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

[osgart]

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

I don't consider it weak.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Right - the tautology: because the universe is exactly what it is, it's exactly what it is; if the universe were different, it would be different.

Trivially true, but not useful or meaningful.

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

Why would that be a "problem?" There are plenty of things that we have no explanation for.

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)…………..

But again: unlikely random events happen all the time.

But if they were a product of whatever "natural laws" are at play beyond this universe - which neither of us are in a position to speak with knowledge about - then the universe we see would not necessarily be unlikely?

And yes as I said before I claimed that the BB Paradox refutes any “chance hypothesis” including multiverse modeles.

Yeah - I saw you going on about Boltzmann Brains earlier. I deliberately didn't engage with it because it struck me as irrelevant and full of enough bad assumptions on your part that I had no interest in untangling them to the point where we could have a reasonable conversation about whatever point you thought you were making.

 

[Valjean]

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.

And yet all their anatomy can be explained as a natural, unintelligent product of natural selection.

 

[osgart]

And yet all their anatomy can be explained as a natural, unintelligent product of natural selection.

How so? Where do I find such info?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so? Where do I find such info?

A biology class would be a good place to start. And perhaps throw in a philosophy of science so that you can understand the basics of science such as the scientific method and the concept of evidence.

 

[osgart]

A biology class would be a good place to start. And perhaps throw in a philosophy of science so that you can understand the basics of science such as the scientific method and the concept of evidence.

It's a lengthy explanation that proves no intellect is involved?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a lengthy explanation that proves no intellect is involved?

It demonstrates that none is needed. If people want to claim that an intelligence was involved the burden of proof is upon them.

 

[Valjean]

How so? Where do I find such info?

How did you not learn this in high school? It's elementary biology. It's also basic paleontology, genetics, anatomy, physiology, embryology, medicine and geology.

Life evolves; it changes over time, little by little, at all levels, from the molecular to the anatomic. The whole field of biology is the study of how this happens, what mechanisms are in play.
The mechanisms of evolution are outlined in every biology book. They're well known, demonstrable, observable, predictive. The sequences of change, their steps and causes, are all common knowledge -- at least I thought so....

Google mechanisms of evolution or natural selection -- or read any basic biology textbook or magazine.

 

[Valjean]

It's a lengthy explanation that proves no intellect is involved?

It demonstrates that no intellect is needed; that an intentional manipulator is extraneous.

It's a series of simple, observable changes, with obvious causes, that require no intentional, outside manipulation.

Like water running downhill, there is physics involved, but no intentional manipulation is needed; no god is needed to push it downhill.

 

[osgart]

It demonstrates that no intellect is needed.; that an intentional manipulator is extraneous.

It's a series of simple, observable changes, with obvious causes, that require no intentional, outside manipulation.

Like water running downhill, there is physics involved, but no intentional manipulation is needed; no god is needed to push it downhill.

I'm fine with evolution right up until the point that it is unintelligent.

I never bought into an outside manipulator.

My idea is that there must be an internal adaptive programming that learns from experience trial and error. An intelligence that takes chances and risks to produce novel functions with inherent purposes.

 

[osgart]

Also how do you know there is one single common ancestor for all of life?

Life would be a one time event in a just right environment.

My idea is that it happens in waves until life takes root.

 

[Valjean]

I'm fine with evolution right up until the point that it is unintelligent.

I never bought into an outside manipulator.

My idea is that there must be an internal adaptive programming that learns from experience trial and error. An intelligence that takes chances and risks to produce novel functions with inherent purposes.

Such a mechanism is unnecessary. No learning is needed. That's the point of natural selection: Variation occurs naturally -- just look at a litter of puppies.

Some variations are maladaptive. Individuals with these are less successful and have less reproductive success. Others prove useful and their possessors are better adapted and more reproductively successful. The incidence of genes coding for the useful variation increase in the population and slowly become the norm -- easy peasy.
No intelligence, planning or intentional manipulation needed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm fine with evolution right up until the point that it is unintelligent.

I never bought into an outside manipulator.

My idea is that there must be an internal adaptive programming that learns from experience trial and error. An intelligence that takes chances and risks to produce novel functions with inherent purposes.

Why believe that? And you know what the next step is. You need to find evidence for your beliefs.

 

[osgart]

Is evolution more intelligent than we thought?

I thought this article was an interesting take on evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The FT argument doesn’t conclude “God did it” the conclusion is an intelligent designer did it…

Ow please, let's not play that silly game.

The only reason why you consider an "intelligent designer" a likely option, is because you already believe that one exists (god). This is why ID is fundamentally a religious argument.

You already believe that a god designed the universe. This FT thing, along with every other apologetic argument, only exists because you are trying to rationalize that belief. This is you trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow.

………the name/nature/origin/attributes. Etc,. of the designer are an independent topic.

Uhu, uhu.

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

No, it's based on ignorance and a priori religious beliefs, as I have shown so many times now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

So pretty much a useless tautology that says that things are as they are and if if things were different, then things would be different.

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

If there is no such explanation, then that just means that there is no such explanation.

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)

Rolling all 6's with 50 dice is unlikely
Equally unlikely as any other combination of 50 dice.

And inevitable if you get enough trials.

And inevitable also if all dice only have 6's on all sides.

I also note that any of these options require less assumptions then your "design" claim. Far less. Like, humongously less.

…………..And yes as I said before I claimed that the BB Paradox refutes any “chance hypothesis” including multiverse modeles.

Theoretical physicists obviously disagree with you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It makes no testable predictions.
It requires extra-ordinary assumptions.
It doesn't account for facts - it just makes declarations.


You are non-the-wiser concerning the "problem".
You said the "problem" is having no answer to the question "WHY are the values as they are?"

The answer of "god dun it" does not answer that.
You still don't know why the values are as they are.
"because that's how god did it", is not an answer to that question.

You still know nothing about the values, you don't know if they even CAN be different, you don't know if other combinations are possible... you don't know why a designer would choose those values over others if they can be different.

You know nothing more after claiming god-dun-it then you knew before.

It's just a bare claim with no explanatory power whatsoever and to make it even worse, it's concluded from an argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

If by "naturalist" you mean someone who believes almost religiously / dogmatically that there is "nothing else but nature", then I do not qualify.

Do I believe there IS something beyond nature? No.... But that does not mean that I also commit to the opposite position. The fact is that I don't know.

I'll go with whatever the evidence supports. If @leroy can give me valid evidence for beings with agency "beyond" the universe, whatever that means, who are capable of creating universes, I'll be happy to accept that evidence and consider the implications.


But WHY on earth would I ponder the possibility of literally unverifiable, untestable, unevidenced, unfalsifiable claims that are literally indistinguishable from sheer imagination and fantasy?

Such claims are literally potentially infinite in number, only really limited by the depth of human imagination.

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

What do you mean by that? You mean, how do you tell the difference between a natural object and an artificially produced one? How to recognize a watch on the beach?

By looking for signs of manufacturing. It requires prior knowledge of processes of artificial manipulation of materials and objects.

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.

I'ld rather say that there is no reason for considering something more.
There is no evidence indicating that there is something more.
There is no data suggesting there is something more.


I'ld be happy to consider the something more when I'm given a valid reason to.

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.

Once such an intelligent creation is discovered you mean. Sure. It would be very exciting, no doubt.


I'm reminded of a remark given by Bill Nye once about the supernatural and evidence etc.
Paraphrasing:

"People come upto me and ask me 'Hey Bill.. Do you believe in ghosts?' Well..... Noooooo. HOWEVER... I would LOVE to meet one! So bring it on, show me what you got. But nobody seems to be able to. So yeah...."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Bare opinionated claims motivated by religious beliefs.
Argument from awe and incredulity.

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

Maybe that's your problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right - the tautology: because the universe is exactly what it is, it's exactly what it is; if the universe were different, it would be different.

Ha, funny... Wrote my post before reading yours and it's almost word for word what I wrote.