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

[leroy]

Not a single theoretical physicist is discarding Inflation Theory because of your silly "bb paradox",

Strawman...

Nobody is saying that you should reject inflation or the existance of other universes because of the BB paradox.

The BB paradox simply states that even if there is a multiverse, to say that the FT was caused by chance wouldn't be an adequate explanation......


So with that said....... Do you agree on that the BB paradox refutes any chance hypothesis? If not why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Strawman...

Nobody is saying that you should reject inflation or the existance of other universes because of the BB paradox.

The BB paradox simply states that even if there is a multiverse, to say that the FT was caused by chance wouldn't be an adequate explanation......


So with that said....... Do you agree on that the BB paradox refutes any chance hypothesis? If not why not?

The "BB paradox" is not even a paradox. It is just another unsupported claim.

 

[leroy]

If the universe was created 10 minutes ago, then the creator could have created the universe 10 mintues ago, including our memories of having lived our entire lives. Agree?

Agree, this 10 minute "theory" has explanatory power........ (you would reject the argument on the basis of other arguments...... Not on the basis of explanatory power)



To say that "design" has zero explanatory power, " implias thst you are claiming that even if a designer exists it wouldn't be an adequate explanation for the FT.............. So if this is your view, support it.

 

[leroy]

The "BB paradox" is not even a paradox. It is just another unsupported claim.

Dont call it "paradox if you don't want" yiu can use any label that you want.


The point is that it represents an insuperable obstacle for chance hypothesis....


If you disagree feel free to explain exactly what you disagree

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dont call it "paradox if you don't want" yiu can use any label that you want.


The point is that it represents an insuperable obstacle for chance hypothesis....


If you disagree feel free to explain exactly what you disagree

Nope, it is only unsupported hand waving. You try to act as if it were a fact since you obviously cannot support it. Hitchen's razor eliminates it.

 

[exchemist]

@9-10ths_Penguin already refuted the argument from intermediate fossils...... Dobt you see its a tautology




So there is nothing special, if instead of feathered dinosaurs we would have found something else then you would say that "something else" evolved

If @9-10ths_Penguin has refuted my point, why did he give me a "winner" frubal for making it?

It looks to me as if you have got this round your neck.

 

[leroy]

If @9-10ths_Penguin has refuted my point, why did he give me a "winner" frubal for making it?

It looks to me as if you have got this round your neck.

Well the comment that you are quoting has a rebuttal to the intermediate fossils argument...... What is wrong with that argument?


This would be the argument against the pattarn that we see in the fossil record

(borrowed from @9-10ths_Penguin)

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

 

[leroy]

Nope, it is only unsupported hand waving. You try to act as if it were a fact since you obviously cannot support it. Hitchen's razor eliminates it.

I did suported multiple times


Yiu are the one who was to explain exactly where is the mistake or the flaw

 

[exchemist]

Well the comment that you are quoting has a rebuttal to the intermediate fossils argument...... What is wrong with that argument?


This would be the argument against the pattarn that we see in the fossil record

(borrowed from @9-10ths_Penguin)

Aha. So yes, you have missed the point.

The point is that the theory of evolution predicts there should be fossils intermediate between forms, in rocks of the right age. So evolution addresses the question of how birds got their feathers by predicting that some intermediate form should be present, in strata not too far in age from the appearance of birds, in which feathers have been acquired. And that is what has been found.

Similarly there was an expectation, inspired by the predictions of the theory of evolution, for an intermediate form between mammal quadrupeds and whales, in rocks of an age intermediate between the appearance of mammals and of whales. And then they found Pakicetus.

Those are successful predictions of evolution. If we had no theory of evolution, there would be no reason to expect such fossils to be found, and no reason to expect them in rocks of any particular age.

 

[leroy]

Aha. So yes, you have missed the point.

The point is that the theory of evolution predicts there should be fossils intermediate between forms, in rocks of the right age. So evolution addresses the question of how birds got their feathers by predicting that some intermediate form should be present, in strata not too far in age from the appearance of birds, in which feathers have been acquired. And that is what has been found.

In the same way the FT predicts that the values fall in a narrow life permitting rage ... I can even predict that the rage will become even narrower as our understanding of the fundamental laws increases


.

Those are successful predictions of evolution. If we had no theory of evolution, there would be no reason to expect such fossils to be found, and no reason to expect them in rocks of any particular age.

Ohhh thats an evolution of the gaps argument ....... Just because we dont know why we have the pattern that we see in the fossil record.... You can't simply say "evolution did it"

 

[exchemist]

In the same way the FT predicts that the values fall in a narrow life permitting rage ... I can even predict that the rage will become even narrower as our understanding of the fundamental laws increases


.


Ohhh thats an evolution of the gaps argument ....... Just because we dont know why we have the pattern that we see in the fossil record.... You can't simply say "evolution did it"

Try to get hold of the idea of prediction.

Without the theory of evolution:

a ) we would not predict intermediate forms,

b ) nor would we have any idea in what rocks they should be found.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well the comment that you are quoting has a rebuttal to the intermediate fossils argument...... What is wrong with that argument?


This would be the argument against the pattarn that we see in the fossil record

(borrowed from @9-10ths_Penguin)

You okay?

Should we take this as a cry for help or something?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Strawman...

Nobody is saying that you should reject inflation or the existance of other universes because of the BB paradox.

The BB paradox simply states that even if there is a multiverse, to say that the FT was caused by chance wouldn't be an adequate explanation......

No. As per your own admission, a multi-verse that yields an infinite amount of universes, would by definition yield an infinite amount of "FT universes", if the probability of yielding such a universe is not 0.

Your "argument" is self defeating.

So with that said....... Do you agree on that the BB paradox refutes any chance hypothesis? If not why not?

We've already been over this.
It does not, as per your own acknowledgement of the probability being not zero.
Only a probability of zero means that something is impossible.

 

[exchemist]

You okay?

Should we take this as a cry for help or something?

Yes, this is weird. Deliberate obtuseness as a last resort?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agree, this 10 minute "theory" has explanatory power......

LOL!!!!!!

There you have it folks.

According to @leroy Last Thursdayism has "explanatory power".

You know what this reminds me off?
When Michael Behe was trying to make ID pass of as a proper "scientific theory", he had to redefine what "scientific theory" means to make ID qualify. An unfortunate side effect of that was that he then also had to acknowledge that according to his "altered" definition, astrology was a proper scientific theory as well. You know, like.... horoscopes and stuff


It's exactly what you do here. In order to be able to say that your fallacious FT claims have "explanatory power", you have to redefine what explanatory power means to the point that any made up answer qualifies by sheer virtue that it is presented as "an answer". And as a side effect, you have to acknowledge that frikkin' Last Thursdayism, has explanatory power also.


Honestly.... how do you expect me, or us, to take you seriously?

.. (you would reject the argument on the basis of other arguments...... Not on the basis of explanatory power)

I could, but I wouldn't need to. Pointing out that it's a claim with zero predictive power, with zero testability, with zero falsifiability and thus with zero explanatory power, is by itself more then enough to reject it.

Because what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

And claims with no testability, no verifiability, no predictive capacity and thus zero explanatory power, can't have evidence by definition! See, you actually need predictive power, verifiability, etc... to even be able to formulate what would qualify as evidence (for AND against the proposition!)........................

To say that "design" has zero explanatory power, " implias thst you are claiming that even if a designer exists it wouldn't be an adequate explanation for the FT.............. So if this is your view, support it.

No. It implies that it has no predictive capacity, no verifiability, no testability, no falsifiability,... which means that it is a bare claim without evidence that even can't have any evidence.

It's indistinguishable from sheer fantasy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dont call it "paradox if you don't want" yiu can use any label that you want.


The point is that it represents an insuperable obstacle for chance hypothesis....

Again, if that were true, then theoretical physicists would all instantly discard any theory that predicts a multi-verse. Because this multi-verse = a thing that generates universes ad infinitum, each with its own set of laws and constants and what not.

If you disagree feel free to explain exactly what you disagree

Your "bb paradox" is just a thought experiment with no grounding in reality whatsoever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well the comment that you are quoting has a rebuttal to the intermediate fossils argument...... What is wrong with that argument?


This would be the argument against the pattarn that we see in the fossil record

(borrowed from @9-10ths_Penguin)

The difference is, off course, that nobody makes useless tautology arguments to try and support evolution, while you DO make useless tautology arguments to try and support your fallacious design claims.

When we pointed out your use of a useless tautology, we pointed out YOUR USE OF IT.

While your useless tautology thing about evolution, is something you made up yourself.

Because in reality, if the fossil record were different, then it would potentially be in violation of evolution's predictions.

If the fossil record would have mammals in he pre-cambrian, evolution wouldn't be able to explain that.
But don't let intellectual honesty get in your way....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, this is weird. Deliberate obtuseness as a last resort?

It's always how his threads end up.

It goes on for 140-ish pages of repeating the same PRATTS ad nauseum until he's SO stuck in the hole he dug for himself and then he lets the thread die.

A couple weeks later, it begins again in a new thread, pretty much covering the exact same PRATTS all over again.

Go scan the thread A simple case for intelligent design | Religious Forums

You'll see an exceptionally close match between the "logic" exhibited here as was used there.
It's the same cdesign proponentsists arguments over and over and over.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, this is weird. Deliberate obtuseness as a last resort?

I get the impression - and I might be wrong - that @leroy is more worried about winning the argument than making a correct argument.

This was the only way I could make sense of his shifting of the burden of proof and a lot of his hand-waving and goalpost-moving throughout the thread.

The latest bizarre ranting fits into that pattern if we assume that he would interpret everyone leaving the thread in confusion would count as a win... some sort of "last man standing" thing.

This is all just my impression, though.

 

[exchemist]

I get the impression - and I might be wrong - that @leroy is more worried about winning the argument than making a correct argument.

This was the only way I could make sense of his shifting of the burden of proof and a lot of his hand-waving and goalpost-moving throughout the thread.

The latest bizarre ranting fits into that pattern if we assume that he would interpret everyone leaving the thread in confusion would count as a win... some sort of "last man standing" thing.

This is all just my impression, though.

I've seen that sort of thing before, certainly. In fact another poster has been trying it on another thread over the last 48hrs.