Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 14 of 14
 [ 269 posts ] 
The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1022Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Dragan Glas wrote:
Therefore saying that "everything should be assumed to be possible until proven otherwise" is simply wrong.

Kindest regards,

James



well if you prove that something is logically incoherent you would prove that it is impossible.............that is my point.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:25 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2772Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:
Therefore saying that "everything should be assumed to be possible until proven otherwise" is simply wrong.

Kindest regards,

James



well if you prove that something is logically incoherent you would prove that it is impossible.............that is my point.

You can't assume everything is possible - that's my point.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:34 am
leroyPosts: 1022Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism


leroy wrote:
First you said that CF are necessary fallacious


he_who_is_nobody wrote:They are.


].



well CF may or may not be necessarily fallacious, the fact is that you haven't done anything to prove it, and this source does prove it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional

even hackenslash would agree with me

leroy wrote:
however it is still a fact that this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional) does not prove that a counterfactual premise IS ALWAYS FALLACIOUS..................agree?


hackenslash
I agree that the article doesn't support that claim, and I've already said this.



so ether admit that, the article does not prove that CF are necessarily fallacious and provide a source that actually supports that statement, or explain to me and to hackenslash exactly what part of the article proves it.



Not the point of my argument, and I love how you use a counterfactual as an example. The matter that ended up making that calculator could have ended up making anything, calculator or not. Again, you need to demonstrate that our universe could have been different, otherwise, your enumerating of the initial conditions is moot. The reason we know the calculator is fine-tuned is because we can compare it to things that are not fine-tuned



again calculators and universes could be FT even if they could have not been different, to be FT does not imply that "it could have been different" no where in the definition of FT does it say that could have been different is a necessary property of being FT

The reason we know the calculator is fine-tuned is because we can compare it to things that are not fine-tuned


maybe, but that is irrelevant, what I am saying is that a calculator would be FT even if it would have been created by a deterministic mechanism, (a robot for example) that could have not been different ..................could have been different is not a necessary property of FT, or at least you haven't shown it to be the case.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:41 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3144Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:we ve been here before...................Why don't you simply write a small conclusion and I will write mine and end with this conversation, none of us has anything new to add.


Oh well.

leroy wrote:

leroy wrote:
First you said that CF are necessary fallacious


he_who_is_nobody wrote:They are.


].



well CF may or may not be necessarily fallacious, the fact is that you haven't done anything to prove it, and this source does prove it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional

even hackenslash would agree with me

leroy wrote:
however it is still a fact that this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional) does not prove that a counterfactual premise IS ALWAYS FALLACIOUS..................agree?


hackenslash
I agree that the article doesn't support that claim, and I've already said this.



so ether admit that, the article does not prove that CF are necessarily fallacious and provide a source that actually supports that statement, or explain to me and to hackenslash exactly what part of the article proves it.

[emphasis added]


Wait, what? First you say the source does prove it, then you say it does not. Perhaps if you stopped mindlessly responding, this would not happen. Beyond that, it does and work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:
Not the point of my argument, and I love how you use a counterfactual as an example. The matter that ended up making that calculator could have ended up making anything, calculator or not. Again, you need to demonstrate that our universe could have been different, otherwise, your enumerating of the initial conditions is moot. The reason we know the calculator is fine-tuned is because we can compare it to things that are not fine-tuned



again calculators and universes could be FT even if they could have not been different, to be FT does not imply that "it could have been different" no where in the definition of FT does it say that could have been different is a necessary property of being FT


:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:You are missing the demonstration that any of those observations you keep listing are "within a very narrow range" and if "only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to" lead to the development of life. Heck, I would be fine if you could demonstrate that those initial conditions you keep pointing to could be different. Until you are able to make those demonstrations, listing those observations is moot. If only you would read my post, you would already know this.


If things are in a "very narrow range" and it says if things were "only slightly different", than it is implying that things could have been different. Again, work on your reading comprehension.


Did you think because you took so long to respond I would forget this?

leroy wrote:
The reason we know the calculator is fine-tuned is because we can compare it to things that are not fine-tuned


maybe, but that is irrelevant, what I am saying is that a calculator would be FT even if it would have been created by a deterministic mechanism, (a robot for example) that could have not been different ..................could have been different is not a necessary property of FT, or at least you haven't shown it to be the case.


You have no idea what you are arguing for anymore, do you? Fine-tuning implies that things could have been different. I have pointed out that using the definition that we both agreed with above. How that fine-tuning came about is irrelevant. Beyond that, if I smashed a calculator it would no longer be fine-tuned, right? That is because its fine-tuning depends on how it is arranged. If it were arranged different, the calculator would no longer be fine-tuned, again, how it was made is irrelevant to this.

leroy wrote:I really don't have nothing else to add.


To bad that will not stop you from mindlessly responding to me.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:02 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1022Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[quote
Wait, what? First you say the source does prove it, then you say it does not. Perhaps if you stopped mindlessly responding, this would not happen. Beyond that, it does and work on your reading comprehension.



it does not prove it, stop lying to yourself, anyone can read the article and note that the article does not even claim that CF are fallacious.


If things are in a "very narrow range" and it says if things were "only slightly different", than it is implying that things could have been different. Again, work on your reading comprehension.



non of that implies that things could have been different. a rage could be narrow even if no other spot is possible, and the fact that we could hypothetically make them slightly different does not mean that it is possible to do it.

the universe could or could have not been different, that is irrelevant for the claim that the universe is FT.


?


You have no idea what you are arguing for anymore, do you? Fine-tuning implies that things could have been different. .



anyone can reed the definition of FT and note that FT does not imply that things could have been different

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Apr 11, 2017 11:03 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3144Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:we ve been here before...................Why don't you simply write a small conclusion and I will write mine and end with this conversation, none of us has anything new to add.


Oh well.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Wait, what? First you say the source does prove it, then you say it does not. Perhaps if you stopped mindlessly responding, this would not happen. Beyond that, it does and work on your reading comprehension.



it does not prove it, stop lying to yourself, anyone can read the article and note that the article does not even claim that CF are fallacious.


Once again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:
If things are in a "very narrow range" and it says if things were "only slightly different", than it is implying that things could have been different. Again, work on your reading comprehension.



non of that implies that things could have been different. a rage could be narrow even if no other spot is possible, and the fact that we could hypothetically make them slightly different does not mean that it is possible to do it.


How can something be narrow if we are not comparing it to other things? Beyond that, you admit that you have to pretend things could be different in order for your point to stand. Again, I do not grant your hypothetical, I will after you demonstrate that we are playing in reality and not your imagination.

leroy wrote:the universe could or could have not been different, that is irrelevant for the claim that the universe is FT.


It seems very relevant since the definition says "narrow range" and "only slightly different". How are you able to read that and think otherwise? Again, work on your reading comprehension. Beyond that, you already admitted that one has to grant that things could be different for your argument to stand.

leroy wrote:
?


You have no idea what you are arguing for anymore, do you? Fine-tuning implies that things could have been different. .



anyone can reed the definition of FT and note that FT does not imply that things could have been different

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

[emphasis added]


Again, work on your reading comprehension. Beyond that:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You have no idea what you are arguing for anymore, do you? Fine-tuning implies that things could have been different. I have pointed out that using the definition that we both agreed with above. How that fine-tuning came about is irrelevant. Beyond that, if I smashed a calculator it would no longer be fine-tuned, right? That is because its fine-tuning depends on how it is arranged. If it were arranged different, the calculator would no longer be fine-tuned, again, how it was made is irrelevant to this.


Just because you ignore what was said, does not mean it has gone away. It just makes you look pathetic for not addressing valid points.

leroy wrote:I really don't have nothing else to add.


To bad that will not stop you from mindlessly responding to me.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:20 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1022Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

A brief and clear explanation on Bolzman Brains

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhy4Z_32kQo
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue May 02, 2017 6:08 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2498Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:A brief and clear explanation on Bolzman Brains

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhy4Z_32kQo



A good video from a good channel, in my personal opinion.

But - and this is without having read up on the latest developments on this thread - I'm just wondering what the point of bringing this up is?
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sun May 07, 2017 6:09 am
leroyPosts: 1022Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Gnug215 wrote:
leroy wrote:A brief and clear explanation on Bolzman Brains

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhy4Z_32kQo



A good video from a good channel, in my personal opinion.

But - and this is without having read up on the latest developments on this thread - I'm just wondering what the point of bringing this up is?



the point of the video is that given the assumption that the low entropy of the universe is a result of chance, it would me more likely that we are BB and that our observations of low entropy (many stars and galaxies) are just an illusion, or a dream.


Given the assumption that our universe is a random member of a multiverse, there are more universes where observers imagine a universe with low entropy, than universes with real low entropy. therefore any observation of low entropy should be interpreted as an illusion (or a dream)


this is relevant because these assumptions where made by members form this forum (dragan, Ness, wark etc.).................I am arguing that the BB paradox provides strong evidence against those assumptions
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon May 08, 2017 5:37 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 14 of 14
 [ 269 posts ] 
Return to Blog of Reason

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests