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

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Disagreement that your claims are "the best explanations" or even just "explanations" in general, is not dependend on having "alternatives", but rather on the fact that your claims are not in evidence, without merit and with zero explanatory power.


You really need to learn this little concept.
You really need to start learning how this amounts to nothing but arguments from ignorance otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

We have already established the existence of physical beings that create things in this physical universe.
We are one of them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Again: false analogy.

Our understanding of the physics that might produce universes isn't anywhere close to that level.
At all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Not an explanation, because:
- zero predictability
- zero testability
- zero verifiability
- zero explanatory power.

If anyone from this forum disagree I invite him to share his favorite explanation and explain why is it better than design......

For the upteenth time:
Your claims fall and stand on their OWN merit - not on the existence or non-existence of "alternatives".

If the validity of your claims are dependent on the existence or non-existence of "alternatives", then your claim is nothing but an argument from ignorance.

But for some reason atheist run from this challenge.

By "running away", it seems that you really mean "point out the fallacious nature embedded in it".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Disagree.

When we "recognise" artwork we only do so because of a priori knowledge of "artists".

 

[leroy]

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.
.

I agree, many things could have gone wrong....... What i dont understand is how do uou translate that into "therefore no design"

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.

In the same way nothing in nature (as far as we know) can tune the values sush that life could evolve..... For example nothing in nature favors a low entropy over high entropy. (high entropy is always much more likely)

Again, special pleading ("yeah it doesn't look like it was created for life but God knows everything so...).

It is not special pleading..... It is justbthat you seem to miss understand the FT argument....... The argument is not committed to a goal..... The argument does not claim that life is the main goal of the universe, life could be the maim goal, a secondary goal, a bi product, etc....

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.

Agree....
If black holes need as much FT as life then you could just as easily say that the main goal is to create black holes...




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

When the big bang happened was the RGM the purpose of the universe? No. .

My point withbthe RGM is that many things could have gone wrong.... If the ball would have been 1cm larger the whole chain would collapse and the lights of the tree would would never light up.

But that doesn't mean mean no design right?

 

[leroy]

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

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"

"

1 all alternative explanations for FT have a similar problem

2 if any of the premises from the OP is wrong, the argument would fail (therefore its falsifiable) the premises are open to experiments and scientific inquiry (therefore its testable) I can predict that new discoveries on the deeper and fundamental laws would make the FT problem worst (therefore its has predictability) designers can do patterns that are statistically unlikely (therefore explanatory power)

3 the problem is that with "we don't know" what you actually mean is "we don't know, but i know God/design... Is not the correct explanation"

4 agree..... Be my guest, do your reaserch and let me know which explanation is the best and why you think is better thsn design

 

[leroy]

[

By definition, the things you attribute to your god (consciousness, intent, agency, intelligence,...) have physical underpinnings - which require physical energy, atoms, chemistry, brains...

That is quite a claim...... Are you going to support that assertion?....... Or is it just an other example of "I am an Atheist therefore i don't have to support my assertions"



By the way this would completely destroy the FT argument (therefore the argument is testable and falsifiable)

 

[leroy]

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.

I refuted that claim in the exact post that you quoted.....

The Bolzman brain paradox refutes your "infinity claim"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1 all alternative explanations for FT have a similar problem

It's not even clear that what you refer to as FT even requires a special explanation at all. What "alternatives"?
We've been over this also... your claims fall and stand on their own merit, not on the existence or non-existence or merit of other claims. When you wish to discuss your claims about FT, then "alternative explanations" shouldn't even come up in the first place.

As said from the beginning, I'm fine with arguing from the position of "i don't know" for the purpose of discussing YOUR claims, even only for the simple reason to avoid that silly "argument".

2 if any of the premises from the OP is wrong, the argument would fail (therefore its falsifiable) the premises are open to experiments and scientific inquiry (therefore its testable) I can predict that new discoveries on the deeper and fundamental laws would make the FT problem worst (therefore its has predictability) designers can do patterns that are statistically unlikely (therefore explanatory power)

Your premises, and the many problems with it, have been discussed and dissected ad nauseum in this thread by a great a many people. Your continued ignoring and/or handwaving of that will not make it go away.

3 the problem is that with "we don't know" what you actually mean is "we don't know, but i know God/design... Is not the correct explanation"

No. It just means that we don't know.

4 agree..... Be my guest, do your reaserch and let me know which explanation is the best and why you think is better thsn design

I'm not a physicist. And as pointed out a bazillion times already, your claims' merit is independent of whether or not there are "alternatives".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

[
That is quite a claim...... Are you going to support that assertion?

It is supported in the exact same way as your claim about cats requiring physical underpinnings.

All cats you know of are physical and temporal in nature.
All intelligences / consiousnesses / energy / agents we know of are physical and temporal in nature.

If you wish to argue that there are are "spaceless, timeless, immaterial" agents, then upto you to demonstrate such things exist. Good luck with that.

....... Or is it just an other example of "I am an Atheist therefore i don't have to support my assertions"

Nope.

Every single example we have of intelligences / consioucnesses / agents, are physical and temporal.
Just like every single example we have of cats are physical and temporal.

By the way this would completely destroy the FT argument (therefore the argument is testable and falsifiable)

Please...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I refuted that claim in the exact post that you quoted.....

The Bolzman brain paradox refutes your "infinity claim"

Your undemonstrable thought experiment does not disprove basic probability.

Anything with a probability above 0 will occur an infinite amount of times if one gets an infinite amount of trials. By definition of infinity.

 

[leroy]

It's not even clear that what you refer to as FT even requires a special explanation at all. What "alternatives"?
.

The alternatives that have been discussed by academics (inflationary multiverses, cyclic universes, anthorpic principle, the “deep and fundamental laws allow for a wider rage” the FT is just a misinterpretation etc.

I am arguing that design is the best explanation, you ether agree and we can shake hands and move to a different topic, or disagree and explain which is the best alternative and explain why is better than design ………. If you say “I don’t know” then do some research look at the alternatives and after you do that let us know which do you think is the best explanation

 

[leroy]

t.[/QUOTE]

Nope.

Every single example we have of intelligences / consioucnesses / agents, are physical and temporal.
Just like every single example we have of cats are physical and temporal.

...

I am not basing my argument on cats on “what we observe” having matter is part of the definition of being a cat………. Anything immaterial would not be considered a cat according to all the definitions that I am aware of.

You are asserting that agency, will, intentionality etc are necessarily material…….please support your assertion.

 

[leroy]

Your undemonstrable thought experiment does not disprove basic probability.

Anything with a probability above 0 will occur an infinite amount of times if one gets an infinite amount of trials. By definition of infinity.

Granted, but “everything above 0%” includes the possibility that the universe is simple with high entropy (say with 1 star and 1 planet) and that your observations of many stars and galaxies are just a dream, or an illusion…………..or perhaps you are just a bolzman brain

This probability is much higher than the probability of an actual FT universe with low entropy and many stars and planets

Which would lead to a reduction ad absurdum because all your observations would be just a dream and therefore useless to determine truth.

This was explained in the very post that you quoted and you ignore it…………….you don’t have to agree with this, but it would be appreciated if you can explain exactly where is your point of disagreement, and explain why you disagree.,

 

[leroy]

Disagree.

When we "recognise" artwork we only do so because of a priori knowledge of "artists".

Ok, pretend you have amnesia, you don’t have prior memories of you ever looking at an artwork, a car, or a computer……………….then you find any of these things……do you honestly think that there wouldn’t be any objective way to test is any of this is design?

 

[Valjean]

3 the problem is that with "we don't know" what you actually mean is "we don't know, but i know God/design... Is not the correct explanation"

That's not true. That's your defensive, knee-jerk assumption.

The point is that Goddidit is neither fact based or valid, nor is it an explanation. We reject it 'cause it's based on nothing. It's just pulled out of your hat -- or your folklore. We reject it for the same reason you reject these creation myths: List of creation myths - Wikipedia

Come up with a fact or observation based hypothesis and we'll consider it, but don't expect rational people to seriously consider faerie tales.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, pretend you have amnesia, you don’t have prior memories of you ever looking at an artwork, a car, or a computer……………….then you find any of these things……do you honestly think that there wouldn’t be any objective way to test is any of this is design?

What test do you suggest?

And just to be clear: you're suggesting that if something fails this test, this is a sign that it was not designed, right?

 

[leroy]

That's not true. That's your defensive, knee-jerk assumption.

The point is that Goddidit is neither fact based or valid, nor is it an explanation. We reject it 'cause it's based on nothing. It's just pulled out of your hat -- or your folklore. We reject it for the same reason you reject these creation myths: List of creation myths - Wikipedia

Come up with a fact or observation based hypothesis and we'll consider it, but don't expect rational people to seriously consider faerie tales.

Again the design Hypothesis was supported both in this thread and in the sources………… please spot your points of disagreement so that we can focus on them.,……………..you are expected to interact with the argument, you are expected to spot the factual mistakes or the logical fallacies.

 

[leroy]

What test do you suggest?

it has a pattern? for example an arrow hittign the center of a bulls eye

is the pattern unlikelly to be a product of chance?.........yes there are many possible spots where the arrow could hit.................

do the laws of nature have a tendency towards creatign that pattern?..............is there a magnet or something that "moves" the arrow towards the center? (probably not)

if you answer yes, yes no..............then you can conclude design.



do you have a better test in mind?

And just to be clear: you're suggesting that if something fails this test, this is a sign that it was not designed, right?

no, I am suggesting that if something passes the test it´s design...................something that is "no-design" shouldnt pass the test (otherwise the test would fail)

if it doesnt pass the test, then we dont know if it´s design or not.