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

[Heyo]

Sounds like a giant argument from ignorance.

... and a god of the gaps.

 

[leroy]

"The specific values of constants in the universe are either due to physical necessity, chance or design"

agree

Evidence of this claim?
How have you determined that it's not due to physical necessity or chance?

That is why I provided sources, I won’t elaborate an argument from zero in this forum….I am assuming that you are already familiar with the literature, but if not, you can always go to my sources.

To be more specific, unless I clarify otherwise, I agree with William Lane Creigs approach, any of his videos, books or articles on the topic represent my view.

So get familiar with the argument and the literature and let me know where are your specific points of disagreement.

 

[leroy]

That's not irrelevant at all. As given enough trials, it makes any particular configuration inevitable.

Ok so would you affirm that a “multiple tries expalnation” (say a multiverse) is a better explanation than design?

 

[Goddess Kit]

From what I have found on the man, William Lane Craig is a bad philosopher.

Royally Bad Philosophy (A Reply to Craig and Colbert)

William Lane Craig’s Eight Reasons for God: Refuted

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Everything in natural space that is round or to tends to be round is speaking loudly of the One-Creator, who has set it in motion, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

My point was that there are perfectly natural explanations for those things that only involve the physical parameters within the universe is observed to operate. There is no "hand" necessary to create/maintain those things. None at all. Demonstrate the hand to me and we can talk, until then, you have NOTHING.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You have to look at each case independently.


A perfect circular hole in the sand for example would indicate design, because the things that cause holes (things like erosion, wind, water etc) dont have any predisposition nor tendency to form perfect circles.

There are many possible combinations, and only 1 or few would produce a perfect circle

Ever? You sure about that? Pretty myopic view, if you ask me. As if there are only certain shape configurations that matter can be found to rest in due to natural processes. Someone may have come across "fossilised lightning" in sand in the past and concluded that it must have been put there by some acting agent - simply because it was outside the norm. Take a little more time to make observations and you one day discover exactly how it came to be there. To posit a "creator" for something that appears in nature, alone, by itself, with no tool marks of a craftsman and no signature, that you ONLY ASSUME is "too [X] to be natural" before you actually have evidence of such a creator is just plain DUMB.

 

[leroy]

STATISTICALLY speaking ha?

So, how did you conclude this statistic, from this set of ONE that you have to compare to?

If there are many universes and if this universe is just a random member then the most common type of observer would be Boltzmann brains…… any disagreement form your part?

If you are not asserting the part in red (above) then this argument doesn’t apply….so are you making the assertion or not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is why I provided sources, I won’t elaborate an argument from zero in this forum…

You have provided no scientific sources pointing to physics that "disproves" chance or physical necessity. At all.

I'm not interested in WLC's lame arguments to pile on even more claims then currently on the table.

You said that we can rule out physical necessity and chance.
This is a claim concerning science. Physics and/or cosmology in particular.

Where is the scientific source that supports this claim?

I am assuming that you are already familiar with the literature

I am familiar with the nonsense of WLC that you virtually copy paste all this from, yes.

, but if not, you can always go to my sources.

Your sources just pile on and are not relevant.
To support the claim you made, you require scientific sources, as this is a scientific topic: cosmological constants etc.

To be more specific, unless I clarify otherwise, I agree with William Lane Creigs approach, any of his videos, books or articles on the topic represent my view.

So, there is no scientific support for any of this and all you have is nonsense that has been exposed as such a couple thousand times over, from a guy who's only claim to fame is being a professional "debater" and apologist?


ps: i already knew that actually, but it's funny to see it acknowledged.

So get familiar with the argument and the literature and let me know where are your specific points of disagreement.

I'm very familiar with WLC bs. This entire argument comes from him. Merely pointing to him will not help you as the would only mean that you are just repeating his claims.

It's the claims themselves that need to be justified.

You claim that we can exclude chance and physical necessity as reasons for the values of physical constants. This is a scientific claim. It requires scientific evidence.

WLC is not a scientific source. It is an apologetic source. It's also a source that doesn't give additional explanations. It's instead a source the makes the claims that you are repeating here.


So, support your scientific claim, with scientific evidence please.

or can't you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so would you affirm that a “multiple tries expalnation” (say a multiverse) is a better explanation than design?

Since a multiverse is actually a prediction that naturally flows from inflation theory and one that provides an actual explanation, yes.

Note also that this is assuming that the values even CAN be different. It's still not shown, in any way, that they could be. For all we know, they could be. But for all we know, they also could NOT be.

The argument you present, also assumes that this particular configuration is the only one that allows for life. It also assumes that there aren't others that are even more suitable for life.

So far, due to the enormous lack of evidence and the blatant empty assumption of the existence of non-demonstrable entities, "design" is a just a bare claim with no explanatory power whatsoever. And one that has to also rely on very very big assumptions like the current configuration being the only one possible or that there aren't others that are even more suiteable for life, or others which are suiteable to another type of life or what have you.

You don't know any of this because
1. we don't know how universe(s) form
and
2. we have a set of 1 - so nothing to compare with

It's all assumption from start to finish, with no evidence at all and, instead, arguments from ignorance and gods of the gaps.

In fact, the very raison-d'être of this entire "fine tuning" argument even assumes that the universe was purposed for life. Its very existence at this point, seems motivated by a teleological fallacy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If there are many universes and if this universe is just a random member then the most common type of observer would be Boltzmann brains…… any disagreement form your part?

Is there any evidence that a "Boltzmann brain" has ever formed out there in the void? And if I am one (complete with very specific "human" memories of time spent here on Earth in this universe) then how would I evidence this to myself as the observer? If the answer is that I cannot, then why should this idea be taken seriously? In the end, I will still need to react to the stimulus I actually appear to be receiving in order to continue to be an observer. Without evidence it is no better than fiction. If, however, you have come across evidence that these "Boltzmann brains" exist, or that some portion of humanity is one of these random-formulated brains, then by all means, present it and we'll talk. I have less faith in you being able to provide any evidence on this score than I do your ability to provide evidence of God, however - so be forewarned that the evidence had better be pretty compelling.

 

[leroy]

Sounds like a giant argument from ignorance.

Is there any observation that one can potentially make in the universe that you wouldn’t explain away by “its just a God of the gaps”?

 

[Goddess Kit]

When it's always god of the gaps, is there much reason for theists to persist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is there any observation that one can potentially make in the universe that you wouldn’t explain away by “its just a God of the gaps”?

This makes no sense.

It's arguments (specific ones, that meet certain criteria) which are being dissmissed / rejected with as justification that they use god of the gaps fallacies.

It has nothing to do with explaining observations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thing is that if the FT problem can be explained by "it's just a tautology".....

The why are scientist proposing more complex and sofisticated explanations? Like multiverses, cosmic evolution, and so on.

Ether
1 scientists are stupid and unable to discover the simple explanation that you seem to propose

2 you are missing something.


Obviously I cant tell exactly what you are missing, because you havent elaborate an explanation......

False dichotomy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If there are many universes and if this universe is just a random member then the most common type of observer would be Boltzmann brains…… any disagreement form your part?

If you are not asserting the part in red (above) then this argument doesn’t apply….so are you making the assertion or not?

I have no idea what assertion you are referring to.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Is there any observation that one can potentially make in the universe that you wouldn’t explain away by “its just a God of the gaps”?

It seems like you're asking whether there is anything you can observe, not understand the cause or processes of, and then consequently (and arbitrarily, I might add) attribute to God that wouldn't be labeled as "God of the gaps." And the answer is "no." The label fits perfectly no matter what it is that you observe, can't fathom an explanation for, and so then attribute to God. That's basically the exact use-case of the term "God of the gaps." You find a gap in your knowledge, and you insert God rather than admitting that you simply don't know.

 

[leroy]

S of the gaps.

This makes no sense.

It's arguments (specific ones, that meet certain criteria) which are being dissmissed / rejected with as justification that they use god of the gaps fallacies.

It has nothing to do with explaining observations.

So is there any potential evidence that you wouldn’t explain with “it´s a God of the gaps”……….it seems to me that no matter what evidence is presented you can always run away by saying “ohhh it’s a God of the gaps”

 

[leroy]

It seems like you're asking whether there is anything you can observe, not understand the cause or processes of, and then consequently (and arbitrarily, I might add) attribute to God that wouldn't be labeled as "God of the gaps." And the answer is "no." The label fits perfectly no matter what it is that you observe, can't fathom an explanation for, and so then attribute to God. That's basically the exact use-case of the term "God of the gaps." You find a gap in your knowledge, and you insert God rather than admitting that you simply don't know.

The same kind of logic can be used by flatt earthers……..”We don’t know why the stars look different in Australia and in USA, therefore you invoke a “globe of the gaps fallacy”

The fact is that there is a gap in our knowledge, and we most find the best explanation availbale to fill in that gap, if you have a better explanation than God feel free to share it.

 

[leroy]

You said that we can rule out physical necessity and chance.
This is a claim concerning science. Physics and/or cosmology in particular.

And my response is that the bolzman brain paradox refutes any chance hypothesis and the fact that there are multiple independent values refutes any physical necessity hypothesis. any disagreement?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The same kind of logic can be used by flatt earthers……..”We don’t know why the stars look different in Australia and in USA, therefore you invoke a “globe of the gaps fallacy”

The fact is that there is a gap in our knowledge, and we most find the best explanation availbale to fill in that gap, if you have a better explanation than God feel free to share it.

ANY explanation that involves plausible natural/real phenomena is a better starting point than "God."

Invoking "God" is entirely on par with invoking "fairies", "magic", "turtles all the way down", "lizard people", "simulation controllers", etc. Fiction until evidenced otherwise.