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

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's start at the beginning again, but this time the beginning of humans.

So you're just going to jump from the actual beginning some 4 billion years ago, to some arbitrary religious beginning of some 200.000 years ago?

According to the Bible, it relates the beginning. Of Adam and Eve

Why should we care about the bible? Especially concerning a point where it is demonstrably incorrect? Massively incorrect.

But since you don't believe in that, it's hard to discuss.

Why would we believe demonstrably false claims?

However, I will try. According to the Bible, and I say this carefully, Adam and Eve had perfect genes.

1. the bible says nothing at all about any genes

2. the very concept of "perfect genes" is completely nonsensical in context of how genetics actually works.

That is what I believe

And it makes no sense and is demonstrably false.

That means that there was no flaw in them, physically or mentally. I will leave it at that until I hear from you. about that (perfect genes). I know you don't think it's possible, but I do.

Again: the very concept is nonsensical.

Now I'm not sure though who you consider as the founders of Christianity.

Doesn't matter at all. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe there is more proof of the existence of God than not. And part of that is the recognition that the sun, moon, grass, cows, and humans did not just "come about" by themselves by some magnetic force pushing molecules and cells out or together. But life comes about only because of a Creator, who is from everlasting to everlasting. No beginning for this One, and no end.

Those are your faith based religious beliefs. They aren't evidence. They require evidence. Got any?

Can I explain him? No. I only know really to explain if I can what I observe and what the Bible says.

The fact that you can't explain it, demonstrates that all you have are faith based beliefs and no evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you quote book, chapter and verse where the Bible says that Adam and Eve had perfect genes? So far as I know, the Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve had perfect genes, or any genes at all; all it says is that everything that God had made was very good (Genesis 1:31). 'Very good' is not the same thing as 'perfect'. Something that is perfect cannot become bad; the mere possibility of its becoming bad detracts from its perfection. If God had made humans perfect, he would not have regretted having made them (Genesis 6:6), nor would every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts have been evil (Genesis 6:5).



I was thinking of the Apostolic Fathers and later Christians from the 2nd century onwards. However, St. Paul appears to have been a rather unpleasant person; in his letter to the Galatians he piles curses on people who teach a different gospel from his own, and in 2 Corinthians 11-13 he boasts of what he has gone through for the sake of Christ and is very violent against people who deny his claim to be an apostle. Of course, we have only Paul's side of the story; the writings of his opponents are lost, but I suppose that they were equally vehement in their condemnation of Paul. Look at it from the point of view of the readers of these letters; would you like it if anybody, either other Christians or atheists, spoke to you or about you in the terms that Paul uses in Galatians and 2 Corinthians?

Obviously, just as God performed some sort of unusual difference with Mary's genetic capabilities, He did so also when changing the genetic capability of Adam and Eve, as they were no longer capable of living forever after disobeying. Eve figured she would live forever when she disobeyed her Creator, Adam chose death. She found out different.

 

[YoursTrue]

If the scientists follow evidence "religiously", then they should all be on one page and not talk of majority, please? Right, please?

Regards

That's interesting. I have been learning upon examining some of these ideas, that various scientific journals have favorites among their peer reviewers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you quote book, chapter and verse where the Bible says that Adam and Eve had perfect genes? So far as I know, the Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve had perfect genes, or any genes at all; all it says is that everything that God had made was very good (Genesis 1:31). 'Very good' is not the same thing as 'perfect'. Something that is perfect cannot become bad; the mere possibility of its becoming bad detracts from its perfection. If God had made humans perfect, he would not have regretted having made them (Genesis 6:6), nor would every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts have been evil (Genesis 6:5).



I was thinking of the Apostolic Fathers and later Christians from the 2nd century onwards. However, St. Paul appears to have been a rather unpleasant person; in his letter to the Galatians he piles curses on people who teach a different gospel from his own, and in 2 Corinthians 11-13 he boasts of what he has gone through for the sake of Christ and is very violent against people who deny his claim to be an apostle. Of course, we have only Paul's side of the story; the writings of his opponents are lost, but I suppose that they were equally vehement in their condemnation of Paul. Look at it from the point of view of the readers of these letters; would you like it if anybody, either other Christians or atheists, spoke to you or about you in the terms that Paul uses in Galatians and 2 Corinthians?

The big thing to remember is that the early Christians are known to have been highly persecuted, until, of course, they integrated with the general population, thanks in part to Constantine. That was quite some time after the apostles died.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously, just as God performed some sort of unusual difference with Mary's genetic capabilities, He did so also when changing the genetic capability of Adam and Eve, as they were no longer capable of living forever after disobeying. Eve figured she would live forever when she disobeyed her Creator, Adam chose death. She found out different.

God claimed that they would die that day. That is not what happened. It appears that God lied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The big thing to remember is that the early Christians are known to have been highly persecuted, until, of course, they integrated with the general population, thanks in part to Constantine. That was quite some time after the apostles died.

And that appears to be mainly stories from church tradition. There were some persecuted, but evidence of them being "highly persecuted" is lacking.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you quote book, chapter and verse where the Bible says that Adam and Eve had perfect genes? So far as I know, the Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve had perfect genes, or any genes at all; all it says is that everything that God had made was very good (Genesis 1:31). 'Very good' is not the same thing as 'perfect'. Something that is perfect cannot become bad; the mere possibility of its becoming bad detracts from its perfection. If God had made humans perfect, he would not have regretted having made them (Genesis 6:6), nor would every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts have been evil (Genesis 6:5).



I was thinking of the Apostolic Fathers and later Christians from the 2nd century onwards. However, St. Paul appears to have been a rather unpleasant person; in his letter to the Galatians he piles curses on people who teach a different gospel from his own, and in 2 Corinthians 11-13 he boasts of what he has gone through for the sake of Christ and is very violent against people who deny his claim to be an apostle. Of course, we have only Paul's side of the story; the writings of his opponents are lost, but I suppose that they were equally vehement in their condemnation of Paul. Look at it from the point of view of the readers of these letters; would you like it if anybody, either other Christians or atheists, spoke to you or about you in the terms that Paul uses in Galatians and 2 Corinthians?

It just stands to reason that Adam and Eve were perfect, to live forever until the death penalty was placed upon them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It just stands to reason that Adam and Eve were perfect, to live forever until the death penalty was placed upon them.

No, this is not reason. This is wishful thinking. "Perfect genes" do not even appear to be a possibility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It just stands to reason that Adam and Eve were perfect, to live forever until the death penalty was placed upon them.

You do realize that for any biological creature to be immortal, a lot more has to change then just the biological makeup of those creatures, right?

Like...how physics and chemistry works and such.

 

[Magical Wand]

--
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.

Fine-tuning proponents speak as though the values of the constants were the only parameters that we need to consider, but if the values of constants can vary then why not everything else? They are called constants because we never observe them to vary just as we never observe the physical laws vary, so when we step back and ponder the possibility of those constants having other values, then we can also consider the possibility of the equations taking different forms and the possibility of entirely novel physical laws. If we're not limited to the actual laws of physics, then discussing those laws becomes pointless, because it's just a tiny corner in the far larger parameter space.

A naturalist could likely say that the laws of physics are simply foundational to reality. There's no deeper truth beneath physics. The constants are not parameters to be fine tuned; the constants are just measurements that we've made of the nature of reality, and it is meaningless to ask why the constants have these values because there is nothing outside of nature that could be the cause of any of it. If we're not satisfied by that reasoning and say that the constants should have an explanation and we should ponder the probability of the constants having various values, then why would we be content to grant that the naturalist is correct about the equations of those laws not being free to vary? If we need to explain why the gravitational constant has a particular value, then why not also expect an explanation for why gravity decreases with distance instead of increasing? Why don't we need to explain why there are three spatial dimensions instead of two or four? Why not two temporal dimensions instead of one?

Proponents of fine-tuning may be able to quantify the space of all values of the physical constants, but how would they quantify the space of all physical laws? How could we even put limits on the kinds of mathematical operations we might need in order to describe alternative laws and what measurements those operations might operate upon? If we cannot quantify the parameter space, then how can we hope to evaluate how much of the space would support life?

 

[Viker]

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance

How? How did you get to there?

 

[rational experiences]

O earth evolved.

Cosmos law space womb that contracts expands like a human female womb proved comparisons were used. Totally fake to theory cosmic to self a human.

Proving thoughts are possessed still inferring falseness.

Yet today you still are doing the exact types of false theism as holographic one dimension then multi dimensions.

Claiming colours and sounds.

Father says water light gas blue light sky. Natural life supporting heavens.

Coloured gases burning and cooling are same coloured gases. A gas.

Science lied said it was dimension and built upon.

Said alien burning gas. Satan cooling gas colder yet white is a cloud with human like Satan angel image.

Another lie.

Then you have coders as men. Yes he says maths and codes proves we are encoded. Yet they invented maths as humans inferring science is by notification + cross the addition were lying.

They had to apply measures in human self presence and infer against mass present. By the cross.

History of cross fake known because of maths addition + falsification.

Story human. Why + cross involved life's sacrifice. Because of science.

Equal spiritual holy humans were natural paired. Babies human inheritors of natural life. Life as one human is equal.

Evolved baby man DNA psyche in cooling evolving heavens. Became the new human scientist. Developed psyche advice in cooling evolution.

DNA changed. Healing of self. Development self DNA advice changing life. Science however does not evolve.

Science high priest. Took over landholdings as the elite first. First group of bullies.

High priest was the science king.

Then took over inheritance of landholdings by sex. Queen. By inventive trade human greed.

Lords who served then acted in governing and science.

Yet notice how science owned and took over everything first.

Science was then controlled by elite. Over lords rich involved self organised business to regain monetary powers their selves.

Elite stopped science. History said even Alchemy was outlawed. Involved kings queens most powerful.

Elite separated.

Over Lord's were as rich as kings queens. Could not inherit total control again as the satanic sciences. Other elite had a status in society. Were Angry. Their heritage a King was the first science self.

Hence argue in elite family heritage who is rightful hierarchy.

Yet sex and landholdings inherited now. The elite. King or queen and elite humanity same science reasoning.

Science now became a third outer human leadership.

Decided to take back control by self governing. Pope status. President status. Over lord split from elite history. Owned new landholdings.

To over lord not using King or queen land holders. Governing choice.

All arguing now.

So king queen versed pope and president as overlords who wanted scientific total control again.

State separated from church.

Real history.
Real science code.

Natural history is first two equal parents equalled natural balanced human life. Elder parents did care whilst younger toiled worked. Had tribal elder organisation leader was an agreed tribal hierarchy proven by care and attention to homage of family.

The real history why it all went wrong.

Human greed. Want of one control. Self status. Organised group bullies.

Evolution about family is human is not hierarchy as you are all proven wrong.

 

[Meow Mix]

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)

I will begin with an examination of some of the claimed "constants" broadcast at the start of the video:

I raised my eyebrows when I saw "Cosmological Constant: (2.3 * 10^-3 eV)^4," because this is a value that could famously be radically different and still get a universe that looks like the one we see today (it would just have a different past and future).

My research last year was entirely about constraining the dark energy and the dark energy equation of state parameter, and while (yes) we can rule a lot of possibilities out to match the observed universe (yet still, not all of them!), it could be different and you would still get a universe that could support planets and stars, just not the one we observe.

This raises some concerns that the video-maker is not actually familiar with the physics.

Some of these things have questionable... I don't know. Thought behind them? For instance it mentions the strong force coupling constant. But from QCD [quantum chromodynamics], the strong force coupling constant goes to infinity as distance increases. It's not actually really the important part I would want to point out if I were making a fine-tuning argument. The important part would be the color confinement: that which keeps the strong force from operating over long distances, which is poorly understood, but probably has something to do with the energy favorability of instead popping off particle-antiparticle pairs. Now could that be slightly different and still get a universe with matter? Since it's inherently probabilistic, I really don't see why not, there would be some wiggle room there. I am not in QCD so I don't know how much (in fact I am pretty sure nobody does; I originally had a lot of interest in going into QCD before I went astrophysics).

So, it is clear to me that the arguer is using something of a shotgun method where they're just throwing out a bunch of things without a lot of real physics insight to see what sticks, and that turns me off a little bit from the video itself.

But maybe they have some good examples that aren't easily explained (I don't know, I am not an expert in some of the fields required). I think many of the other responses in this thread have done a good job, but I also think this: multiverses don't even have to be scientifically viable (e.g. even if they're untestable) to simply say "ok, a multiverse explains this about as well as a designer does, so we still can't just say 'therefore, design.'" And that would be true. Fine-tuning still wouldn't really get us across the goal line to theism. (Which by the way, this would be an attack on premise 2, that it "can't be by chance," because it could be).

 

[leroy]

I will be

But maybe they have some good examples that aren't easily explained (I don't know, I am not an expert in some of the fields required). I think many of the other responses in this thread have done a good job, but I also think this: multiverses don't even have to be scientifically viable (e.g. even if they're untestable) to simply say "ok, a multiverse explains this about as well as a designer does, so we still can't just say 'therefore, design.'" And that would be true. Fine-tuning still wouldn't really get us across the goal line to theism. (Which by the way, this would be an attack on premise 2, that it "can't be by chance," because it could be).

multiverse explains this about as well as a designer does

There is a devastating to the multiverse explanation. I am talking about the bolzman brain paradox

1 If there are potentially infinite universes (or just many universes)

2 and if we are just a random member who happened to have the correct conditions/correct values

Then it is trillions upon trillions times more likely that we live in a universe the is not FT and that our observations of a FT universe are just illusionist, dreams hallucinations etc.

In other words it is much more likely that you live in a “simple universe” with just 1 star and 1 planet, and that you are a mentally handicapped patient that lives in a psychiatric hospital. All your knowledge about yourself and the universe is just an illusion caused by the drugs that the doctors are providing to you.

Or even more likely, you are just a Boltzmann brain, product of a quantum fluctuation.

In other words the multiverse explanation boils down to a reductio ad absurdum, so unless you can provide a devastating objection to “ID” then AN INTELIGEN DESIGNER is a better explanation that multiverse.

 

[Magical Wand]

There is a devastating to the multiverse explanation. I am talking about the bolzman brain paradox

Physicists presented various solutions to this problem:

Watch at 40:31:

Watch at 27:09:

 

[rational experiences]

Before anything existed no humans no machines.

A human built the machine as a forced status I will apply my conditions by human presence to change natural via machine use.

Self natural human was therefore changed.

As machine by conditions changes natural.

In relative natural human theism what you naturally see is the only correct observation.

Hence a law called holy and seeing was established that forbade Alchemy.

Basic human common sense. Minerals support our life health all the dusts a holy teaching. As medical healers were involved in the teaching.

Teaching.
Preaching.

False preaching a human in occult science knowing that they identify what they want changed. As they only own their own human life.

Science therefore self idolised and science never used human sex in their discussions.

Teachers healers.
Book writer healers.

Healers taught that scientists had attacked the baby adult life of humanity and taught why science was a self idoliser. By storytelling theism.

Why sex was not referenced as it was medical observing baby human.

Baby in womb status a medical science reasoning using technical atmospheric reasoning why DNA had evolved healed and why DNA sacrificed regained stigmata by blood and cell change.

Science using a medical journal the bible today hence are once again false preaching.