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

[leroy]

Gravity is an observable and testable concept.

How?

How would you observe God? How would you test his existence?

Well go to the op for an example of a testabke argument that strongly suggest that God excists........ The good news is that the argument is falsifiable so feel free to spot your pounts of disagreement......

 

[Subduction Zone]

How?

Here is a simple, but very instructive one for you:


Take your right shoe off. Grab a moderately heavy hammer and hold it two feet directly above your right foot. Release it. Record results.

Well go to the op for an example of a testabke argument that strongly suggest that God excists........ The good news is that the argument is falsifiable so feel free to spot your pounts of disagreement......

Where? I cannot see one there.

 

[leroy]

What reasonable test or observation could possibly refute your God claims?

If the universe is not FT the argument would collapse.

We dont know the "deep laws of nature" it could be that at a deep level the universe is not FT...... This would falsify the argument......... Or it could be that it is even more FT than we currently think.which would make the argument stronger.


My argument is testable falsifiable and open to scientific discoveries.



it is your turn...... What evidence woukd you accept for god, that you couldn't dismiss with.... "ohhhh its a god of the gaps."

 

[leroy]

Here is a simple, but very instructive one for you:


Take your right shoe off. Grab a moderately heavy hammer and hold it two feet directly above your right foot. Release it. Record results.

And why is gravity the cause ? Why not fairies or spaghetti monster?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the universe is not FT the argument would collapse.

We dont know the "deep laws of nature" it could be that at a deep level the universe is not FT...... This would falsify the argument......... Or it could be that it is even more FT than we currently think.which would make the argument stronger.


My argument is testable falsifiable and open to scientific discoveries.



it is your turn...... What evidence woukd you accept for god, that you couldn't dismiss with.... "ohhhh its a god of the gaps."

Nope, that is a tautology.

And you have not even shown that the universe is " fine tuned ". That is a claim and not an observation.

 

[Darkstorn]

If the universe is not FT the argument would collapse.

We dont know the "deep laws of nature" it could be that at a deep level the universe is not FT...... This would falsify the argument......... Or it could be that it is even more FT than we currently think.which would make the argument stronger.


My argument is testable falsifiable and open to scientific discoveries.



it is your turn...... What evidence woukd you accept for god, that you couldn't dismiss with.... "ohhhh its a god of the gaps."

I've never seen anyone confuse arguments, proof AND evidence all at the same time before. Your arguments aren't evidence. Your arguments aren't proof. And your arguments aren't really arguments.

Arguments aren't "testable:" They can just be defeated with logic alone. I can and HAVE refuted the fine-tuning AND Kalam arguments before, successfully. If you want me to, i will. Just for the fun of it.

But you should know, a lot of other people across decades have already done that. Successfully. Your "arguments" were actually refuted long before you had the idea for this thread in your brain.

 

[leroy]

For me to disagree, it would have had to be relevant. What do you think that article has to do with your claim?

It explains why are bolzman brains more probable than "normal observers"

 

[Subduction Zone]

And why is gravity the cause ? Why not fairies or spaghetti monster?

That is why we test it repeatedly. I see that you still do not understand evidence. There is no evidence for fairies etc..

 

[Subduction Zone]

It explains why are bolzman brains more probable than "normal observers"

How? You need more than nebulous hand waving.

 

[leroy]

.

And you have not even shown that the universe is " fine tuned ". That is a claim and not an observation.

Thats why i provide sources in the op.


Are you asserting that the universe is not FT?

 

[leroy]

How? You need more than nebulous hand waving.

Yes i know, that is why I provided a source

 

[Darkstorn]

Thats why i provide sources in the op.

You only provide claims. Claims are not evidence.

Are you asserting that the universe is not FT?

I can assert that the universe is not fine-tuned, yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats why i provide sources in the op.


Are you asserting that the universe is not FT?

What source? I saw a joke.

And no. I made no such assertion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can assert that the universe is not fine-tuned, yes.

I did not make that claim myself, but I could probably make a better case for that than the OP has made for his claims.

 

[Darkstorn]

I did not make that claim myself, but I could probably make a better case for that than the OP has made for his claims.

Well, fine-tuning is a specific argument devised by specific people. I cannot refute a deity, but i can refute a specific argument made by humans. Which is what it is. And it contains no evidence.

So it depends a bit on what you mean by "fine-tuned" i guess. The way HE means it, hell yes i can assert that i can easily refute it by argument alone, without using any evidence.

 

[Darkstorn]

And here it is: Leroy; Your premise is flawed. Therefore the conclusion is flawed.

The end.

 

[joelr]

The point is that if there is a multiverse and if our universe is just a random member of that multiverse it would be far more likely to conclude that you are a boltzman brain who hegin to exist 3 seconds ago, with false memories and under the illusion of living in a FT universe.

A multiverse could still have different constants and laws making Boltzman brains not as likely. The multiverse is an unknown property and hard to make definite predictions about.

Ok Sean Carlol mentions 5 objections to the FT argument....... Which one of the 5 arguments do you think is the best so that i can adress it?

Theism expectations naturalism expectations
-universe expected to show fine tuning for life - universe shows far over-tuning, entropy far lower than needed

- particles favor life creation -particle zoo is a mess

-life plays special role in universe - life is insiginficant
-unified religion, God easy to find -poor evidence
-unified universal religious beliefs - different beliefs in cultures
- religious text last long time - - text change to adapt to social conditions
-moral teachings to be consistent -morals change with cultures
-sacred text would teach good science - sacred text teaches only science of ancient times
-perfect universe -kind of a messy design

The predictions of naturalism wins everytime and turns out to be what we actually see in the universe.

These cosmological arguments do not get anyone to any demigods and sea serpents even if they supported a God 100%.

 

[Valjean]

And what evidence do you have for cars moon or relativity? Any argument that you provide for say the existence of the moon can be easily dismissed with “it´s a moon of the gaps argument, just because we don’t know what causes the light in the night, that doesn’t mean that “moon did it”

Are you serious? We can touch cars. We've been to the moon, and half of modern technology depends on relativity.

We believe in what we can touch, measure, and test; what produces predictable and consistent effects.

"Moon of the gaps?" Do you understand what the 'gaps' argument is? The moon is not part of a sequence.
We do know what causes the light in the night. Every schoolchild knows where the light comes from -- unless they were home-schooled by evangelicals, apparently.

Or ………”how do you know it´s the moon causing the light?” why not fairies or the spaghetti monster?
Or….. Before claiming “Moon did it” you have to show that the moon even excises.

Your analogy is absurd. It indicates you clearly don't understand the objections to your doctrine.

Leroy, you do not know how to think or reason logically. You don't understand what evidence is. You fail to grasp what numerous corrective posts have pointed out. You're a Teflon evangelical, facts and reason just roll off your back.

One can use ridiculous atheist logic to dismiss any claim

And what the heck is "atheist logic?"
You don't understand logic.

 

[Valjean]

One is talking of the requirement of a Science/Scientific Method not of Religion/Religious Method. Right, please?

Regards

No. One is talking about reason and evidence, which are the same everywhere for everyone.

Religion does not have a "method." It does not test or investigate. It does not look for flaws. In fact, it discourages investigation and testing. It relies on blind faith and belief in unsupported claims.
It is completely the opposite of science, in this regard.

" One can use ridiculous atheist logic to dismiss any claim"

Is it a god point to add to the Atheist Method given in one's post #159, please? Right, please?
Regards

Please explain what this "atheist method" is.

Atheists have no 'method'. Atheism is not a doctrine or belief system. It's not an investigational modality.

 

[Valjean]

Ohh that is just a “gravity of the gaps argument”, we don’t understand why things attract to each other “gravity dun it”

Besides, why gravity? Why not fairies? Or the spaghetti monster?

And finally you have to show that gravity exist before claiming “gravity did it”

See? Using your irrational atheist logic one can dismantle any evidence

The answer is “I don’t know” stop shifting the burden proof.

Again, Leroy, you don't understand what a gaps argument is. Our explanations go in one ear and out the other.

Gravity? Do you know what general relativity is?
Obviously not. You don't know what we know or why we know it. You assume we're just speculating or pulling facts out our hats.
Science is not faith based. There is no equivalence between your Christian doctrine and scientific fact.

You don't know what you don't know. Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

Again with the "atheist logic?" This is like saying "atheist" geometry, algebra or chemistry.