Irony of the evolutionary belief

[F1fan]

You said that the argument was debunked by some random video .... I simply asked you to sumerize the alleged refutation

You should have looked up the topic of fine tuning and it's massive flaws before you posted the absurdity. It's not the problem for the well educated that you are open to being duped by creationist fraud.

 

[gnostic]

Yes in my opinion naturalists /atheists have problems in explaining both the origin of life and once we have life ¿why did microbes evolved in to something more complex?

That‘s both ignorant and dishonest claims about atheists.

For one, atheists ARE NOT SCIENTISTS, because atheism ISN’T SCIENCE.

Atheism is a purely philosophical position on theological question - whether a deity or deities exist - nothing more, nothing less.

The differences between a scientist and an atheist is that -

• a scientist is a working professional, who is qualified to do the work or research, and get paid a salary,
• whereas an atheist is personal position, who either don’t believe in any god or just lack the belief, a belief that don’t require him or her to be qualified in any science or its field.

Being an atheist isn’t a job, Leroy. Being an atheist don’t automatically make that a person biologist or physicist.

So for you to insinuate that atheists must explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe is nothing more than you falsely (and dishonestly) equating atheism with science. It is False Equivalence fallacy, and even more false claims.

It is hypocritical that creationists tell us they believed in the Bible, and yet always seem willing to ignore or tiptoe around the Thou shalt not bear false witness part.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Luckily nobody said that in this thread

Nevertheless, your implications and goals are clear.

Just stop with this charade.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Dan From Smithville Already explained to you that “claims” from people that are likely to be well informed count as evidence...............why is he wrong?

No he didn't. And with this you show you have problems with reading comprehension.
At no point did he say that claims are evidence of themselves, under whatever circumstance.

What he actually said was that certain circumstance, facts, about the people (like a local working at a hotel) can be considered evidence of the trustworthyness of the claims they make. Meaning that things OTHER then the claims can in a way be considered evidence in support of those claims.
The claims themselves are just claims. And claims are not evidence. Claims require evidence. Just like I have been saying all along.

A few weeks ago you claimed that you are a father, and everybody grants that “claim” as evidence

No rational person does.

And there is nothing in the definition of evidence (ether your definition or any other definition that I have seen) that excludes “all claims” from being evidnece

Nowhere in the definition I posted is it implied in any way that claims can be evidence. Let alone of themselves....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe, luckily that is just a claim (not evidence)

No, it's a response to a claim.
A response that I already explained multiple times. It unsurprisingly got ignored every time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When I saw the video of plants and birds and animals in the desert, but particularly the plants and how they grew, my mind was saying, how could this possibly have all come about by natural forces?

IOW: a fallacious argument from ignorance / incredulity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes in my opinion naturalists /atheists have problems in explaining both the origin of life and once we have life ¿why did microbes evolved in to something more complex?

Another argument from ignorance coupled with a red herring.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The fine tuning of the universe would be an example of evidence that fulfills your criteria……… but you will change your criteria in the next post anyway

How is that suppoed fine tuning evidence of a god?

Be specific.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think scientists exactly know how that infestation began, I am not sure, and it is certainly tragic, and yes, scientists have developed a pill to stem the growth of the parasite. Jesus did give sight to a blind man. I have my theories as to how that scourge in Africa may have started, I won't go any further now except to say that blindness will be done away with in the future by means of God's intervention. Not now, and yes, I'm glad there are practical scientists who developed an antidote to the awful situation.

"scourge"

That's just a matter of perspective.
The worms and parasites aren't "evil". They are just bad for us since they prey on us. But again, that's just from our perspective.

Now take the perspective of the fish we pull out of the water to eat. From that perspect we humans are the "scourge" and "infestation".


One of your biggest mistakes is thinking that we humans are the point of the universe. It's the epitome of narcism and egocentricity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not subjetive.

FT simply means that atoms, molecules, stars, planets (and other stuff required for life) can only exist within a narrow range of values on different constants and initial conditions.

For example if gravity would have been 1% stronger, the whole universe would have collapsed in to a black hole shortly after the big bang. (therefore no atoms, no molecules, no stars, no planets and therefore no life)

This is 100% objective, one (well scientists) can determine objectively what would happen if gravity would have been stronger, we can determine objectively that atoms, molecules etc. can´t exist in a black hole, and we can determine objectively that we can have life without molecules

How is that evidence for a god?

Sounds more like a "so what" argument then anything else.

That is a good question, but starwman, FT simply means that life permitting values are narrow.

So what?

If you want to claim that God doesn’t exist

Don't turn it around. It's you who's claiming that a god DOES exist AND that you have good evidence to support that claim.
That is what we are discussing.

because most of the universe is hostile to life….. go ahead, develop your argument,

Nobody has made that argument.

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design.
Premise 2: The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity.
Premise 3: The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to a designer.

Support premise 2 and 3.

In fact, support premise 1. Specifically, the part where you include "design" as even being a valid option.

Ok, so nothing in the FT argument is based on what we feel.

Looking at the silly argument above, it looks as if it is based on unsupported assumptions turning them into mere bare assertions.

When I say FT argument I am referring to the version of the argument that William lane Craig proposes………

That explains why it has that fallacious smell all over it.

…….. it is perfectly valid to say “ohh no idea Leroy, I have never heard about that argument”

LOL!

I'ld bet that most people here have heared those "arguments" before. We call them PRATTs.
But anyhow, I look forward to your answers to my above questions.

 

[blü 2]

Premise 1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to necessity, chance, or design.
Premise 2: The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to necessity.
Premise 3: The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to chance.
Conclusion: Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to a designer.

Premise 1: At present no evidence suggests that the fine tuning of the universe is due to design.
Nor does there presently appear to be any plausible testable hypothesis to determine otherwise.
Nor do the promoters of this claim appear to have attempted to devise one.

Premises 2 : It seems likely that the fine tuning necessarily arose from the starting conditions of the universe.
That moves the question back a step as to how the starting conditions of the universe themselves arose.
At present we don't have means to explore that question.

Premise 3: The idea of chance is usually but not necessarily associated with the idea that an unbounded number of universes are (or were) formed in a supposed metaverse, and that each of these have variables in their starting parameters which in our case simply by chance were perfect to allow our universe to be as it is. Again we presently have no means to explore that question.

And it might be arguable that if the number of universes that can be formed in this manner is unbounded then ─ since the existence of our universe shows that the "right" combination is possible ─ given an unbounded number of tries, necessarily at least one of them would eventually get it right, which would take us back to "Premise 2".

Alternatively it may be that only a few, or only one, universe could be formed, and that our universe is an extremely lucky fluke.

 

[gnostic]

And you've never seen when or if the universe was created or developed or anything else like it. You didn't even see the birth of your parents.

You shouldn’t be such weak argument, because the same could be said about you.

You have never seen God. You didn’t see God create life. You didn't even see God create the Earth. You weren’t there when Jesus heal someone or Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life, or Jesus himself being resurrected.

You are making lame points, but it only make your beliefs in God, weaker than ever…and this day and age, your belief in God and the stories in the Bible preposterous fairytales.

 

[leroy]

You should have looked up the topic of fine tuning and it's massive flaws before you posted the absurdity. It's not the problem for the well educated that you are open to being duped by creationist fraud.

Sounds like you are just making things up......you don't seem to be aware of any refutation to the argument

 

[leroy]

What he actually said was that certain circumstance, facts, about the people (like a local working at a hotel) can be considered evidence

And you disagree with that statement, don't you ?

Nowhere in the definition I posted is it implied in any way that claims can be evidence. Let alone of themselves....

Yes your only conditions are

1Data matches the prediction

2 objectively verifiable

Claims could fullfil 1 and 2 therefore claims can be evidence by your definition

 

[leroy]

How is that suppoed fine tuning evidence of a god?

Be specific.

Under your fallacious definition of evidence it isn't

Among all the explanations that have been proposed God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe , if this isn't evidence for you that is ok with me

 

[leroy]

Support premise 2 and 3.

In fact, support premise 1.

Sure pick a premise and I will support it.....pick the premise that you think it's more likely to be wrong

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you disagree with that statement, don't you ?

Why would I disagree with that which I have been stating all along?

Yes your only conditions are

1Data matches the prediction

2 objectively verifiable

Claims could fullfil 1 and 2 therefore claims can be evidence by your definition

Claims are the things that require the evidence, that make the predictions,......



Data is only evidence when it is supports or falsifies a claim. Without a claim, data is just data.

So I can only repeat myself for the upteenth time..............................................


Claims are claims. Claims are not evidence. Claims are the things that require evidence.





FYI: I also find it hilarious that when @Dan From Smithville calls you out on misrepresenting his post, that you then return by saying he's wrong as if you think you know better what he meant then he himself does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Under your fallacious definition of evidence it isn't

Ha, you mean the "fallacious" definition that actually requires one to have an actual testable claim / hypothesis before there even can be evidence?

Among all the explanations that have been proposed God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe , if this isn't evidence for you that is ok with me

That's the claim.

I'm asking you how it is evidence.
How is "god" the "best" explanation for it?
What is there to explain and how does god explain it?
Where is the explanatory power?

What is the exact testable claim, how do the predictions naturally flow from this claim, what are those predictions and how does the data of FT fit those predictions? And what is that data?

Sounds like you have quote some 'splainin' to do.
So far, you haven't gotten further then the bare assertions:
- there is FT
- FT is a problem that require explanation
- god explains it
- FT is evidence of god


Each of these points require clarification
1. what is FT
2. how is it a problem / why does it require an explanation
3. how is god that explanation
4. how is it evidence of a god (and which god is that and why?)


But hey, if you don't want or can't clarify further and wish to simply stick to these bare assertions, be my guest.

But in that case, I'm gonna go with the good old "what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". I'm sure you can understand that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure pick a premise and I will support it.....pick the premise that you think it's more likely to be wrong

I just picked them.

If you don't want to answer, don't bother.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I find it perplexing that you are trying to defend tag with creative language and word games ..... Instead of simply saying that he is wrong.

I did not defend anyone but myself. You made erroneous statements. I corrected you. Stop dragging me into this. I'm done here.

If a local person tells you about the location of a restaurant, you would accept the claim as evidence for such location.....you obviously agree.

Given the evidence that supports the claim in your scenario I would consider the claim worth pursuing. I've had local people steer me wrong. Also evidence.

But you won't say it clearly and unambiguously because you don't want to explicitly disagree with tag

You are incorrect. That has been amply demonstrated with evidence. That you don't want to agree that you are wrong is also evidenced in these threads.

There is a pizza at the end of my thread. Have a slice. Consider that evidence if you want to. I wouldn't. It's just a claim.

I have not been following your current argument with @TagliatelliMonster. I have lost interest in these threads for many reasons. All of them involve the anti-science/rejection of science for subjective personal reasons side of the arguments/discussions and the tactics I've seen employed in those efforts of rejection.

Please don't tag me further. If I find any reason to rejoin this or similar threads, it will be of my own volition and likely have more to do with some point of fact mentioned in furtherance of science. I currently have no interest in correcting the irrational positions of uninformed "experts" only to have that information rejected and nonsense perpetually repeated as if it were fact.

Good day sir!