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

[joelr]

You don’t need much computational data to make a simulation, you don’t need to simulate all the universe at once, you just need to simulate what the observer is observing

For every observer? As well as a measurable set of laws, physics, relativity. Sim theory has many issues and avoids all fundamental questions. Computers and civilizations have limits. Nature is the one thing that we already know is far more capable.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I guess you'd agree with the scientist that said some flying object probably came from alien life somewhere. (lol)

That's one hypothesis among many. Do you even understand how the scientific method works?

 

[rational experiences]

Science man history on earth.

You said O God the planet yourselves.

Products for human sciences came from God.

O planet he says a resource of energy.

Now thinking irrationally.

If I know God before it was stone. I would contact the source that allows God a stone planet to exist.

Answer to theist God the resource is stone.
Stone is in one place only.

You were not looking for God by scientific reasoning stone a product.

You were searching for the non existence of planet earth

The claim what allowed God. Defined in the sciences to own form.

It is not God that you theorised upon in new science.

What a psyche was given as new. Feedback in destructive converting of God mass. That constant cause allowed you to reason destruction of God. The planet resource.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's one hypothesis among many. Do you even understand how the scientific method works?

Yes. Let's put it this way: today I was listening to a doctor being interviewed about the COVID19 vaccine. She took 2 shots and summarized her thoughts about it, certainly recommending people take the vaccine. She said there are two ways to figure it: one is the distinct possibility of dying from the infection if no vaccine is taken, the other is getting sick if the vaccine is taken.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's one hypothesis among many. Do you even understand how the scientific method works?

And by the way, unless a photograph is taken of the object this object came from, who can prove it? And then maybe even a photograph might not "prove" that there were no aliens that made it. Taking the other side.

 

[rational experiences]

History.

God O stone owning water and microbes already sealed and already sealed stone

Original earth seal crystalline facure. Cold not burning gas

Microbes in water already.

Sun attacks blasting its own body. Earth converted.

Water owning microbes sealed.stone.

Remove earth mass history.fused.body of any form dust. Microbe history destroyed at God seal level.

Life energy food resource in water energy is microbes.

Science in God genesis biology already knew and gave the scientific status that God natural history sacrificed life sacrificed his life.

Never thesis God was the warning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And I explained to you multiple times that if you disagree with the statement “God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” Tacitly you are claiming that you have a better explanation in mind.

See?

I don't know how many times this blatant fallacious nonsense must be pointed out to you before it will sink in.


Again: claims fall and stand on their own merit.

I don't require an "alternative" to be able to point out the many flaws in your assertions.

 

[SilverAngel]

I am responding to a challenge made by @TagliatelliMonster

@TagliatelliMonster said:


So my best argument is the fine tuning argument, let’s see if you can show that the argument is wrong or fallacious.

The argument

0 The universe is FT for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, planets and other stuff required for life


--
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.



---
I have the same view than William Lane Creig, so unless I clarify otherwise, you can assume that WLC writings and videos represent my view

---

more detail

The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 1) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 2) | Reasonable Faith
Teleological Argument (part 3) | Reasonable Faith

------------

You can trump the argument by:

1 Showing that any of the premises is likely to be wrong

2 showing that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises

3 showing that the universe is not FT (stawman definitions of FT are not allowed)

4 showing that there is a better explanation for FT

5 show that there is a logical fallacy

Please specify exactly what avenue are you going to use to refute the argument (explicitly choose any of the options above)

No one has to show anything to you to either prove or disprove God. One could easily turn all your thoughts around and tell you to do the proving. God is implied because science can not determine how a complicated code called life arose from nothingness.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one has to show anything to you to either prove or disprove God. One could easily turn all your thoughts around and tell you to do the proving. God is implied because science can not determine how a complicated code called life arose from nothingness.

Perfect trump argument.

 

[SilverAngel]

Perfect trump argument.

Your TDS is noted for the record

LOL

If your hair fell out, would it be Trumps fault?

You would find a way

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes. Let's put it this way: today I was listening to a doctor being interviewed about the COVID19 vaccine. She took 2 shots and summarized her thoughts about it, certainly recommending people take the vaccine. She said there are two ways to figure it: one is the distinct possibility of dying from the infection if no vaccine is taken, the other is getting sick if the vaccine is taken.

Was that supposed to be an explanation of how the scientific method works?

 

[QuestioningMind]

And by the way, unless a photograph is taken of the object this object came from, who can prove it? And then maybe even a photograph might not "prove" that there were no aliens that made it. Taking the other side.

EXACTLY! That's what a hypothesis IS. It's a claim that - unless you can provide evidence for it - can never be more valid than any other claim for which there is no evidence provided. You do not take one side over the other unless there IS verifiable evidence for one proposition or the other. Thus if you choose one unverified hypothesis over another unverified hypothesis you're engaging in confirmation bias... that is you decided before hand what answer you were looking for. That is NOT how the scientific method works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is implied because science can not determine how a complicated code called life arose from nothingness.

Classic argument from ignorance / god of the gaps.

To quote Neil deGrass Tyson: "Your god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

 

[YoursTrue]

EXACTLY! That's what a hypothesis IS. It's a claim that - unless you can provide evidence for it - can never be more valid than any other claim for which there is no evidence provided. You do not take one side over the other unless there IS verifiable evidence for one proposition or the other. Thus if you choose one unverified hypothesis over another unverified hypothesis you're engaging in confirmation bias... that is you decided before hand what answer you were looking for. That is NOT how the scientific method works.

And that is distinctly why evolution is not the logically followed through proof of matter. And upon researching it, why I no longer go along with the hypothesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

EXACTLY! That's what a hypothesis IS. It's a claim that - unless you can provide evidence for it - can never be more valid than any other claim for which there is no evidence provided. You do not take one side over the other unless there IS verifiable evidence for one proposition or the other. Thus if you choose one unverified hypothesis over another unverified hypothesis you're engaging in confirmation bias... that is you decided before hand what answer you were looking for. That is NOT how the scientific method works.

As I have said, I was an exceptional student, not to brag, but believed what the scientists were saying about evolution. And got good marks because I not only knew the answers but believed it. I no longer do, after researching. If you do, that's what you believe. There's more but I'll leave it there for now and have a good night. Yes I wear a mask when I am outside.

 

[QuestioningMind]

As I have said, I was an exceptional student, not to brag, but believed what the scientists were saying about evolution. And got good marks because I not only knew the answers but believed it. I no longer do, after researching. If you do, that's what you believe. There's more but I'll leave it there for now and have a good night. Yes I wear a mask when I am outside.

I'd love to know what 'research' you did that led you to conclude that the theory of evolution is not based firmly upon the scientific method. The same scientific method that informs us about germ theory so you know enough to wear a mask during a pandemic, as well as the same scientific method that led us to understand how electrons work enough for us to communicate via this website.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'd love to know what 'research' you did that led you to conclude that the theory of evolution is not based firmly upon the scientific method. The same scientific method that informs us about germ theory so you know enough to wear a mask during a pandemic, as well as the same scientific method that led us to understand how electrons work enough for us to communicate via this website.

After you tell me which societies you feel are free in another thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And that is distinctly why evolution is not the logically followed through proof of matter. And upon researching it, why I no longer go along with the hypothesis.

Evolution is a well-established theory. To call it a mere "hypothesis" is to seriously misrepresent it.

You being ignorant of the model as well as the evidence for it, doesn't make it a mere hypothesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'd love to know what 'research' you did that led you to conclude that the theory of evolution is not based firmly upon the scientific method.

Some sermon by some pastor or alike, is my guess.

 

[leroy]

See?

I don't know how many times this blatant fallacious nonsense must be pointed out to you before it will sink in.

No it is not fallacious nonsense, please make an honest effort and try to understand….

If you disagree with the statement “God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” then you are tacitly implying that you have a better explanation in mind……………..as an analogy if you disagree with the statement “A heart attack is the best explanation for John´s dead” you are implying that you have a better explanation in mind.

If you don’t want to propose an alternative explanation then your answer shouldn’t “I don’t know”………”I simply don’t know if God is the best explanation or not”

I don't require an "alternative" to be able to point out the many flaws in your assertions.

Granted, that is true, you are free to point the flaws and mistakes of the argument…….so be my guest, please spot the specific points that you think are flawed or wrong.