, too many to list. The unified quantum of incrediby dense energy and compact spacetime has to also form several different forces with certain strengths. That might not even happen. Quantum mechanics doesn't allow for precise predictions so what the outcome will be is impossible to know.
So this isn't something that looks designed for any single purpose at all.
That favors a natural origin.

Well pyramids still look design despite the fact that they had aditional purpuses other than burring bodies

Because we can compare natural structures of rocks and nothing in nature produces giant stacked triangles of cut rocks with hallways and rooms.
We do not have other universes to compare.

Sure the universe doesn't look as if it was created just* for life

The universe is obviously not designed to optimize the amout of life

Your point?

Besides the long list of physical processes that have to happen in the universe for life to be able to form then you need a planet in the correct spot. A local supernova, neutron star, black hole, asteroid or any other disaster could easily wipe out any life on a planet at any time. A universe created for life would not be constantly on the cusp of destroying that life at any moment. How many extinction events have already happened? Humans can destroy themselves easily and any natural disaster can destroy life anytime.
Looks like life is just a natural happening.

Because it would have been very unlikely for this quantum size ball to evolve in to a life permitting universe.... (many things could have gone wrong producing a life prohibiting universe)


Just like with a RGM, its obvious that a designer was in charged of putting everything in the correct order such that the initial conditions would lead to our current life permitting universe.

Again, special pleading ("yeah it doesn't look like it was created for life but God knows everything so...).
That is already a fail. But the conditions right now favor life becoming extinct again. If not from the 60 million year asteroid impact then any number of disasters can happen. If it's a design it's not so good.

Quantum mechanics doesn't allow for accurate future predictions. It's always probabilities only. There is no way around this. If your designer has a magic way around this then again, the special pleading means you accept the universe doesn't look created for life. Then also demonstrate a creator who can see beyond the probabilities-only the QM allows.

Because black holes can exist within a wider rage of values you dont need FT to create black holes permitting universes.

If life where like black holes in this sense the FT argument would collapse

Yes you do. The unified energy doesn't produce lack holes? Gravity hasn't separated from the other 4 forces. Without gravity you have no black holes. Actually with the numbers on the strength of gravity we get a supermassive black hole at the center of every galaxy.

Because life can only exist within a narow rage of values, the fact that we happen to have this values suggest that life was in the plans of a designer.

We do not have a complete definition of what life is regarding the values. There are many things that can only exist at a narrow range of values. Stars need certain values and turn into black holes when big enough. Maybe something created the universe and needs black holes?
Doesn't look like it however. It looks like a natural happening.

Your logic above is post-hoc after the fact rationalizations. There could be endless other universes that didn't produce life.

How do you know that the purpose of this RGM is to light a Christmas tree?

I will also like to clarify that the FT argument is not committed to the view that life is the only, or even the most important goal of the designer.

When the big bang happened was the RGM the purpose of the universe? No. But this universe evolved in such a way that self replicating chemicals became life and built a machine. The machine had nothing to do with the quantum big bang which quickly became a macroscopic big bang. But nothing else did either. Not planets or life, that stuff just happened.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

1. there's no data of any gods anywhere

2. "god dun it", is not an explanation (no predictions, no testability, no explanatory power whatsoever)

3. the only actual answer remains "we don't know", until we actually know.

4. "let's look for" = let's do research. not "let's just accept what our a priori religious beliefs claim"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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..

By definition, the things you attribute to your god (consciousness, intent, agency, intelligence,...) have physical underpinnings - which require physical energy, atoms, chemistry, brains... and temporal contexts as well as space to exist in.

If you what to claim that the existence of God is impossible,

The God YOU claim exists in the form YOU claim exists, is impossible for the same reason that you claim cats can't exist without FT

be my guest, but you have a burden proof just like I do with the cat.?

Seems to me I just met that burden.
All aspects you attribute to your god have physical underpinnings, which require space, time and "FT". Just like a cat.

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

Claims with zero explanatory power, zero predictability, zero verifiability, zero testability AND of which the subject's definitions are also self-contradictory... aren't explanations at all.

They are just nonsense claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

If the probability is not zero and if there are an infinite amount of universe, then there will be an infinite amount of universes that are FT.

That's kind of the nature of infinity.
If it can happen, then it will happen given enough trials.
And with an infinite amount of trials, it will happen an infinite amount of times.

0.0000001% of infinity = infinity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm sorry, but why are you citing an untestable hypothesis as if it has any legitimacy? I can just as easily hypothesis that the universe came into existence as an unintended consequence of a magical pixie farting. Since neither hypothesis can be tested, neither is of any use, other than as an interesting thought experiment.

His untestable hypothesis doesn't even work either.....

Because in a multi-verse that produces an infinite amount of universes, any universe that CAN come about (no matter how unlikely), by definition of "infinity" WILL come about an infinite amount of times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

whats wrogn with my definition?

It's self contradictory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

False analogy.

We understand the physics of arrows flying towards targets.
But we don't understand the physics that produce universes.

To bring it in line, any of the following could be true:
- There is no actual bullseye, there is only the arrow and in our limited understanding we drew a bullseye around it
- There is a bullseye, but there is a process that will guide any arrow towards it. Like if the arrow is made of metal and the bullseyes is a very powerfull magnet, making it impossible for the arrow to land anywhere else.
- There is a bullseye, but there is also an infinite amount of arrows being shot - meaning some are bound to hit the dead center
- ...

But you dismiss all of those options at face value, seemingly with as only reason that they don't work for your silly "argument".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Your claims fall and stand on their own merit, not on the existence or non-existence of "alternatives".