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

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

None of these ideas, models or concepts exist for the purpose of "explaining FT".
It's just you that is pitting them against it.

I am arguing that design is the best explanation

What you have, is not an "explanation". We've been over this.

or disagree and explain which is the best alternative and explain why is better than design

1. your "design" claim is not an explanation, as it has no explanatory power

2. I don't even necessarily agree there is something to explain

3. your "design" claim falls or stands on its own merits, not on the existence or non-exisence of "alternative" explanations to your potentially made up problem.

Again, we've been over all of this.

………. 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

Any actual explanation would be better then your non-explanation.

Saying that we don't have an explanation, would even be better then your non-explanation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Anything immaterial would not be considered an intelligent agent according to all the definitions that I am aware of either.

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

anyting you can point to that has such features, is a material thing. Those things are properties of physical entities. They aren't entities by themselves. Agency, intentionality, will, intelligence,... are descriptive properties / attributes of physical creatures or computer systems, Physical creatures, like cats.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

So?

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

Both will occur an infinite amount of times if both have a probability above 0. By definition of infinity.

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

In an infinity of universe this will not be the case.

Your silly "you might be in the matrix" argument is what is absurd.

This was explained in the very post that you quoted and you ignore it……………

I'm not ignoring it.
I'm saying anything with a probability above 0 will occur an infinite amount of times given infinite amount of trials.

You're the one who seems to want to ignore an infinite amount of universe in which reality is as we experience it. For some reason, you only wish to keep into account those universes in which you are a brain in a vat type thing where reality is just a simulation or whatever.

.you don’t have to agree with this,

I don't see why I would have to agree to ignoring an infinite amount of universes, only to accommodate for your non-argument.

but it would be appreciated if you can explain exactly where is your point of disagreement, and explain why you disagree.,

I already did. Multiple times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

If you are a blank slate with 0 prior experience of reality, natural objects and manipulation thereof, then you wouldn't even know what the difference between "natural" and "artificial" is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Then it's an argument from ignorance.

It's hidden away through semantic trickery, but it's an argument from ignorance.

The semantic trickery is in the formulation of the question "do the laws of nature have a tendency towards creatign that pattern?".

What the ACTUAL question is: "do we know of such laws?"

Furthermore, this is fallacious in another way also.
It relies on negative evidence, as what it comes down to is that this does NOT offer evidential support FOR design. Instead, it only points to the lack of evidence FOR natural phenomenon.

See? You routinely make this mistake. As I said multiple times already: your claims fall and stand on their OWN merit, not on the existence or failures of OTHER claims.


Your test is therefor utterly useless and would never result in conclusive or trustworthy answers.

do you have a better test in mind?

Yes. And it's only a single question.

Does it bear hallmarks of design / manufacturing? (carving, soldering, trademarks, use of non-natural occuring materials like plastic and copper wire, paint, etc etc etc etc).

no, I am suggesting that if something passes the test it´s design

Demonstrably false. And this has already been addressed and explained in another thread of yours, when you were making the exact same fallacious argument concerning "specified complexity":

A simple case for intelligent design | Page 138 | Religious Forums

Like a real loyal cdesign proponentsist, you continue parotting the same fallacious arguments over and over and over, no matter how many times they are exposed as fallacious

...................something that is "no-design" shouldnt pass the test (otherwise the test would fail)

False. As the example in the linked thread demonstrated. AS YOU YOURSELF ACKNOWLEDGED, since it can, and inevitably will, result in false positives. That's how it goes with arguments from ignorance.

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

Again: useless test.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

One arrow hitting a bullseye isn't a pattern in and of itself, so I'm not sure what you mean.

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 it's a process that you know nothing about, why would you decide that it couldn't have been some law of nature causing the result?

Have you ever heard of pulsars?

It sounds as if you're saying that unless a person has very good knowledge of how a thing works and of the forces and factors affecting it, then they aren't in a position to infer design.

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

So far, I can't tell what you mean by "pattern," which means I wouldn't be able to answer any of the questions at all about anything.

do you have a better test in mind?

Yes: start by identifying a mechanism for design and by comparing the thing against other things that you've already established were designed.

An example: you find a depression in the ground that's roughly the size and shape of an ancient Greek amphitheater. You identify three possibilities (assuming that you've excluded that it's a deliberate fraud):

1. It really was a Greek amphitheater that's been weathered over time.
2. It's a natural formation that just happens to look like an amphitheater by coincidence.
3. It's some other designed feature, not an amphitheater, that just happens to look like an amphitheater by coincidence.

One of the questions you would try to answer to establish #1 is whether this could have even been something the ancient Greeks could have built. If the depression is in a part of the world where there's no record of the ancient Greeks ever visiting, let alone settling, then this makes option #1 implausible... regardless of any "pattern" that you identify in the depression.

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.

Why wouldn't we infer a lack of design if something fails the test?

To use your analogy, if arrows are all over the target - or miss the target completely - why wouldn't we be able to infer that the result shows a lack of design?

After all, there are only two ways to get that result:

- whatever was shooting those arrows wasn't intending to hit the target (i.e. there was no design at all), or
- whatever was shooting the arrows was a bad shot: they were unable to translate a desire to hit the bullseye into actually hitting the bullseye (i.e. the outcome was undesigned even if design was intended).

It's like the old watchmaker argument: if you find a watch on the beach, the argument says that you can infer that the watch is designed because it stands out against an undesigned background. It's only the fact that the sand on the beach is undesigned that would allow one to recognize the watch as designed.

 

[leroy]

None of these ideas, models or concepts exist for the purpose of "explaining FT".
It's just you that is pitting them against it.

Yes scientists do recognize a FT tuning problem and they are proposing explanations for such observations.

1. your "design" claim is not an explanation, as it has no explanatory power

Support your assertion....................excactly what do you mean with explanatory power and why design fails?

2. I don't even necessarily agree there is something to explain

Well do you agree or disagree on that there is a FT problem?........please make direct claims

3. your "design" claim falls or stands on its own merits, not on the existence or non-exisence of "alternative" explanations to your potentially made up problem.

Well being the best explanation is a good merit…………..so I would say that the argument stands under that merit.

Saying that we don't have an explanation, would even be better then your non-explanation.

justify your assertin, why is it a no-explanation?.................what does no-explanation even mean?

 

[Valjean]

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.

The design hypothesis is based on nothing but appeal to (religious) authority and personal incredulity. Why is "God did it" any more credible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional mice did it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well do you agree or disagree on that there is a FT problem?........please make direct claims

If there is a fine tuning "problem" at all, you certainly haven't clearly expressed what the problem would be.

You've told us that the conditions that allow for life are unlikely. You never really backed this up, but even if we take it as given... unlikely things happen all the time. By itself, this is no reason to assume that a "designer" was somehow required to orchestrate everything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes scientists do recognize a FT tuning problem and they are proposing explanations for such observations.

I think you are conflating here.
Scientists are trying to work out why, or rather how, things are the way they are. That would include things like values of constants and the question if universes with other values could exist or if our universe could have been different. But those are just some of the facts of the entire set that is being addressed.

Inflation theory, for example, is not something that exists specifically to address those particular facts that you call the "ft problem", like you like to pretend.

Some sleight of hand is going on here.

Support your assertion....................excactly what do you mean with explanatory power and why design fails?

It's just a declaration. It doesn't explain anything.
You have become none the wiser by declaring "god dun it".
It makes no testable predictions that you can independently and objectively verify.


Explanatory power - Wikipedia

Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to explain the subject matter effectively to which it pertains. Its opposite is explanatory impotence.

In the past, various criteria or measures for explanatory power have been proposed. In particular, one hypothesis, theory, or explanation can be said to have more explanatory power than another about the same subject matter

• if more facts or observations are accounted for;
• if it changes more "surprising facts" into "a matter of course" (following Peirce);
• if more details of causal relations are provided, leading to a high accuracy and precision of the description;
• if it offers greater predictive power (if it offers more details about what should be expected to be seen and not seen);
• if it depends less on authorities and more on observations;
• if it makes fewer assumptions;
• if it is more falsifiable (more testable by observation or experiment, according to Popper).

Well do you agree or disagree on that there is a FT problem?

I don't know. It seems to me that we would have to know more about the nature of the universe and what the process is of origination of a universe (or univeres).

If a space-time continuum can only exist with these constants, then I don't think it's very surprising that we observe these constants in the space-time continuum we exist in.

If these are "true" constants, as in they can't have other values, then it's also not surprising that they have the values that they do.

If there is a multi-verse that produces an infinite amount of universes with random configurations then again it is not surprising that we live in a configuration in which we can live.

So, I think you are focussing entirely on the wrong question.
It seems to me that what you really need is a theory of universe origination. And we don't have that.



And the problem is that in your "test" as you have just described it, this unknown makes the answer to your final question "no, there is no known natural process that explains these values". Which according to your fallacious test means that therefor it is designed.

But it's just unknown. You don't have the necessary intel to make this assessment. And your fallacious test doesn't work as it results in an argument from ignorance. Always. Even when it's known before hand that it's designed.

Your very test on a car for example... Argument from ignorance.
Is there a known natural process that creates cars? No. Therefor design. Argument from ignorance.

The conclusion is correct in this case. But the reasoning is still fallacious. It uses to ignorance as support for a claim.

........please make direct claims

I'll leave the making of claims about things we couldn't possibly know to cdesign proponentsists.

Well being the best explanation is a good merit…………..so I would say that the argument stands under that merit.

/facepalm

justify your assertin, why is it a no-explanation?.................what does no-explanation even mean?

Already said it countless times.

- makes zero predictions
- not testable
- not verifiable
- zero explanatory power

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some slide of hand is going on here.

Ow! I gave you a "Winner" but this hurt. Not quite as big of a pet peeve with me as "I could care less" but the phrase is "sleight of hand". It is an easy error to make since the word "sleight" tends to be used only in this phrase:

Sleight of hand - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ow! I gave you a "Winner" but this hurt. Not quite as big of a pet peeve with me as "I could care less" but the phrase is "sleight of hand". It is an easy error to make since the word "sleight" tends to be used only in this phrase:

Sleight of hand - Wikipedia

I knew it when I wrote it! I was thinking "this can't possibly be correct", literally. It just didn't look right. lol.
But at the same time, I didn't have a clue on how to write it correctly and was too lazy to look it up

I'm going to forgive myself as english is not my native language.

But thanks for the correction and the rating.


I did edit it out though, before the grammar police gets here...

 

[leroy]

The design hypothesis is based on nothing but appeal to (religious) authority and personal incredulity. Why is "God did it" any more credible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional mice did it?

The FT argument doesn’t conclude “God did it” the conclusion is an intelligent designer did it…………the name/nature/origin/attributes. Etc,. of the designer are an independent topic.

Its not based on authority, is based on recognizing a pattern that can’t be explained by chance nor necessity.

 

[leroy]

If there is a fine tuning "problem" at all, you certainly haven't clearly expressed what the problem would be.

You've told us that the conditions that allow for life are unlikely. You never really backed this up, but even if we take it as given... unlikely things happen all the time. By itself, this is no reason to assume that a "designer" was somehow required to orchestrate everything.

FT simply means that there are multiple independent values that allow the existance of stars, molecules, chemistry, atoms etc. (and other stuff necessary for life)….such that if the values would have been a little bit different ,this stuff would have not occur.

With problem I simply mean that there is no explanation for why we have these values.

I didn’t say that these values are unlikely………….I said that they are unlikely if we assume that they are a product of chance (say a random quantum event)…………..And yes as I said before I claimed that the BB Paradox refutes any “chance hypothesis” including multiverse modeles.

 

[leroy]

Explanatory power - Wikipedia

Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis or theory to explain the subject matter effectively to which it pertains. Its opposite is explanatory impotence.

In the past, various criteria or measures for explanatory power have been proposed. In particular, one hypothesis, theory, or explanation can be said to have more explanatory power than another about the same subject matter

• if more facts or observations are accounted for;
• if it changes more "surprising facts" into "a matter of course" (following Peirce);
• if more details of causal relations are provided, leading to a high accuracy and precision of the description;
• if it offers greater predictive power (if it offers more details about what should be expected to be seen and not seen);
• if it depends less on authorities and more on observations;
• if it makes fewer assumptions;
• if it is more falsifiable (more testable by observation or experiment, according to Popper).

Ok that is the definition of explanatory power………….why does design fail to have explanatory power (using that definition) ?........... be specific.

 

[osgart]

These arguments boil down to sequiturs and non sequiturs. Naturalists are going to have contrary sequiturs to those that are accepting of intelligent creation.

A naturalist isn't going to investigate intelligent creation. Anything but that as a matter of fact. No foot in the door is their attitude toward it.

So my question to them is how would you infer a natural intelligent system?

As I understand it everything is eventually explainable by discovering extrinsic behaviors and processes. The how is the why with nothing deeper or intrinsic to any system. They have a final conclusion that physical behavior is all there is, and there is nothing more to consider.

Once an intelligent creation is concluded on the other hand then people have to accept higher dimensions, and deal in abstract qualities intrinsic to a phenomenon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These arguments boil down to sequiturs and non sequiturs. Naturalists are going to have contrary sequiturs to those that are accepting of intelligent creation.

A naturalist isn't going to investigate intelligent creation. Anything but that as a matter of fact. No foot in the door is their attitude toward it.

So my question to them is how would you infer a natural intelligent system?

As I understand it everything is eventually explainable by discovering extrinsic behaviors and processes. The how is the why with nothing deeper or intrinsic to any system. They have a final conclusion that physical behavior is all there is, and there is nothing more to consider.

Once an intelligent creation is concluded on the other hand then people have to accept higher dimensions, and deal in abstract qualities intrinsic to a phenomenon.

The burden of proof does rely on the person making a positive assertion. So of course people that do not believe in a designer are not going to be the ones that look into a problem. Nor could they do so fairly. The question you should be asking is "If there was an intelligent designer why can't believers find any scientific evidence for it?".

 

[Valjean]

The FT argument doesn’t conclude “God did it” the conclusion is an intelligent designer did it…………the name/nature/origin/attributes. Etc,. of the designer are an independent topic.

Its not based on authority, is based on recognizing a pattern that can’t be explained by chance nor necessity.

OK, then. "Intelligent Designer" did it -- I don't see any substantial difference here.

Much of the patterning can be explained today.
Apparently you're unaware of the biology and chemistry, and the physics and cosmogeny tend to be even more abstruse. Granted, there's a lot we don't know about, but being unable to explain something is not evidence of design, intelligent or not. It's a false equivalence. To be a valid hypothesis, intentionality and design need some actual evidence, and some explanatory and predictive power.

Only a couple centuries ago we could 'explain' almost nothing, but this wasn't evidence of intelligent design then, and it's not now. "I don't know, therefore, Intelligent Designer" doesn't follow.

The mysteries people pointed to as evidence for God two centuries ago all turned out to have natural, unintentional explanations. Why do you think today's mysteries are any different?

 

[osgart]

The burden of proof does rely on the person making a positive assertion. So of course people that do not believe in a designer are not going to be the ones that look into a problem. Nor could they do so fairly. The question you should be asking is "If there was an intelligent designer why can't believers find any scientific evidence for it?".

Intelligent creation is an inference from observations of life and nature. Body plans exhibit purpose in their inherent functionality.

I don't see a need to be scientific about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Intelligent creation is an inference from observations of life and nature. Body plans exhibit purpose in their inherent functionality.

I don't see a need to be scientific about it.

Then there is by definition no evidence for it. Why believe a very weak inference?