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

[leroy]

Holy crap! You don't know the difference between an assertion and an observation. Try again.

By the way you in effect confirmed my observation when you were forced to find an actual peer reviewed journal.

You are accusing me of taking the paper out of context....... Why wouldn't you support that accusation.? ..........

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nether do I.....

What is your point,?

Do you agree that I supported my assertion properly?

My original assertion (that you disagree with)

The point is that the article referring to Boltzmann brains does not help you case. You would need to quote pertinent parts of the article. In context. And I simply cannot see you doing that to support your claims. You could not do that with any other of your sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are accusing me of taking the paper out of context....... Why wouldn't you support that accusation.? ..........

No, I accused you of claiming to have a peer reviewed article either when that was clearly not the case. I explained to you already why your article was not peer reviewed, even though the burden of proof was not mine. And once again you admitted that you are wrong by trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the same way if the universe wouldn't be FT the argument would collapse....

You can't even clearly define what "ft" is or means so you can't contrast it to a universe that is not "ft".
Any which way the universe is, it would always allow for us to exist if we are here to ask the question and folks like you would then declare it "ft" and claim god dun it.

Making this statement meaningless.

The argument makes specific predictions.

It does not.

For example if the deep fundamental laws allowed for a wide life permitting rage the argument would fail

What argument?

The useless tautology or something else?
Be clear in your answer to this question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And without design we wouldn't predict that life falls in a narrow rage.

That is simply not true. It doesn't follow AT ALL.
Unless you are going to propose a specific mechanism by which the universe was "design", which can only work with this "narrow range", then there is no reason at all to "expect" such a thing.

Further discoveries could confirm or refute this prediction.

Nothing can refute unfalsifiable vagueness.

1 we simply don't know..... We dont know why we have intermediate fossils

False. We expect intermediates in context of an evolutionary history, because the theory actually proposes a mechanism: the gradual accumulation of microchanges over many generations within a reproducting population. The gradual nature of this process inevitably implies the existence of "intermediates".

See, when you propose actual detailed mechanisms, then predictions tend to flow naturally from it.
The predictions don't come from "evolution dun it".
They rather come from "...and here's how evolution dun it... <insert detailed explanation of the mechanisms involved>"

2 argument from ignorance..... We dont know why we have intermediates therefore evolution did it

False. See above.
Intermediates are a necessary result of the process / mechanism of evolution.
This is why evolution wouldn't be able to explain a homo erectus giving birth to a homo sapiens. Because in context of evolution, this doesn't happen over a single generation. It instead happens gradually, over many generation, with thus - by definition - many intermediates between erectus and sapiens.

3 its a tautology

It is not. You should look up the term "tautology". It seems like you have no clue what it means.

4 no no no first you have to show that evolution is true andonky then we can talk about intermidiates

The core mechanism of evolution factually and demonstrably occurs:
- reproduction with variation: newborns come with a set of mutations.
- struggle for survival / natural selection: organisms are in competition with peers over limited resources
- genetic inheritance: creatures pass on their (mutated) DNA to off spring

So yes, the mechanism definatly occurs. If this mechanism is responsible for the development of species, then there's a whole range of things that we should be able to find and NOT find. These things, are the predictions of evolution.

- life is arranged in a nested hierarchy
- this arrangement should be detectable in comparative genomics and comparative anatomy
- the distribution of species, should match up with geological history and the fossil record. Which in turn should match up with the nested hierarchies (evolutionary history) found in comparative genomics and anatomy.

These 3 alone actually already account for literally millions upon millions of specific predictions concerning specific data points.

Heck, the distribution of a single type of genetic marker, like ERV's for example, throughout the collective genome of extant species, already accounts for millions of potential specific predictions. Like: "humans will share more erv's with great apes then any other species". There are millions of species. That's millions of candidates to test to see if they share more erv's with humans then humans do with great apes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No you don't, you simply claim"..... ohhhh its a tautology" without ever justifying the accusation

It was justified. By multiple people.

 

[leroy]

The point is that the article referring to Boltzmann brains does not help you case. You would need to quote pertinent parts of the article. In context. And I simply cannot see you doing that to support your claims. You could not do that with any other of your sources.

Which is exactly what I did………..I quoted the specific part of each of the articles that support my claim…….. but whatever feel free to run away and ignore the data as you usually do.

 

[leroy]

No, I accused you of claiming to have a peer reviewed article either when that was clearly not the case. I explained to you already why your article was not peer reviewed, even though the burden of proof was not mine. And once again you admitted that you are wrong by trying to shift the burden of proof.

Irrelevant, you accused me for quoting out of context, so ether apologize for your false accusation or support your your accusation.

 

[leroy]

You can't even clearly define what "ft" is or means so you can't contrast it to a universe that is not "ft".
Any which way the universe is, it would always allow for us to exist if we are here to ask the question and folks like you would then declare it "ft" and claim god dun it.

A universe that allows for a wider range of values would not be FT and the argument would collapse. FT is an objective and testable concept (that was not invented by religious people)

For example the existence of black holes is possible within a wide range of values, therefore the universe is not FT for the existence of black holes………….if life where like black holes the argument would collapse.

I would actually appreciate if you make an effort and try to understand the argument before making objections.

 

[leroy]

The useless tautology or something else?
Be clear in your answer to this question.

Support your assertion, why is it a tautology?

 

[leroy]

False. We expect intermediates in context of an evolutionary history, because the theory actually proposes a mechanism: the gradual accumulation of microchanges over many generations within a reproducting population. The gradual nature of this process inevitably implies the existence of "intermediates".

Just a blind assertion.

support your claims

 

[leroy]

It was justified. By multiple people.

Aja, care to provide a quote where you or anyone else explains and justifies the “it’s a tautology”?

 

[leroy]

- life is arranged in a nested hierarchy
- this arrangement should be detectable in comparative genomics and comparative anatomy
- the distribution of species, should match up with geological history and the fossil record. Which in turn should match up with the nested hierarchies (evolutionary history) found in comparative genomics and anatomy.

Yes but first you have to show that evolution (common ancestry) is true and only then we can talk about all that stuff.

life is arranged in a nested hierarchy

If we live in a multiverse with potentially infinite universes then we are expected to have all possible combinations of genes

We simply happened to live in universe where our genes are arranged in a pattern that looks like a nested hierchy (NS)…….other universes have different patterns, (or no pattern at all)

(sarcasm obviously)

But the point is that the argument form NS and the FT argument are very similar, in both of the cases we see a complex pattern that can not be explained by chance………..If you expect YECs to actually make an effort and understand the argument and provide real and robust responses if they disagree with NS then you should do the same with the FT argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is exactly what I did………..I quoted the specific part of each of the articles that support my claim…….. but whatever feel free to run away and ignore the data as you usually do.

Nope, the few quotes you took were out of context. A single sentence is always out of context.


And please, don't accuse others of your sins. You run away all of the time. You never properly support your claims. When I make a claim that needs support I will do so. The best you have been able to do is to misunderstand articles that do not support you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Support your assertion, why is it a tautology?

Would you say that this is a fair representation of what you're calling "fine tuning?"

The universe is exactly what it is. If the universe were different, then it would be different, but it's not, so the universe is what it is.

If not, please let me know where I misunderstood you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant, you accused me for quoting out of context, so ether apologize for your false accusation or support your your accusation.

No, you quoted out of context. You claimed that an article was peer reviewed when it was not. You apologize for your endless claims. I made none. I supported my claims when they needed to be supported. If you did not understand the first time that is your problem. But then you have as yet to understand the difference between observations and assertions.

 

[leroy]

Nope, the few quotes you took were out of context. A single sentence is always out of context.


And please, don't accuse others of your sins. You run away all of the time. You never properly support your claims. .

Ok, I already provided 4 sources supporting my claim, what else should I do to support it?

When I make a claim that needs support I will do so.

Ok, you can start by supporting this claim

The best you have been able to do is to misunderstand articles that do not support you

Show that I misunderstood the data, show that the articles don’t support me…………….stop making assertions after assertions and support your accusations

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, I already provided 4 sources supporting my claim, what else should I do to support it?

Find sources that actually support it.,

Ok, you can start by supporting this claim

Find a case when I make a claim that requires support. That one doe not. Seriously, don't you understand what sort of claim needs support. But just for fun if you go to the "Do people still believe in Adam and Eve thread you will see that I recently supported some claims that require support. The one that you referred to can only be verified or refuted by looking at actual claims that require support. You still do not appear to understand which statement require support.

Show that I misunderstood the data, show that the articles don’t support me…………….stop making assertions after assertions and support your accusations

Nope, not going to do that. Just the simple observation that you failed is good enough for now. I am not digging up your old errors again. When you fail to understand a refutation you take on a burden of proof. I have never seen you understand a refutation and even when you seem to understand how you were refuted you will be bringing up the same old refuted argument some time down the road.

 

[leroy]

Would you say that this is a fair representation of what you're calling "fine tuning?"

The universe is exactly what it is. If the universe were different, then it would be different, but it's not, so the universe is what it is.

If not, please let me know where I misunderstood you.

No, FT means that the universe has many independent “values”, such that if any of them would have been a little bit different life would have not developed.

There is nothing redundant in this definition.

---

tautology (logic), in formal logic, a statement that is true in every possible interpretation

FT is not a tautology because the universe could fail to have the attribute of FT…………..A tautology would be “no matter what the universe is, I will always say its FT”……………….since this is not what I am doing your “tautology” accusation fails…………..but you won’t admit it…

 

[leroy]

Find sources that actually support it.,

I did, if you disagree then it is your turn to show how the sources don’t support my claim

Find a case when I make a claim that requires support.

see above in this comment.............You said that the sources dont support my claim………….that is an asertion that requires justification………….you can start there


a summery
...
1 I claimed that Bolzman Brains are statistically more likely to occur by chance… than universes like ours with “normal” observers

2 you disagreed and asked for sources

3 I provided the sources

4 you said that I took the sources out of context, that they don’t support my claim

5 I ask you to support your claim (point 4 above)

6 you ran away and invent ridiculous excuses and tactics to avoid supporting your claim

My conclusion, you know that I am correct and That I supported my claims correctly, but you wont admit it because admitting mistake is not your style.



.