Irony of the evolutionary belief

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Leperchanous are physical beings

Maybe. That's not an issue either way.

they could have not been the cause of the universe

If a god could, so could a leprechaun according to the same evidence and argument. He uses his lucky charms. They're not just delicious. They're magically delicious, and with this magic, one can create universes. Don't ask me how I know. I just do.

Íl say that God is a better explanation for FT than any naturalistic alternative

I'll say that any naturalistic alternative is more parsimonious.

why discover and not create?

If a god is constrained to finely tune a universe according to some higher laws, it needs to discover them, then design his universe accordingly if he wants it to be stable enough long enough for life and mind to emerge in it. If you can create the laws however you like, then it's meaningless to say that the universe is finely tuned.

If there is a potentially infinite number of universes, then by chance alone there would be universes where radioactive elements decay faster than their predicted rate………… giving the impression of an old age, when it is actually young.

There is no reason that that faster rate would be misinterpreted.

Are you still claiming that you are not promoting biblical creationism with all of this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

You have not shown this to be the case. Only asserted it. Assertions aren't evidence. Assertions require evidence.

Which god? How? How did you determine that?

 

[F1fan]

Sounds like you are just making things up......

This is what a poorly informed person would say. You haven't done your homework on the bogus claims you are making, and that is your ongoing error. You are selecting creationist claims as arguments, and the well educated members already know why these claims are flawed and not credible. You are at a disadvantage here because you are desperate for religious explanations for nature, and your options are absurd and not based on fact.

you don't seem to be aware of any refutation to the argument

As I already said, you introduced fine tuning, it's on you to support it. Where are the experts in science agreeing it is valid as an explanation (the consensus of experts, not a few crackpots like Behe or Demsky).

Creationists have a bad habit of throwing out nonsense and demand the well educated explain why it's bogus. We waste our time doing this, and then you ignore the rebuttals. There are two creationists who pull this insincere crap, and I'm seeing more of the well educated getting tired of doing homework and explaining true answers, and then it gets ignored because of unwarranted religious bias.

You've already been challenged by two other members for your FT claim, and let's see how you respond to them.

 

[F1fan]

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

Gods aren't known to exist. Science doesn't recognize any of the many ideas of gods as true, thus irrelevant to explaining anything.

So who told you a God exists, and why did you believe them? There's no evidence you have presented that demonstrates they are real, exist, have powers and abilities, and can cause material and other phemonenon to exist.

Since you now admit you are a believer and think a God caused things, it's clear you also believe fine tuning is a divine act.

Show us the evidence.

Let me ask you this: do you think cancers that affect and kill children and young adults is an indication of a universe that is "finely tuned"? Explain how cancer is indication of a finely tuned universe for life.

 

[leroy]

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.

No doubt that there are many alternatives….. The issue is that you have to show that at least one alternative is better than design.

For example the multiverse and any other chance hypothesis is conclusively refuted by the bolzman brain paradox ……….so unless you can refute “design” in a conclusive way, design would be better than chance

 

[leroy]

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

Because you have explicitly disagreed in previous posts……………..did you change your mind?

For example you explicitly said that there is no evidence that you are a father, because all we have is your claim.

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.

Now you are using creative language to safe yourself…………. Why don’t you simply admit your mistake?

 

[leroy]

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




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




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.

You have tyo be joking……………..you are not remotely qualified to have this conversation with me, if you are not willing to admit simple and trivial mistakes there is no hope for any reusable conversation between us.

 

[leroy]

I just picked them.

Pick one premise that you would claim is wrong

Develop your argument and explain why you think is wrong

You haven´t done that and if you don’t follow this simple instruction you will not have a conversation with me…………..

 

[gnostic]

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

So I would appreciate if you star your post with “yes Leroy you were correct, and I was wrong the FT of the universe is not subjective, but rather an objective property of the universe.

Wow!

You are really deluded to think you have made some genius or superior logical arguments FOR fine-tuning universe, when NO ONE, and that including you, have never presented a single evidence to support any FT claim.

For instance, you wrote the following and present a set of premises, plus the conclusion, below:

If you want to claim that God doesn’t exist because most of the universe is hostile to life….. go ahead, develop your argument, but this has noting to do with FT and your argument (even if sound) would. Not affect any of the premises of the FT 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.

As you can note, it doesnt matter if you show that 99.99999% of the universe is hostile to life, ………. None of the premises would be affected.

Of course it matter, for anyone who read your absurd premises and your so-called “conclusion” that you have arrived at, to reject the whole argument, because you haven’t a single evidence for each of the premises.

And that based on your unsubstantiated premises, you have falsely concluded a “Designer did it”, it is just disingenuous.

Plus, there are no evidence to support that there is really an entity known as the Designer, which further weaken your FT argument.

Where is this Designer? How would you determine the Designer is real and not another nonexistent entity, like a fairy or leprechaun or vampire ?

The Designer is as fictional as a leprechaun…except that these were created by today’s creationists, who are just primitive & superstitious as the Bronze Age cultures.

 

[leroy]

Maybe. That's not an issue either way.

If a god could, so could a leprechaun according to the same evidence and argument.

Leprechauns are physical beings, (with body’s hats etc)…………which means that by definition they are part of the universe, they can´t exist without a universe.

If Leprechauns can´t exist without a universe, they can´t be the cause of the universe.

God doesn’t have that limitation.

I'll say that any naturalistic alternative is more parsimonious.

Well pick one and show that it is more parsimouns that design.

But in any case, we disagree on a fundamental issue, you seem to believe that parsimony is the only criteria that matters (correct me if I am wrong)………..I would deny that statement and argue that parsimony of only one of many criteria used to determine the best explanation

but if you show that a given naturalistic hypothesis is more parsimonious you will sccore a point.


If you are not willing to pick a specific hypothesis then I would prefer not to continue with the conversation

If a god is constrained to finely tune a universe according to some higher laws, it needs to discover them,

God is not constrained to any laws of nature, why would that be the case?

then design his universe accordingly if he wants it to be stable enough long enough for life and mind to emerge in it. If you can create the laws however you like, then it's meaningless to say that the universe is finely tuned.

God could have created a different universe with different laws, or even a universe that is not FT for life. It simply happened to be the case that God decided to create this FT universe.

I am obviously missing something, I don’t understand why are you making this argument


can you define FT with your own words? (that would be grate)

There is no reason that that faster rate would be misinterpreted.

Are you still claiming that you are not promoting biblical creationism with all of this?

Understand the argument:

1 you know that radioactive decay is a random process ¿agree? This means that it is very unlikely but possible for an element to decay 2 times (or 10 times or 1000000000 times faster) than it’s average speed. ………………as an analogy if you throw a coin 1,000,000 times you are expected to get something close to 500,000 tails and 500,000 heads………………..but it is possible (but very unlikely) to get 100% heads.

2 if you have infinite universes then even the very unlikely events would occur every once in a while. ………..this means that every once in a while you will get 100% heads when throwing a coin……..and every once in a while you will have rocks with radioactive elements that decay 100000 faster than i´ts normal speed.

3 this means that every once in a while young 6,000yo universes that look older will appear……….so how do you know that we don’t life in such universe.



The point that I am making is not that the earth is 6,000yo, but rather that one most drop “infinite universes” in order to avoid this absurdities.

But if you insist that there are infinite universes , then it follows that some universes look 14Billion years old but are 6,000yo and that we could be living in one

 

[leroy]

This is what a poorly informed person would say. You haven't done your homework on the bogus claims you are making, and that is your ongoing error. You are selecting creationist claims as arguments, and the well educated members already know why these claims are flawed and not credible. You are at a disadvantage here because you are desperate for religious explanations for nature, and your options are absurd and not based on fact.

As I already said, you introduced fine tuning, it's on you to support it. Where are the experts in science agreeing it is valid as an explanation (the consensus of experts, not a few crackpots like Behe or Demsky).

Creationists have a bad habit of throwing out nonsense and demand the well educated explain why it's bogus. We waste our time doing this, and then you ignore the rebuttals. There are two creationists who pull this insincere crap, and I'm seeing more of the well educated getting tired of doing homework and explaining true answers, and then it gets ignored because of unwarranted religious bias.

You've already been challenged by two other members for your FT claim, and let's see how you respond to them.

Again, you said that you have a video that DEBUNKS the FT argument……………..but you are unable to summarize the alleged rebuttal.

Seems to me that you are just making things up

 

[leroy]

Let me ask you this: do you think cancers that affect and kill children and young adults is an indication of a universe that is "finely tuned"? Explain how cancer is indication of a finely tuned universe for life.

Sorry………….you are like a creationists asking “if humans evolved from Chimps, why are there still chimps”

You obviously don’t understand the argument, and therefore are not qualified to opine on it

But you can prove me wrong………………explain the argument with your own words.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry………….you are like a creationists asking “if humans evolved from Chimps, why are there still chimps”

You obviously don’t understand the argument, and therefore are not qualified to opine on it

But you can prove me wrong………………explain the argument with your own words.

Perhaps if you'd answer the questions posed, it would help said poster understand your argument better.
That's why I ask questions.

 

[leroy]

How would you determine the Designer is real and not another nonexistent entity, like a fairy or leprechaun or vampire ?

Because vampires fairies and Leprechauns are physical beings and part of the universe. They need a preexisting FT universe in order to exist.

If they need a preexisting FT universe, then They can´t be the cause of the FT universe…………..God doesn’t have that limitation god is not physical, god is not part of the universe, god doesn’t needs a preexisting FT universe it order to exist.

To keep it simple

Any cause of the FT universe can´t have Atoms and molecules, because atoms and molecules require a FT universe.

 

[Pogo]

For example the multiverse and any other chance hypothesis is conclusively refuted by the bolzman brain paradox ……….so unless you can refute “design” in a conclusive way, design would be better than chance

Where did you get this idea, if anything it says that we could erroneously conclude design because of the eventuality of random fluctuations generating structures?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because vampires fairies and Leprechauns are physical beings and part of the universe. They need a preexisting FT universe in order to exist.

Not if they're magical non-physical leprechauns.

If they need a preexisting FT universe, then They can´t be the cause of the FT universe…………..God doesn’t have that limitation god is not physical, god is not part of the universe, god doesn’t needs a preexisting FT universe it order to exist.

These are claims that require evidence.

To keep it simple

Any cause of the FT universe can´t have Atoms and molecules, because atoms and molecules require a FT universe.

How do you know this?

 

[leroy]

You have not shown this to be the case. Only asserted it. Assertions aren't evidence. Assertions require evidence.

Which god? How? How did you determine that?

The argument: (my comments in red)

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

Nothing controversial, the argument simply lists the possibilities that are metaphysically possible……if you think that there is a fourth alternative please share

2 It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

It is not due to necessity, because we are talking about multiple independent values, why would they conspire with each other?

it is not due to chance because Any chance hypotheiss is debunked by the bolzman brain paradox


3 Therefore, it is due to design.

is the only alternative that remains

No it is your turn, how do you explain the FT of the universe? (chance or necessity) and why do you think that this explanation is better than design?


If you don’t provide a clear and unambiguous alternative and provide reasons for why your alternative is better, you will be ignored in future comments

 

[SkepticThinker]

The argument: (my comments in red)

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

Nothing controversial, the argument simply lists the possibilities that are metaphysically possible……if you think that there is a fourth alternative please share

2 It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

It is not due to necessity, because we are talking about multiple independent values, why would they conspire with each other?

it is not due to chance because Any chance hypotheiss is debunked by the bolzman brain paradox


3 Therefore, it is due to design.

is the only alternative that remains

No it is your turn, how do you explain the FT of the universe? (chance or necessity) and why do you think that this explanation is better than design?


If you don’t provide a clear and unambiguous alternative and provide reasons for why your alternative is better, you will be ignored in future comments

My point of contention was with, "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."

None of these premises get you there.
You've not even shown that the universe is fine tuned for life in the first place.

 

[leroy]

Not if they're magical non-physical leprechauns.

Granted the designer would be intelligent speceless timeless and immaterial, weather if you whant to label it as God or give it another name is irrelevant.

How do you know this?

Scientific consensus……….in order for atoms and molecules to exist multiple i variables and constants need to have very specific values

 

[leroy]

My point of contention was with, "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."

None of these premises get you there.

you will be ignored for the reasons posted before

You've not even shown that the universe is fine tuned for life in the first place.

That is a non controversial scienrtific fact