Irony of the evolutionary belief

[SkepticThinker]

you will be ignored for the reasons posted before

That is a non controversial scienrtific fact

That the universe is fined-tuned for life? Nah.
Go try to live on Mars and get back to me about that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Who says? According to what?

Maybe it's a non-intelligent designer like the universe-vomiting tortoise in Stephen King's novel It.

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

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

Is not scientific consensus.

 

[leroy]

That the universe is fined-tuned for life? Nah.

quote from
Stephen Hawking_:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life

Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is not a controvertial fact, the universe is FT

 

[leroy]

Who says? According to what?

Maybe it's a non-intelligent designer like the universe-vomiting tortoise in Stephen King's novel It.

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

Is not scientific consensus.

yes it is


It is a established scientific fact……..but Your Straw man understanding of FT might not be consensus, ….

why dont you define Ft with your own words so that I can correct you?

 

[Pogo]

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

Premise 1 is an unevidenced assertion. Thus all that follows is invalid.

 

[Pogo]

That is a non controversial scienrtific fact

No in your version it is an unevidenced assertion in others, it is the trivial statement that if the physical constants were significantly different, we would not be here to observe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

This is a formal argument of the form:

1. Necessarily either A, B, or C
2. Not A and
3. Not B
3. Therefore, C

And the reasoning is valid, but the argument isn't sound because of its unshared premises. Premises 2 and 3 haven't been established, but I'll stipulate to Premise 2 being correct. According to the multiverse hypothesis, all possible universes could be generated could be created in every possible configuration any number of times. That's the power of the hypothesis. If the fine-tuning argument is valid, and there are arguments that it is not, but once again, let's stipulate to the idea that it is - that it is a valid question demanding an answer, this hypothesis answers it naturalistically.

Edit: I see @Pogo doesn't accept Premise 1. I accepted it because it seems comprehensive, that is, that one of those must be the case. I think it would be better worded that the laws of physics are either necessary or contingent and they were either designed or arose naturalistically.

Getting back to formal logic, the argument can be made sound by writing it as a conditional with the use of the word if:

1. Necessarily either A, B, or C
2. If not A and
3. If not B
3. Then, C

Regarding your comment, "it is not due to chance because Any chance hypothesis is debunked by the Bolzman brain paradox," which was preceded by, "The Boltzmann brain paradox deals with many universes, and explains why even if you have potentially infinite universes , design would still be the best explanation for FT"

These are unfounded claims so far. Where's your argument? Show the debunking if you can.

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.

I'm going to take the liberties believers take and just start making unfounded, unfalsifiable claims ad hoc in an homage to Sagan's Invisible Dragon.

No, leprechauns aren't physical until they enter the universe. They antedate the universe, and after they created it, they entered it and assumed a visible form much like the character Jesus allegedly did, but leprechauns are real.

pick one and show that it is more parsimonious than design.

All naturalistic hypotheses are more parsimonious than any that require that a supernatural realm exists and is also required.

Here are six candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe. The first four are all naturalistic, and the last two require an inhabited supernatural realm:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

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

The parsimony principle is how we order the relative likelihood of candidate hypotheses. I repeat: it doesn't establish any of them as correct.

Do you recall this from a post from last summer? It was regarding coming home and finding your dog missing. I asked you to order these in terms of likelihood:

1. The dog is missing because somebody left the door open.
2. The dog is gone because your angry ex-girlfriend took it to make you suffer.
3. The dog is gone because a cartel broke in, took it, and intends to ransom it.
4. The dog is gone because extraterrestrials beamed it up for an anal probe.
5. The dog is gone because Odin teleported it away.

They all can account for a missing dog assuming that they are all possible. Are any more likely than any others? If so, on what basis do you make that assessment? It's Occam's Razor even if you don't recognize that fact. As the explanations become more complex and require more and less likely elements, they become less likely.

In case you hadn't realized it, they're already ordered from most to least likely.

if you show that a given naturalistic hypothesis is more parsimonious you will score a point. If you are not willing to pick a specific hypothesis then I would prefer not to continue with the conversation.

I think I already have, but I don't think I can make you understand me.

God is not constrained to any laws of nature

Then there is no such thing as fine tuning. You're saying that God could have created this universe any other way and it would be fit to sustain life and mind, but the fine-tuning argument says that that is not so. Yes, God could have made physical law however he chose, but if he didn't finely tune it, then life couldn't exist here. The gist of the argument is that there is a very narrow tolerance in the range that those physical constants can be to yield this kind of universe.

You just quoted Hawking: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

You can't have it both ways - the universe just happens to be just right for life AND God could have made it otherwise and it would still be hospitable to life. If you invoke the fine-tuning argument, you are implying that God himself was constrained in how he could build a universe fit for man, and my point is that if that is the case, God needed to discover what those constants needed to be to engineer such a world, and this implies that God is constrained by rules that limited his choices.

I'm hoping you can follow that.

God could have created a different universe with different laws, or even a universe that is not FT for life.

Yes, just like the multiverse. And if God exists, maybe he did, but that wouldn't be relevant to us in this universe nor to our discussion.

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

I think I have above.

one most drop “infinite universes” in order to avoid this absurdities.

I don't understand where you're going with this line of inquiry, and I'm not interested in falling down another of these rabbit holes. I can't help but believe that you're trying to establish some point that is part of a larger creationist issue, but right now, I can't find a reason to consider any of this further. And it looks like a straw man version of the actual claim, which was uncounted numbers of all possible universes.

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

OK. I'll stipulate to that. That doesn't that mean I agree, just that I don't want to argue it without knowing why I should. You haven't made an argument for supernaturalism. If such a universe is possible, then maybe we live in such a universe, and maybe it arose naturalistically. Are we past that now?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

In other words, can you prove that there is no God?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a formal argument of the form:

1. Necessarily either A, B, or C
2. Not A and
3. Not B
3. Therefore, C

And the reasoning is valid, but the argument isn't sound because of its unshared premises. Premises 2 and 3 haven't been established, but I'll stipulate to Premise 2 being correct. According to the multiverse hypothesis, all possible universes could be generated could be created in every possible configuration any number of times. That's the power of the hypothesis. If the fine-tuning argument is valid, and there are arguments that it is not, but once again, let's stipulate to the idea that it is - that it is a valid question demanding an answer, this hypothesis answers it naturalistically.

Edit: I see @Pogo doesn't accept Premise 1. I accepted it because it seems comprehensive, that is, that one of those must be the case. I think it would be better worded that the laws of physics are either necessary or contingent and they were either designed or arose naturalistically.

Getting back to formal logic, the argument can be made sound by writing it as a conditional with the use of the word if:

1. Necessarily either A, B, or C
2. If not A and
3. If not B
3. Then, C

Regarding your comment, "it is not due to chance because Any chance hypothesis is debunked by the Bolzman brain paradox," which was preceded by, "The Boltzmann brain paradox deals with many universes, and explains why even if you have potentially infinite universes , design would still be the best explanation for FT"

These are unfounded claims so far. Where's your argument? Show the debunking if you can.


I'm going to take the liberties believers take and just start making unfounded, unfalsifiable claims ad hoc in an homage to Sagan's Invisible Dragon.

No, leprechauns aren't physical until they enter the universe. They antedate the universe, and after they created it, they entered it and assumed a visible form much like the character Jesus allegedly did, but leprechauns are real.

All naturalistic hypotheses are more parsimonious than any that require that a supernatural realm exists and is also required.

Here are six candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe. The first four are all naturalistic, and the last two require an inhabited supernatural realm:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

The parsimony principle is how we order the relative likelihood of candidate hypotheses. I repeat: it doesn't establish any of them as correct.

Do you recall this from a post from last summer? It was regarding coming home and finding your dog missing. I asked you to order these in terms of likelihood:

1. The dog is missing because somebody left the door open.
2. The dog is gone because your angry ex-girlfriend took it to make you suffer.
3. The dog is gone because a cartel broke in, took it, and intends to ransom it.
4. The dog is gone because extraterrestrials beamed it up for an anal probe.
5. The dog is gone because Odin teleported it away.

They all can account for a missing dog assuming that they are all possible. Are any more likely than any others? If so, on what basis do you make that assessment? It's Occam's Razor even if you don't recognize that fact. As the explanations become more complex and require more and less likely elements, they become less likely.

In case you hadn't realized it, they're already ordered from most to least likely.

I think I already have, but I don't think I can make you understand me.

Then there is no such thing as fine tuning. You're saying that God could have created this universe any other way and it would be fit to sustain life and mind, but the fine-tuning argument says that that is not so. Yes, God could have made physical law however he chose, but if he didn't finely tune it, then life couldn't exist here. The gist of the argument is that there is a very narrow tolerance in the range that those physical constants can be to yield this kind of universe.

You just quoted Hawking: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

You can't have it both ways - the universe just happens to be just right for life AND God could have made it otherwise and it would still be hospitable to life. If you invoke the fine-tuning argument, you are implying that God himself was constrained in how he could build a universe fit for man, and my point is that if that is the case, God needed to discover what those constants needed to be to engineer such a world, and this implies that God is constrained by rules that limited his choices.

I'm hoping you can follow that.

Yes, just like the multiverse. And if God exists, maybe he did, but that wouldn't be relevant to us in this universe nor to our discussion.

I think I have above.

I don't understand where you're going with this line of inquiry, and I'm not interested in falling down another of these rabbit holes. I can't help but believe that you're trying to establish some point that is part of a larger creationist issue, but right now, I can't find a reason to consider any of this further. And it looks like a straw man version of the actual claim, which was uncounted numbers of all possible universes.

OK. I'll stipulate to that. That doesn't that mean I agree, just that I don't want to argue it without knowing why I should. You haven't made an argument for supernaturalism. If such a universe is possible, then maybe we live in such a universe, and maybe it arose naturalistically. Are we past that now?

Not sure if you believe there is no God...

 

[leroy]

Premise 1 is an unevidenced assertion. Thus all that follows is invalid.

Premise 1 simply lists al the alternatives that are metaphysically possible…………..if you think there is a fourth alterative feel free to share it and I would include that option in the list

 

[Pogo]

yes it is


It is a established scientific fact……..but Your Straw man understanding of FT might not be consensus, ….

why dont you define Ft with your own words so that I can correct you?

A Theological Critique of the Fine-Tuning Argument

Abstract​

The fine-tuning argument attempts to use data from contemporary physics as evidence for God’s existence. In particular, contemporary physics suggests that—in absence of any divine intervention—there was little chance that a universe like ours would come into existence. The chapter points out a theological problem with the fine-tuning argument: since God can choose the laws of nature, God can set the chances that a universe like ours would come into existence. It argues, however, that if God could be expected to create a nice universe, then God could also be expected to set favourable chances for a nice universe. Therefore, the fine-tuning argument defeats itself.

 

[leroy]

No in your version it is an unevidenced assertion in others, it is the trivial statement that if the physical constants were significantly different, we would not be here to observe.

, it is the trivial statement

To say that gravity is FT for life, simply means that if gravity would have been a little bit stronger or weaker…………..life would not be possible. (and the same for other values)


it is not "trivial" but science has shown this to be trrue

 

[leroy]

A Theological Critique of the Fine-Tuning Argument

Abstract​

The fine-tuning argument attempts to use data from contemporary physics as evidence for God’s existence. In particular, contemporary physics suggests that—in absence of any divine intervention—there was little chance that a universe like ours would come into existence. The chapter points out a theological problem with the fine-tuning argument: since God can choose the laws of nature, God can set the chances that a universe like ours would come into existence. It argues, however, that if God could be expected to create a nice universe, then God could also be expected to set favourable chances for a nice universe. Therefore, the fine-tuning argument defeats itself.

I don’t understand the argument………..do you?

 

[leroy]

This is a formal argument of the form:

1. Necessarily either A, B, or C
2. Not A and
3. Not B
3. Therefore, C

And the reasoning is valid, but the argument isn't sound because of its unshared premises. Premises 2 and 3 haven't been established, but I'll stipulate to Premise 2 being correct. According to the multiverse hypothesis, all possible universes could be generated could be created in every possible configuration any number of times. That's the power of the hypothesis. If the fine-tuning argument is valid, and there are arguments that it is not, but once again, let's stipulate to the idea that it is - that it is a valid question demanding an answer, this hypothesis answers it naturalistically.

Edit: I see @Pogo doesn't accept Premise 1. I accepted it because it seems comprehensive, that is, that one of those must be the case. I think it would be better worded that the laws of physics are either necessary or contingent and they were either designed or arose naturalistically.

Getting back to formal logic, the argument can be made sound by writing it as a conditional with the use of the word if:

1. Necessarily either A, B, or C
2. If not A and
3. If not B
3. Then, C

Regarding your comment, "it is not due to chance because Any chance hypothesis is debunked by the Bolzman brain paradox," which was preceded by, "The Boltzmann brain paradox deals with many universes, and explains why even if you have potentially infinite universes , design would still be the best explanation for FT"

These are unfounded claims so far. Where's your argument? Show the debunking if you can.


I'm going to take the liberties believers take and just start making unfounded, unfalsifiable claims ad hoc in an homage to Sagan's Invisible Dragon.

No, leprechauns aren't physical until they enter the universe. They antedate the universe, and after they created it, they entered it and assumed a visible form much like the character Jesus allegedly did, but leprechauns are real.

All naturalistic hypotheses are more parsimonious than any that require that a supernatural realm exists and is also required.

Here are six candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe. The first four are all naturalistic, and the last two require an inhabited supernatural realm:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

The parsimony principle is how we order the relative likelihood of candidate hypotheses. I repeat: it doesn't establish any of them as correct.

Do you recall this from a post from last summer? It was regarding coming home and finding your dog missing. I asked you to order these in terms of likelihood:

1. The dog is missing because somebody left the door open.
2. The dog is gone because your angry ex-girlfriend took it to make you suffer.
3. The dog is gone because a cartel broke in, took it, and intends to ransom it.
4. The dog is gone because extraterrestrials beamed it up for an anal probe.
5. The dog is gone because Odin teleported it away.

They all can account for a missing dog assuming that they are all possible. Are any more likely than any others? If so, on what basis do you make that assessment? It's Occam's Razor even if you don't recognize that fact. As the explanations become more complex and require more and less likely elements, they become less likely.

In case you hadn't realized it, they're already ordered from most to least likely.

I think I already have, but I don't think I can make you understand me.

Then there is no such thing as fine tuning. You're saying that God could have created this universe any other way and it would be fit to sustain life and mind, but the fine-tuning argument says that that is not so. Yes, God could have made physical law however he chose, but if he didn't finely tune it, then life couldn't exist here. The gist of the argument is that there is a very narrow tolerance in the range that those physical constants can be to yield this kind of universe.

You just quoted Hawking: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

You can't have it both ways - the universe just happens to be just right for life AND God could have made it otherwise and it would still be hospitable to life. If you invoke the fine-tuning argument, you are implying that God himself was constrained in how he could build a universe fit for man, and my point is that if that is the case, God needed to discover what those constants needed to be to engineer such a world, and this implies that God is constrained by rules that limited his choices.

I'm hoping you can follow that.

Yes, just like the multiverse. And if God exists, maybe he did, but that wouldn't be relevant to us in this universe nor to our discussion.

I think I have above.

I don't understand where you're going with this line of inquiry, and I'm not interested in falling down another of these rabbit holes. I can't help but believe that you're trying to establish some point that is part of a larger creationist issue, but right now, I can't find a reason to consider any of this further. And it looks like a straw man version of the actual claim, which was uncounted numbers of all possible universes.

OK. I'll stipulate to that. That doesn't that mean I agree, just that I don't want to argue it without knowing why I should. You haven't made an argument for supernaturalism. If such a universe is possible, then maybe we live in such a universe, and maybe it arose naturalistically. Are we past that now?

I appreciate you took the time for such a detailed reply…….. I will find time as soon as possible to respond

 

[Pogo]

To say that gravity is FT for life, simply means that if gravity would have been a little bit stronger or weaker…………..life would not be possible. (and the same for other values)


it is not "trivial" but science has shown this to be trrue

Evidence please.

As we have evolved we are tolerant of a range of no gravity to about 6 times "normal" and evolution would just favor stronger bones/musculature if greater or maybe we would not have left the sea?

 

[Pogo]

I don’t understand the argument………..do you?

Yes.

 

[leroy]

Evidence please.

As we have evolved we are tolerant of a range of no gravity to about 6 times "normal" and evolution would just favor stronger bones/musculature if greater or maybe we would not have left the sea?

Again, you are a YEC asking "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes"…. You have no idea on what you are talking about (which is ok) but you are in no position to opine if the FT arguemnt is good or not,

If gravity would have been 6 times stronger (or even .06%) stronger……………the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole……….meaning that not even atoms would exist in such universe…………. So forget about “strong bones” and evolution there wouldn’t even be mater in this universe.

 

[leroy]

Yes.

Would you explain the argument from the article that you quoted?

 

[blü 2]

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

On the contrary, design is far the weakest of the possibilities, since nothing in physics points to a designer, a conscious and purposeful entity or team of entities creating universes just for the heck of it.

Bringing us to the question of how the designer came into existence ─ an earlier designer, the Mark X model, you say? And who designed the Mark X? The Mark IX? Who was designed by the Mark VIII, who was designed by the Mark VII &c &c &c, you say?

Why would it or they do that? If (for example) they were intending to create intelligent life forms, they succeeded, as far as we presently know, on only one planet in a universe containing septillions of stars and more planets, and it took the universe 9 bn years to get even far enough for the earth to exist. That sounds like inefficiency on an utterly grotesque scale, hey?

Whereas chance and necessity have no such problems because neither implies purpose.

 

[leroy]

On the contrary, design is far the weakest of the possibilities, since nothing in physics points to a designer, a conscious and purposeful entity or team of entities creating universes just for the heck of it.

Bringing us to the question of how the designer came into existence ─ an earlier designer, the Mark X model, you say? And who designed the Mark X? The Mark IX? Who was designed by the Mark VIII, who was designed by the Mark VII &c &c &c, you say?

Why would it or they do that? If (for example) they were intending to create intelligent life forms, they succeeded, as far as we presently know, on only one planet in a universe containing septillions of stars and more planets, and it took the universe 9 bn years to get even far enough for the earth to exist. That sounds like inefficiency on an utterly grotesque scale, hey?

Whereas chance and necessity have no such problems because neither implies purpose.

Well at worst we have a designer that you personally don’t understand or a case where you think a designer should have done things differently. (Something strange if you will)

In the case of chance, the BB paradox completely refutes any chance hypothesis.

A refuted hypothesis is worse than a “strange hypothesis”

Besides I don’t think your objection represents a big of a deal…………….for example when it comes to the pyramids in Egypt, it is a very large complex an expensive building, just to burry a single man, but I wouldn’t conclude “therefore no design”