Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

This is an example of why the Fine Tuna argument is foolish.

Hmm...I said, "Now that you mentioned it, can you describe how everything got set so life can be on the earth? Betcha can't and bet you scientists cannot, even if it's amazingly good for life on earth. But anyway, no use quibbling, since mankind is said by scientists to incur destruction on the earth for themselves by their inventions. Hope your enjoyed your day."

How does this make as you said, the Fine Tune argument foolish? Support your claim with facts, please.

 

[F1fan]

Since it's an argument and detailed at that, I'll let others work on it.

Why do you suppose experts in science don't recognize fine tuning as valid?

Why do you suppose those who are advocating for it have a religious agenda?

 

[blü 2]

I did. I explained why it failed. The problem is that neither you nor @leroy understand the argument.

Back at #3005 I asked Leroy ─

So what Fine Tuning was necessary before God could exist?

My own answer is that humans have to exist for God to exist.

What's your view?

 

[leroy]

Then there is no tuning. And the argument fails. You do not even understand your own argument. When you do not understand your own argument you cannot understand the refutation.

"The term “fine-tuning” is used to characterize sensitive dependences of facts or properties on the values of certain parameters. "

If the values cannot change they are not "tuned". They just are. Can you not see the implication in that short quote?

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You where already corrected , you made a strawman, the argument assumes that other values are Mataphyaically and logically possible........ but the argument doesn't assume that other values are physically possible.

If you have a tattoo with your birthdate printed (say 02/03/1980) that would be fine tuning and design would be the best explanation (yes)

Now lets say that this is not a tattoo but rather a birth mole, you where born with a mole that happens to look like the the numbers 02/03/1980 you even identified the genes and the mutants that made this mole with this form inevitable, you had no other option you where determined by your genes to have that mole.

Would this be FT (yes) would design be the best explanation (yes) was it possible to get a different mole (no)

 

[leroy]

So what Fine Tuning was necessary before God could exist?

None

 

[leroy]

No, it's NOT part of science. It's not my opinion. I've asked you to show where FT is anywhere in reputable science literature.

The experts in your video grant that there is FT on the universe

You have nothing, so we throw it out.



All the educated have objections to your creationist nonsense. You are just too indoctrinated and stubborn to realize you are mistake

Yes obviously the have objection..... but none of them are good on my opinion......and given that yu haven't shared any objection I would say that you have the sane opinion

 

[blü 2]

None

Why "none"?

How do you know?

 

[F1fan]

The experts in your video grant that there is FT on the universe

I didn't see that. Where in the video that debunks FT does it assert it occurred?

And what do you mean "on" the universe?

Since you believe fine tuning occurred, what do you think caused it? Explain the facts and describe the mechanism.

Yes obviously the have objection..... but none of them are good on my opinion......and given that yu haven't shared any objection I would say that you have the sane opinion

Yes, you think experts are wrong in your non-expert opinion. That's why we accept the experts and reject your opinion. Do you not understand how absurd you sound?

Since we are talking about evolution and how organisms exist today, you still haven't explained how cancer and disease is "fine tuned" for life. Can you admit that life is a lottery, and the universe guarantees no good health or long life? Are you aware that fetuses can have genetic faults and fail to develop and need to be aborted? How does that fit with fine tuning?

 

[gnostic]

The problem with fine-tuned universe is there are several versions, and each one has failed, because they all approach cosmology either

• from philosophical speculations with a great deal of “what-if…”, or
• from religious-flavoring cosmology, like what @YoursTrue & @leroy have been doing…so the old God did it or the Designer did it, both are superstitions…but like the philosophical approach, just more of playing the “what-if…” speculative game.

Neither sides have anything to offer, in term of verifiable evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You where already corrected , you made a strawman, the argument assumes that other values are Mataphyaically and logically possible........ but the argument doesn't assume that other values are physically possible.

If you have a tattoo with your birthdate printed (say 02/03/1980) that would be fine tuning and design would be the best explanation (yes)

Now lets say that this is not a tattoo but rather a birth mole, you where born with a mole that happens to look like the the numbers 02/03/1980 you even identified the genes and the mutants that made this mole with this form inevitable, you had no other option you where determined by your genes to have that mole.

Would this be FT (yes) would design be the best explanation (yes) was it possible to get a different mole (no)

How did I make a strawman? And your silly analogy does not apply. You keep forgetting that you do not understand analogies. A proper one involves something that happens in the real world.

I explained to you how you have an incorrect version of the Fine Tuna Argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with fine-tuned universe is there are several versions, and each one has failed, because they all approach cosmology either

• from philosophical speculations with a great deal of “what-if…”, or
• from religious-flavoring cosmology, like what @YoursTrue & @leroy have been doing…so the old God did it or the Designer did it, both are superstitions…but like the philosophical approach, just more of playing the “what-if…” speculative game.

Neither sides have anything to offer, in term of verifiable evidence.

Yes, they are essentially arguments from ignorance.


Hmm, after I started this I put the possible, but not shown to be "strawman agent" in Green. From the concept of Green Ink:


Essentially "This value has to be this value for life to have occurred!" That does not always appear to be the case, but let's grant it. "Okay, so what?" "Well it had to be chosen to be that value." "Not necessarily" "But look, I have this value, and these others too. They all had to be chosen." "No, we do not know if they are chosen or not. We do not even know if they can vary or not. You are assuming that they are both variable, something that puts a huge burden of proof upon your shoulders, and that they were chosen to be those values. Worse yet your strongest value, Value A has been solved. It is not a variable. It has only one possible outcome. It is not a fine fish value. It just is. "Strawman, strawman, strawman!" "How so? I merely pointed out that A has been solved. It is not fine trout or even a fine carp. It just is. "I said the magic word "strawman". That means that I win!" " I do not think that it works that way either."

 

[gnostic]

You where already corrected , you made a strawman, the argument assumes that other values are Mataphyaically and logically possible........ but the argument doesn't assume that other values are physically possible.

If you have a tattoo with your birthdate printed (say 02/03/1980) that would be fine tuning and design would be the best explanation (yes)

Now lets say that this is not a tattoo but rather a birth mole, you where born with a mole that happens to look like the the numbers 02/03/1980 you even identified the genes and the mutants that made this mole with this form inevitable, you had no other option you where determined by your genes to have that mole.

Would this be FT (yes) would design be the best explanation (yes) was it possible to get a different mole (no)

From what I said earlier, in recent post, this is not only “what-if…” speculation, you couple it with something that have absolutely nothing to do with the universe.

It is just meaningless analogy, because it demonstrates nothing about the universe being “fine-tuned”. It is a false analogy, as well as false equivalence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, obviously they have objections..... but none of them are good in my opinion

You know how little that means to a critical thinker, who is only interested in what you know and can demonstrate to be correct, not your opinions. Would you consider going back to the video, listing the objections to which you refer, and explain why you think they are invalid, that is, attempt to falsify them, because that is the test of whether your objections should be taken seriously. Absent that, I assume that you object for faith-based reasons and not because you have any better reason for that opinion other than that it contradicts what you have chosen to believe by faith.

Digression: As you know, faith in Spanish is fe. I had always thought that the San and Santa cities in the western US were named after saints like San Francisco and Santa Monica, and that these were titles like Dr. and Dra or Sr. and Sra. Eventually, I came to understand that these words only meant holy, as in Santa Semana - the holy week between Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday - and that some of these cities weren't named after people at all, such as Santa Fe (holy faith) and Santa Cruz (holy cross).

given that you haven't shared any objection, I would say that you have the same opinion

You've seen several objections from several posters. I don't recall a directed response to mine, which is that the fine-tuning argument implies that the deity must discover rules to implement them when designing a universe fit for life and mind. That's not a ridiculous idea; it is logically possible. But such a deity is not omnipotent if it is constrained by factors that limit it.

You haven't responded to the multiverse argument to my knowledge except to try to say that the if multiverse can only generate a finite number of universes, then this one like any other specific configuration is unlikely - less likely than a Boltzmann brain.

 

[leroy]

Why "none"?

How do you know?

Because that is part o the definition of beig God.....

 

[leroy]

I didn't see that. Where in the video that debunks FT does it assert it occurred?

I haven't seen the video. But the experts that appear in the thumnail accept the FT of the universe

And what do you mean "on" the universe?

Typo

Since you believe fine tuning occurred, what do you think caused it?

God

Explain the facts and describe the mechanism.

I dont claim to know the mechanism

Yes, you think experts are wrong in your non-expert opinion. That's why we accept the experts and reject your opinion. Do you not understand how absurd you sound?

Experts are divided . So yes by definition some experts have to be wrong

But even atheist tend to accept that this is a good argument

Since we are talking about evolution and how organisms exist today, you still haven't explained how cancer and disease is "fine tuned" for life. Can you admit that life is a lottery, and the universe guarantees no good health or long life? Are you aware that fetuses can have genetic faults and fail to develop and need to be aborted? How does that fit with fine tuning?

You dont understand the Ft argument.....stop wasting my time with cancer ..... not even your experts make such a dtupid and strawman objection

 

[leroy]

How did I make a strawman?

Because the argument doesn't assume that values could be different. Your objectio is a strawman.


Just think . Why would very smart scholars adopt something as wild as a multiverse to explain the FT when you *seem *to have a better answer?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the argument doesn't assume that values could be different. Your objectio is a strawman.

Wrong. This has been explained to you. The assumption even exists in the name itself. If the values could not be different then they are not "tuned". You would have to show that I am wrong here because showing that a variable is not tuned is one way to debunk at least part of the Fine Tuning Argument.

And about the video, where is it? What scientists are in it? I can link you a video of Sean Carroll in a debate against Low Bar Bill where he refutes Bill's use of at least part of the Fine Tuning argument. He clearly does not accept such a fishy argument.

Just think . Why would very smart scholars adopt something as wild as a multiverse to explain the FT when you *seem *to have a better answer?

But they haven't. They have stated that it may be a possibility. And some of the values may be tunable. Scientists often work on the "may be's" ahead of time. That does not mean that they accept them.

So you do not even know what the Fine Tuning argument is. No wonder that you are so confused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never mind @leroy. I found the video. You are quite wrong about all three of them accepting it. Sean Carroll, the scientist in the center clearly does not accept it. Perhaps your beliefs is based upon your flawed understanding of the argument.

If you want to smear scientists you need to at least support your claims with at least halfway reliable sources.


And watch the video if you want to make comments upon it:

 

[Pogo]

I dont claim to know the mechanism

In other words, your argument is just the god of the gaps. You see something you don't understand and so you assign it to your God.
The problem is that you are using this false argument to justify your emotional desire.

As for cancer, it is either part of your god's fine tuning if your argument is that your God is responsible for everything or your God is entirely ad hoc.

Finally, I want to know what god school is responsible for your incompetent and lazy god as nothing happens without a cause and you seem to think that the universe happened. Please don't just fall back to special pleading, it is so pathetic.

 

[F1fan]

I haven't seen the video. But the experts that appear in the thumnail accept the FT of the universe

Totally untrue. Just watch the first 60 seconds. They say they disagree with FT.

God

God isn’t factual, nor probable. So you admit your bias.

I dont claim to know the mechanism

Then how can you claim a God did it? No evidence of either the cause or the mechanism.

Experts are divided . So yes by definition some experts have to be wrong

No they aren’t.

But even atheist tend to accept that this is a good argument

Who?

You dont understand the Ft argument.....stop wasting my time with cancer ..... not even your experts make such a dtupid and strawman objection

The FT argument isn’t that complex. It’s nothing more than a guess that works backwards for a reason why physics is what it is. There are no facts that allow a logical conclusion that FT is true or probable.