Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Pogo]

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:

Opening lines of the video,
"it is argued that a fine tuned universe is vastly improbable under naturalism but not under theism.
In this video we will hear from some of the leading physicists and philosophers of physics who explain why they disagree.

Now in opposite world this might be evidence for your position, but we are not there even if you are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Opening lines of the video,
"it is argued that a fine tuned universe is vastly improbable under naturalism but not under theism.
In this video we will hear from some of the leading physicists and philosophers of physics who explain why they disagree.

Now in opposite world this might be evidence for your position, but we are not there even if you are.

I know. I am listening to it now. The video is refuting quite a few of @leroy's claims.

LOL!! They just used Low Bar Bill as an example of a poorly reasoning apologist.

When I saw the thumbnail that leroy was talking about I knew that he was wrong since Sean Carroll, the man in the middle, opposes the Fine Tuna Argument.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Because that is part of the definition of being God

He asked you how you know something about your god and you gave that answer. Definitions don't determine reality. That has to be done empirically.

I haven't seen the video.

Yet you've rejected it.

You undermine yourself like that. Why didn't you watch the video? Whatever your reason, it's inadequate. Here you are asking people for their time and their expertise but aren't interested to hear real experts. You don't seem very serious about learning or understanding.

I only watched a few minutes of the video, because why would I watch an hour on a topic that isn't a problem for me? This isn't a discussion I need hear more about. One or two refutations of the FT argument are sufficient, just as with Pascal's Wager.

But that was enough to know that your next comment is inaccurate:

the experts that appear in the thumbnail accept the FT of the universe

The people in the video all had objections to the argument.

the argument doesn't assume that values could be different.

You don't understand the argument if you could write a comment like that. Do you know what tuning is? Do you know what tuning up a car means, or tuning a guitar, or tuning in to a radio station? Fine tuning the universe is exactly analogous - tweaking some variable usually withing sharply constrained parameters to achieve a desired result., like a car that runs optimally, or a guitar that generates musical notes optimally, or a radio station that can be heard clearly, or a universe that can sustain life over billions of years.

If you're interested, thisis what you will hear about:

 

[Pogo]

I know. I am listening to it now. The video is refuting quite a few of @leroy's claims.

LOL!! They just used Low Bar Bill as an example of a poorly reasoning apologist.

When I saw the thumbnail that leroy was talking about I knew that he was wrong since Sean Carroll, the man in the middle, opposes the Fine Tuna Argument.

And@leroy wonders why we can't come up with one good reason, He really needs to watch this video.
Less than halfway through and its Yup we have explained that, Yup we have explained that, Yup we have explained that, Yup we have explained that, ....

 

[Pogo]

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

Typo

God


I dont claim to know the mechanism

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


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

Watch the video, and learn about why the FT argument is not a good argument for God, and then also realize that it is not an argument against a god, but just a worthless argument for.
you want to believe, go right ahead, but you are not going to convince anyone with this argument.

 

[F1fan]

I applaud everyone who puts in more effort than me to help creationists understand their errors while knowing they will ignore it and thump their Bible. I figured posting a good video would be adequate to help someone who spends quite a bit of time posting, and faking interest in knowledge. But for every effort we extend the creationist moves that much more in denial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And@leroy wonders why we can't come up with one good reason, He really needs to watch this video.
Less than halfway through and its Yup we have explained that, Yup we have explained that, Yup we have explained that, Yup we have explained that, ....

He has demonstrated that he does not even understand the argument. When his errors are pointed out to him he just says "strawman". He does not understand the simple fact that to be "tuned" over values have to be possible by definition. Otherwise you are discussing something other than tuning.

 

[Pogo]

He has demonstrated that he does not even understand the argument. When his errors are pointed out to him he just says "strawman". He does not understand the simple fact that to be "tuned" over values have to be possible by definition. Otherwise you are discussing something other than tuning.

Never seen William Lane Craig before, I thought he was supposed to be some sort of intellectual. Oops.
I've come to the conclusion that apologetics means making up excuses for miserable arguments for gods.

 

[blü 2]

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

Please quote me the definitions of God, and the definition of "being God" and the specific source of your knowledge in each case.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Never seen William Lane Craig before, I thought he was supposed to be some sort of intellectual. Oops.
I've come to the conclusion that apologetics means making up excuses for miserable arguments for gods.

Correct, he's not a bright man - just articulate.

This is a famous reprisal of his of an older argument that you have undoubtedly seen among the so-called proofs of God. With points 4 and 5, he goes off the reservation with a jump from "the universe has a cause" to giving it intelligence and calling it timeless and spaceless:

1. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.”
2. “The universe began to exist.”
3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.”
4. “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”
5. “Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,” changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”

Also, this is nothing to be proud of. It's a fancy way of saying that his mind is closed to evidence that contradicts what he believes by faith:

"The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

This makes him no smarter than these three, who say the same thing less eloquently:

• The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.”
• “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
• “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never seen William Lane Craig before, I thought he was supposed to be some sort of intellectual. Oops.
I've come to the conclusion that apologetics means making up excuses for miserable arguments for gods.

He used to be well respected. He was famous for is use of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. But everyone knows how he messed up that one so he has been scrambling for a new hook.

He seriously does not appear to be the sharpest of tools in the shed. He has earned the epithet "Low Bar Bill" for an argument where he openly said that he lowers the bar for reason when it comes to his religious beliefs, and it shows.

 

[McBell]

I applaud everyone who puts in more effort than me to help creationists understand their errors while knowing they will ignore it and thump their Bible. I figured posting a good video would be adequate to help someone who spends quite a bit of time posting, and faking interest in knowledge. But for every effort we extend the creationist moves that much more in denial.

I applaud them because more often than not I end up learning stuffs just by lurking.

 

[Pogo]

I applaud them because more often than not I end up learning stuffs just by lurking.

Nuff learning for me, I am going to go learn me how not to make Thai green curry.

 

[Pogo]

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

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

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

No they aren’t.

Who?

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.

I've got proof of fine tuning, Red Bull, they sold their soul to the Devil to get it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nuff learning for me, I am going to go learn me how not to make Thai green curry.

Uncle Roger can help you with that.

 

[Tomef]

I applaud everyone who puts in more effort than me to help creationists understand their errors while knowing they will ignore it and thump their Bible. I figured posting a good video would be adequate to help someone who spends quite a bit of time posting, and faking interest in knowledge. But for every effort we extend the creationist moves that much more in denial.

Wouldn’t be much fun if they believed in real stuff.

 

[Pogo]

Uncle Roger can help you with that.

Do I want to know an Uncle Rodger?

Nothing like Indian curry or other Thai food I have had.

 

[Pogo]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

Poe’s Law is named after Nathan Poe, an agnostic user on the message board Christian Forums who posted in 2005: “POES LAW: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone wont mistake for the genuine article.” In a thread debating creationism, Poe wrote this in response to a comment: “Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do I want to know an Uncle Rodger?

Nothing like Indian curry or other Thai food I have had.

Probably he shows you how not to make a Thai Green Curry:

And how to make one:

 

[Tomef]

Probably he shows you how not to make a Thai Green Curry:

And how to make one:

Wow this mf is everyone’s uncle. Might see if he can lend me a tenner. Food looks good!