-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You are the one presenting an argument.
I'm just asking you to support your premises.
You don't understand how that is a valid question in response to an argument?
Great. My question remains my question. I don't care about your assumptions.
To more you dance around here, the more it looks as if you can't.
Translation: I won't support the premises of my argument.
Okay. I reject your conclusion based on the premisses being unsupported.
Have a fun day further inflating your ego.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why is it that you get to demand people to "develop their argument", while you apparently don't have to when you are asked to do the same (ie: support your premises)?
Maybe he could reply to you like you did to me:
He's assuming you are aware of the refutation of the FT argument and that you understand how the FT argument is problematic. He would require many words to explain it to you from scratch. He is only interested in having a conversation with people who understand this, so talking to you about it if you don't is a waste of his time.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You might want to read this. It's only a couple paragraphes and it shouldn't take you more then a minute:
Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home
leroy
Well-Known Member
mY WORDS FOR REFERENCE
But assuming that you also have a note that says “ohhh I stole your dog because I want you to suffer” In this case, while 1 is more parsimonious than 2. The best hypothesis would be 2 because this hypothesis explains both the missing dog and the note (it has more explanatory scope, it explains a greater number of things)
6) and unknown natural mechanism disappeared the dog and left the note
It seems to me this option is even worst that then Odin alternative, but it seems to me that this options analogous to what you are suggesting in the context of abiogenesis and the FT of the universe.
But assuming that you also have a note that says “ohhh I stole your dog because I want you to suffer” In this case, while 1 is more parsimonious than 2. The best hypothesis would be 2 because this hypothesis explains both the missing dog and the note (it has more explanatory scope, it explains a greater number of things)
And what place woudl you asign this option
6) and unknown natural mechanism disappeared the dog and left the note
It seems to me this option is even worst that then Odin alternative, but it seems to me that this options analogous to what you are suggesting in the context of abiogenesis and the FT of the universe.
yes the first tha is what I meant with "go for"
It is absurd (in the trivial sense of the word)…………….because it makes science useless. I used radiometric dating as an example.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The problem is that this picture is not an accurate depiction of how evolution actually works.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Welll if the FT argument is forcing you to conclude that likelly you are a Boltzmann Brain, then I would say that the argument is pretty good.
leroy
Well-Known Member
That is pretty arrogant from your side. If I am the one who is making the argument, then I am the one who decides if something is a straw man or a misrepresentation of the argument.
As I said 3 or 4 times before, for the purpose of this conversation, we can assume that the numbers where given by “deeper” deterministic laws, such that the values could have not been different.
The argument would still work equally good.
Granted, nobody (theist, nor atheists scholars) claims that the numbers where tuned in the literal sense for he word…………..that is just an expression that scientist use (I agree it is misleading)
To say that gravity is FT simply means that if it would have been a tinny bit stronger or weaker the universe would have not been life permitting. . …if you think that the word “tuning” is not appropriate feel free to give it another name.
No idea who that “low bar bill” is, but sure I would like to see the debate
The claim that I made is that well informed atheist like Sean Carol, don’t use the particular argument that you used, because you objection is nonsense.
In his debate with WLC he mentioned 5 objections to the FT argument and none of these 5 objections was:
1 “ohh the argument assumes that the values could be different”
So ether
1 your objection is stupid
2 or you are too intelligent that you found an objection that not even Carol noted
Correction, I don’t know what your starwman version of the argument is
But apparently I am starting to understand………….. you seen to believe that tuning, means” literally tuning”…………..you fail to understand that scientists like to do click bait and use *attractive words* to call the attention of lay man people.
1 tuning doesn’t mean tuning
2 observe doesn’t mean observe (in the context of quantum mechanics)
3 nothing, doesn’t men nothing
4 the big bang wasn’t about a “bang”
5 black holes are not black nor holes
Physicists (or perhaps populazers)like to play with words,
So please, do have the humility to admit your mistake and start your next post with a “thank you leroy “
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The poster just gave you the reason in the post you were responding to:
"Right. Gravity is what it is. Mass of any object is going to have the gravity it does. Gravity affects all objects in space and the FT claim is absurd because it suggests all gravity everywhere was designed so that it works for earth."
leroy
Well-Known Member
ok
1: The Fine Tuning is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
These are the only 3 alternatives that are logically possible that I am aware off, feel free to share a 4th alternative if you think there is one
2: It is not due to physical necessity, or chance.
Physical neceseity wouldnt solve the problem it would only push it one step back
The BB paradox refutes any chance hypothesis
3: Therefore, it is due to design.
this logically follows.
If you don’t start your reply with
“I affirm that you are worng in “”xxx claim” because xxxxx you will be ignored.
leroy
Well-Known Member
I haven’t rejected it I asked him to make a summary of the best objection that he found in the video……………it thought I was making a reasonable request.
Do you think it is reasonable to ask me to refute a 1 hour video in a forum?
Ok, and since it is not practical to answer to all the objections in a forum………..I am proposing to focus on the best objection
Yes and the issue is that nobody thinks that the universe was literally tuned (or tweaked) ike a guitar or a car.
This is not what scientist mean when they say that the universe is FT…….FT simply means that if the values would have been a little bit different, the universe wouldn’t be life permitting. ………there is no literal tunning” implicit in the definition .
How did you do that?
gnostic
The Lost One
That seemed to be common trait among creationists.
They don’t care to learn.
Even if all the evidence were obviously opposite to whatever scriptures or teachings they believe in, they will ignore them, and refuse to acknowledge their errors.
It’s not merely ignorance that drive them to reject any science, it is also dishonesty and pride (hubris).
i think that most creationists have ignored Jesus’ teaching, to remove the log from one’s own eyes (Matthew 7:3-5).
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL! But thank you for the laugh. You are not the judge when you are discussing known works. If claim that 2 + 2 = 5 you do not get to claim 'strawman' when others point out to you that the correct answer is 4. You did not invent the fine tuning argument, you do not get to claim what it is. Your version of it is so laughable that no one needs to refute anyting.
Then you have admitted that they were not "tuned" and your argument goes away.
No, it wouldn't. Then those numbers would just "be". There values would be understood. Once again, stay away from firearms if you value your toes.
No, it is a concept that you do not understand.
Now you are admitting that it could be a different value. That would make it "fine tuned". And it is gravity and the rate of expansion combined that were thought to be "fine tuned". It turns out that the combination is just the value of working out what it had to be using relativity.
You have never heard of him? I could post the full debate, or just the part where Sean Carroll explains how Bill was wrong about the fined tuning of gravity.
No, you have that backwards. Stop that.
Wait a second, you said that you did not know Low Bar Bill.
LMAO! No, Bill would have pointed out your errors to you too. Please stop. I can stop laughing.
No, you do not know what the fine tuning argument is.
It literally means that they could conceivably be other values, otherwise there is no "tuning'. You cannot seem to understand this. If they are fixed constants you have no valid argument. I wonder how many hundreds of times that this basic fact will have to be explained to you.
You seem to be trying to use your own strawman argument here.
Okay, I am tired of trying to educate a person that will not allow himself to be educated. But thank you again for the endless laughs.
gnostic
The Lost One
Once again, you are using appalling logic.
Plus, your argument are merely just a set of unsubstantiated claims, masquerading as premises and conclusion.
You did demonstrate one thing that’s true: your shocking incompetence in logical reasoning.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If it is "physical necessity" then your argument fails. That was how Carroll refuted part of it with Low Bar Bill. Let's just call him LBB after this.
What? No. Why would physical necessity push the problem back? Now you look as if you are assuming that it had to be a God. Physical necessity alone is a valid answer.
And more nattering and hand waving and still no support of his premise.
gnostic
The Lost One
you don’t even understand what the strawman even means.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I do have to admit that that line cracked me up. He does not seem to understand that if that was the case there never could be a "strawman argument".
Let's start with gravity, shall we? But to do that, we will have to have a definition of mass, too, since gravity works on mass. Mass can be experimentally defined as a measure of the body's inertia, meaning the resistance to acceleration (change of velocity) when a net force is applied. In this case, the net force we are examining is gravity, a constant known as G, where G = 6.67×10^−11 N⋅kg^−2⋅m^2
Inertial mass measures an object's resistance to being accelerated by a force (represented by the relationship F = ma).
If a first body of mass mA is placed at a distance r (center of mass to center of mass) from a second body of mass mB, each body is subject to an attractive force Fg = GmAmB/r^2.
Now if you examine that last formula, you should be able to see that, as particles and forces resolved out of the BB, G could, in fact, be different if m were slightly different -- that is, if a body's inertia were a bit different, and G were a bit different by an equivalent factor (just as tearing a piece of paper results in two pieces of paper related to one another by the shape of the tear line), the universe could still get along quite nicely.
With enough effort, I'm pretty sure we could demonstrate how other constants of physics could differ as in this example.
I'll accept that the option is similar to saying that the universe appears finely tuned and proposing an unknow naturalistic mechanism for it, but not that it's less parsimonious than the only supernatural entry on the list, which remains at the bottom for that reason.
That followed these two comments:
You: I agree on that if 2 hypotheses are equal in terms of explanatory power, explanatory scope, intrinsic probability etc. one most go for the most simple hypothesis (the one that makes less assumptions
Me: Does "go for" mean accept provisionally as the best of competing hypotheses or does it mean accept as correct? If the first, yes, we should go for the most parsimonious hypothesis. If the latter, then no, we shouldn't go for it.
You're basically restating Occam's parsimony principle here and agreeing. Is that what you meant?
And that followed these two comments:
You: It is just an example of an absurd consequence of the multiverse hypothesis. ……….. if everything that is possible will happen in some universe (no matter how unlikely) then talking snakes and young universes that look old would occur in some universes
Me: OK. How is that absurd? If it's possible, and all possibilities become actual eventually somewhere, and not just once either - infinitely many times, just like finely tuned universes.
I don't follow any of that. What is the trivial sense of the word absurd? I know of only one sense for it. And how does it make science useless? Remember, we only live in one of those multiple universes. Or maybe by somewhere you meant somewhere in this universe. It doesn't seems so, since you specifically referred to other universes, but if you meant that science becomes useless in our world because separate universes behave perversely, I disagree.
Did you think I concluded that? It seems you did. No, I don't consider that likely, just mathematically possible. My comment was this:
"And frankly, if I'm a Boltzmann brain, that's fine, too. My current arrangement is quite satisfactory whatever hidden aspects to reality there may be, which is also my answer regarding free will being illusion. If that's the case, that's also fine. Whether I'm a deterministic "robot" or a Boltzmann brain living some last Thursdayism existence or a brain in a vat or the victim of Descartes' demon, it's all good"
It depends on your degree of interest in the subject of fine tuning is. If you want a more comprehensive understanding of its implications and refutations, you'll need to make the effort. Watching an hourlong video and taking notes, which means more than an hour in time and more than passively watching in effort, seems like a reasonable use of your time. You come here to query RF participants on these matters, and we aren't as qualified as people like Sean Carroll to discuss refutations to the fine-tuning argument.
Never be lazy about your education. Whenever you encounter a word you don't know, Google it. I put all Spanish I can't understand into a translator. This is an open tab on my browser for words I routinely have difficulty with:
Agreed, the scientists don't think an intelligent designer actively and deliberately tuned those parameters, but I think it's what the creationists think God did, like setting dials. They like to insert agency into the meanings of words. Thus, if we talk about a creation, they want a creator. If we talk about a design, they say that implies a designer. If we talk about scientific law, they say that means there's a lawgiver. I don't know if it was a creationist who came up with the word tuned, but for them, it implies a tuner. That's why they like to bring it up.
I use a standard English keyboard like this one. Depress Shift, the Windows icon (between ctrl and alt), and the letter S simultaneously, and a little rectangle appears in the top center of your screen, your screen gets grayer, and a plus-sign shaped cursor appears. Drag it over the part of the screen you want copied and then paste it somewhere.
leroy
Well-Known Member
No they were not tuned, in the literal sense of the Word.
For the third time.
1 if the numbers are logically or metaphysically necessary, then granted, the values would “just be” and no explanation would be needed.
2 if the numbers where physically necessary given “deeper laws of physics” then the design hypothesis would not be affected,
Nope, please quote an actual paper…………….I know about that quote from Carlo in the debate, and he has been critized by cosmologist, because nobody understood what was he talking about.
So please quote an actual paper that explains and supports whatever mess was claimed by Carol.
Well if your objections are based straw man and based on a unsupported quote made by Carol……..I think I can claim victory