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 10 of 18
 [ 352 posts ] 
The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism
Author Message
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2956Joined: 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:Greetings,

I'll let HWIN deal with your reply but I thought I'd point out a few things.

Firstly, the pyramids were more than just a cemetery - they linked the heavens and the Earth, effectively reproducing heaven on Earth (the three pyramids at Giza reproduce the arrangement of the stars of Orion's (Osiris') belt.

Secondly, buses aren't "finely tuned for bus drivers" - they're people-carriers: they're intended to carry lots of people.

well no one is saying that hosting life is the only purpose of the universe, no one is saying that the universe is just a life hoster.

what HWN has to prove is that containing 1% of something necessarily implies no FT.

Claiming that the universe is fine-tuned for life implies that hosting life is its purpose when all is said and done.

Trying to claim that it's not its only purpose denies the whole point of the fine tuning argument as you use it.

leroy wrote:
Thirdly, if it's possible that what you call FT might be due to chance (or that it's chimaera - you're seeing a pattern that doesn't exist), then that's the default explanation.

well since you believe that you are a BB, then yes under your view FT is just an illusion.

I don't believe I'm a BB - that''s what you claim I believe I am.

leroy wrote:my assumption is that the default position should be that our observations represent the real world, until proven otherwise, if our observations tell us that we live in a big universe with low entropy, we most assume that this observation is real until proven otherwise..........I am confident that this is a fare assumption.

I agree.

However, in raising the spectre of the BBP to "debunk" the possibility of the multiverse, you're throwing this out the window.

leroy wrote:BBW have you made up your mind yet? what are you going to do, are you going to change your world view or are you going to accept the implications of you world view and accept that you are a BB?

You're still assuming a false dichotomy between being a BB and a multiverse - the latter is just one of the many possible undesigned explanations. And the BBP doesn't disprove it, since there's no evidence that BBs exist.

leroy wrote:
Fourthly, it's clear you still don't understand probability theory: any other explanation isn't a single option - it's potentially infinite

it doesn't matter, my math works even if there where infinite samples

as long as the design hypothesis and the disproven hypothesis had an initial probability of being true grater than 0%, you could have potencially infinit hypothesis, it would still be a fact that disproving a hypothesis makes design more probably true than before.

But less probable than a undesigned explanation.

leroy wrote:
Like so many creationists and ID-ers, your basic error is to mistake order for design: our visible universe is ordered, that does not mean that it's designed.


well order is usually caused by design, I see no reason why should we make an arbitrary exception with the universe. well obviously it depends on what you mean by order

Emphasis added.

If it's only usually - by man - then this does not necessitate design when we see order in Nature.

Examples have already been given elsewhere - such as snowflakes.

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
Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:41 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: 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:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I think I see the problem here. You are confusing design with fine-tuning. Things can be designed and lack fine-tuning. Thus, even if this universe was designed, you have done a fine job showing it is not fine-tuned for life.
[

..
Which perfectly answers your objection. I will not ask you to work on your reading comprehension, since it appears you are not reading my posts. How about just read my post completely, instead of looking foolish? This is very pathetic at this point and you can say you are sorry for skimming my posts.



well then provide your evidence, prove that containing less 1% necessarily implies no-fine tuning.


As I keep repeating, it seems asinine to believe that X containing less than one percent of Y means that X was created for Y. However, there is nothing here for me to prove. You are putting forward Fine-Tuning as an explanation, you provide the evidence for it. I just think you are going to have a hard road trying to show X was created for Y.

leroy wrote:pyramids where finely tuned for the burial of some important pharaoh , they contain less than 1% of dead bodies but that doesn't change the fact that they where finely tuned.


:facepalm:

They were created as monuments, not just tombs. You do not know much, do you?

leroy wrote:buses are finely tuned for bus drivers, even though less than 1% of the volume of a bus contains drivers.


:lol:

Buses are created for transporting large numbers of people, not just drivers. It is starting to look like you do not know what fine-tuning means or how we would actually spot it.

leroy wrote:look at any of the definitions of fine tuning that you have quoted, you will note that no where in the definition does it say that containing more than less 1% implies no fine tuning.


Correct. It just seems asinine that something all-knowing and all-powerful could only fine-tune something like that. Remember, that is the whole point of this argument. This universe could still be designed, but its designer seems far from all-knowing or all-powerful. The other possiblity is that this universe was not finely-tuned for life, but something else and life is just a byproduct.

leroy wrote:what you have to do is show that containing 1% necessarily implies no fine tuning............lets see how long does it take for you to provide your evidence.


I have to do no such thing. You are making the claim that this universe is finely-tuned for life, you provide the evidence that it is. I am just saying that I think you are going to have a hard time because of what we observe.

leroy wrote:
No, obviously I do not. In order for that to be the case, you would need to demonstrate that other universes exist, that they can be different, and that the initial conditions of our universe is the best set of initial conditions out of all those other universes. There is no way around that. Now please try to meet your burden and stop relying on logical fallacies.


the universe could be FT even if other universes do not exist, even if they could have not been different, and even if we don't have the best possible set of conditions.


First off, you are right that our universe could be fine-tuned even if other universes do not exist or they do and have the same initial conditions. My point with that is how can you prove that? However, you are absolutely wrong in believing that our universe can be fine-tuned without the best possible set of initial conditions. The Fine-Tuning Argument states that every little aspect of life is perfectly placed in order to sustain life. That means if there is a possible better set for life, our universe could not be fine-tuned for life, sense it would not be perfect for it.

leroy wrote:the problem is that you still don't understand the concept of fine tuning,


:lol:

You just stated this universe does not need the best possible set of initial conditions, yet can still be fine-tuned. You also claimed that busses were fine-tuned for drivers and pyramids were fine-tuned as burials. It seems like someone is projecting.

leroy wrote:something could be FT even if you have a sample of 1, even if it could have not been different, and even if it is not the best possible sample. I challenge you to quote anywhere on the definition of FT where it suggest otherwise.


Okay.

CreationWiki - Cosmic fine-tuning wrote:Cosmic fine-tuning is the evidence that every little aspect of life is perfectly placed in order to sustain life.


That was easy. As I already said, our sample could be one and the initial conditions could have only been what we see, but Fine-Tuning argues that it needs to be perfect for life. Meaning if we do not have the best set, how can we call it perfect? Perhaps, take a minute and actually research this argument before trying to make a case for it.

leroy wrote:obviously FT does not imply design, let alone a perfect designer, but that concerns the next step of the argument for design, after you agree that the universe is FT, I would have to argue that design is the best explanation for FT. but I can not do that until you understand the concept of FT


As I quoted above, it appears I understand it better than you. Now please demonstrate that there is fine-tuning in our universe. As I keep saying, that is your first step. Please meet your burden and stop trying to shift it.

leroy wrote:
I will give you another chance, because I do enjoy laughing at your hubris. Just an FYI: it would be X+Y+Z+∞ = 100%.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


that equation is absurd at so many levels


Yep, and that absurdity is what you keep doing every time you make the Holmesian Fallacy. Since we agree you are acting absurd, please stop doing it.

leroy wrote:
If we had 100 possible answers, that would mean eliminating one would only produce a .01 difference. X and X.01 are statistically the same. Thus you are wrong. Beyond that, since we do not know the number of possible answer, the search space approaches infinity; meaning the the elimination of any answer has a vanishingly small effect on the other answers



that is exactly my point, I am glad that we both agree on something.

disproving 1 hypothesis would make other hypothesis more probably ture than before, depending on the circumstances and depending on many factors, this probability might increase in a considerable way, or it might increase just a little bit.


Thus, you think me showing that X and X.01 being statistically the same is a win for you? That is some real motivated reasoning in work right there. Remember, that is the case when we have 100 options. Since you do not know the actual sample space, than it approaches infinity (which is much larger than 100). That means the elimination of any option is smaller than .01 (and .01 is already statistically the same as no effect).

leroy wrote:in the case of FT and in the general sense, there are only 4 posible explanations for our observations of being in a big, ordered and FT universe


I will just cut you off here because you once again make the Holmesian Fallacy. You do not know that there are only four options and the only way for you to know this is if you were all-knowing. Since you in all honesty do not know the actual sample space, it approaches infinity in the amount of options that could be out there. Thus eliminating one has a vanishingly small effect.

leroy wrote:The BBP completely disproves any chance hypothesis, we have a sample of 4 so disproving 1 hypothesis makes all other hypothesis much more probably than before.


:lol:

I know I said I was going to cut you off, but I have to point this out, because it made me laugh. Dragan Glas and Akamia already pointed out that Boltzmann Brain Paradox is itself a chance hypothesis. You are essentially saying chance cannot work, because chance works.

:lol:

leroy wrote:evidence against other hypothesis does help the design hypothesis.


Only if a >.01 chance is helpful. You seem to think that.

leroy wrote:the lack of evidence against design also helps the design hypothesis.


Just like the lack of evidence against magic helps the magic hypothesis.

leroy wrote:if we add that FT is usually (if not always) caused by a designer, we should conclude that design is the best explanation for the FT.


You have not demonstrated that our universe has fine-tuning yet. In fact, you keep sidestepping your burden whenever I ask you to meet it. Now will you please start to present evidence of fine-tuning or are you going to keep up this dance?

leroy wrote:note that I am not saying that design is the only possible explanation, but given the evidence design is certainly the best explanation that has even been suggested. feel free to prove me wrong, feel free to provide a better explanation.


How many times are you going to try and shift your burden? You have not shown evidence that our universe is fine-tuned (in fact you keep showing that it is not). Providing evidence of this universe being fine-tuned is something you still have not done. Please meet your burden and stop trying to shift it.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Jan 21, 2017 5:10 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

Dragan Glas wrote:Claiming that the universe is fine-tuned for life implies that hosting life is its purpose when all is said and done

Trying to claim that it's not its only purpose denies the whole point of the fine tuning argument as you use it..



arguing that the universe is FT for life, does not imply that hosting life is the only purpose of the universe. I challenge you to quote any theits who has ever claimed otherwise, I challenge you to look for the definition of FT in any source that you consider reliable and quote anywhere where its says that FT implies that hosting life is the only purpose.



I don't believe I'm a BB - that''s what you claim I believe I am.


to be a BB is an implication of your world view, so ether change your world view or accept the implications of such view.

BTW why are having such an immature and condescending attitude ? I presented solid evidence against the multiverse hypothesis, so why don't you deal with my argument instad of acting like a 10yo.




You're still assuming a false dichotomy between being a BB and a multiverse - the latter is just one of the many possible undesigned explanations. And the BBP doesn't disprove it, since there's no evidence that BBs exist.


if the multiverse hypothesis is true, then there would be evidence for BB and there would be evidence that you are a BB.........the BBP is an implication of the multiverse hypothesis, if you what to escape the BBP all you have to do is drop the multiverse hypothesis. and select a different world view.



If it's only usually - by man - then this does not necessitate design when we see order in Nature.

Examples have already been given elsewhere - such as snowflakes.


I think snowflakes is not a good example, but I can grant your point, the FT could have been caused by nature, there are many naturalistic hypothesis on the table, so feel free to select your favorite and then explain why is that hypothesis better than design.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:08 pm
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

he_who_is_nobody wrote:..

As I keep repeating, it seems asinine to believe that X containing less than one percent of Y means that X was created for Y.


it seems? well then all we have is your own personal subjective opinion,

However, there is nothing here for me to prove. You are putting forward Fine-Tuning as an explanation, you provide the evidence for it. I just think you are going to have a hard road trying to show X was created for Y.


No ser, you are the one who has the burden, you are the one who is saying that containing 1% necessarily implies no fine tuning. All I am saying is that it is possible fore something to be FT even if it only contains 1%............




Buses are created for transporting large numbers of people, not just drivers. It is starting to look like you do not know what fine-tuning means or how we would actually spot it.


however, that doesn't change the fact that buses where FT for bus drivers........agree?

FYI........No one is saying that hosting life is the only purpose of the universe, buses and universes might have more than 1 purpose.


I have to do no such thing. You are making the claim that this universe is finely-tuned for life, you provide the evidence that it is. I am just saying that I think you are going to have a hard time because of what we observe.



again.........
this is that I am saying....

1 life requires some minim requirements to exist, (stars, atoms, chemistry, low entropy etc...)

2 in order to achieve those requirements, you need multiple independent forces and initial conditions to have very specific values

this is what is meant by FT, at this point FT does not imply design

so do you agree with this 2 points? please answer with a clear YES or a clear NO, please do not repeat the same stupid and irrelevant paragraphs.

if instead of answering unambiguously (yes or no) you make an other unrelated comment that has nothing to do with the question, I will simply drop the conversation. I am tired of repeating the same over and over again, and tired of you pretending not to understand.

there are 2 alternatives, ether you are too stupid and you cant understand my comments, or I am a very bad writer and very bad in transmitting ideas, but in ether case, I see no point in repeating the same over and over again



First off, you are right that our universe could be fine-tuned even if other universes do not exist or they do and have the same initial conditions. My point with that is how can you prove that? However, you are absolutely wrong in believing that our universe can be fine-tuned without the best possible set of initial conditions. The Fine-Tuning Argument states that every little aspect of life is perfectly placed in order to sustain life. That means if there is a possible better set for life, our universe could not be fine-tuned for life, sense it would not be perfect for it.


with perfectly the article is talking about the precision of all these independent values.




You just stated this universe does not need the best possible set of initial conditions, yet can still be fine-tuned. You also claimed that busses were fine-tuned for drivers and pyramids were fine-tuned as burials. It seems like someone is projecting.


yes buses are FT for drivers, this is an uncontroversial statement, all you are doing is proving once again that you don't know what is meant by FT

[


That was easy. As I already said, our sample could be one and the initial conditions could have only been what we see, but Fine-Tuning argues that it needs to be perfect for life. Meaning if we do not have the best set, how can we call it perfect? Perhaps, take a minute and actually research this argument before trying to make a case for it


wrong at so many levels, the article is talking about the perfection of the tuning of all these multiple values

perfection is a subjective term, perfect according to whom?

why don't you provide an example of something that you consider to be FT for something and start form there? explain why that thing is FT, and explain why is that FT thing no analogous to the universe.

.




That is some real motivated reasoning in work right there. Remember, that is the case when we have 100 options. Since you do not know the actual sample space, than it approaches infinity (which is much larger than 100). That means the elimination of any option is smaller than .01 (and .01 is already statistically the same as no effect).



an other FYI, the relevant thing is the initial probability of the hypothesis that was falsified and the initial probability of your hypothesis. If the hypothesis that you are disproving had an initial probability of 50% and yours had an initial probability of 40%,,,,,after disproving the hypothesis your hypothesis will jump to a 80% probability.


so granted, if you have 100 hypothesis and each of them has an initial possibility of 1%, then disproving 1 hypothesis wont help your hypothesis in any significant way

.
I know I said I was going to cut you off, but I have to point this out, because it made me laugh. Dragan Glas and Akamia already pointed out that Boltzmann Brain Paradox is itself a chance hypothesis. You are essentially saying chance cannot work, because chance works.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

and you accuse me for my lack of reading comprehension....




You have not demonstrated that our universe has fine-tuning yet. In fact, you keep sidestepping your burden whenever I ask you to meet it. Now will you please start to present evidence of fine-tuning or are you going to keep up this dance
?


how can I present evidence for FT if you have no idea what FT means?

prove to me that you understand the concept, provide an example of something that is FT, an explain why is it FT. by doing this you will prove to me that you understand the concept and I will no longer accuse you for not understanding it.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:18 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: 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:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:..

As I keep repeating, it seems asinine to believe that X containing less than one percent of Y means that X was created for Y.


it seems? well then all we have is your own personal subjective opinion,


Yes. As I have been saying. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:
However, there is nothing here for me to prove. You are putting forward Fine-Tuning as an explanation, you provide the evidence for it. I just think you are going to have a hard road trying to show X was created for Y.


No ser, you are the one who has the burden, you are the one who is saying that containing 1% necessarily implies no fine tuning. All I am saying is that it is possible fore something to be FT even if it only contains 1%............


Than prove it. As I said, I believe it is asinine and think you will have a hard road to doing so. The fact that you have not done it yet hints at the fact that I am right to believe this. Again, those are all my opinions of your claim, now demonstrate your claim to prove me wrong.

leroy wrote:
Buses are created for transporting large numbers of people, not just drivers. It is starting to look like you do not know what fine-tuning means or how we would actually spot it.


however, that doesn't change the fact that buses where FT for bus drivers........agree?


Obviously I do not. Busses are not fine-tuned for the drivers, they are created to move large numbers of people around existing roads, as I already said. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:FYI........No one is saying that hosting life is the only purpose of the universe, buses and universes might have more than 1 purpose.


If it has another purpose than it cannot be perfect for hosting X.

leroy wrote:
I have to do no such thing. You are making the claim that this universe is finely-tuned for life, you provide the evidence that it is. I am just saying that I think you are going to have a hard time because of what we observe.



again.........
this is that I am saying....

1 life requires some minim requirements to exist, (stars, atoms, chemistry, low entropy etc...)


:facepalm:

We already agree on the initial conditions of this universe. Now demonstrate that they are fine-tuned.

leroy wrote:2 in order to achieve those requirements, you need multiple independent forces and initial conditions to have very specific values


That is your claim, now demonstrate it.

leroy wrote:this is what is meant by FT, at this point FT does not imply design


It is also something that you have not demonstrated the universe having.

leroy wrote:so do you agree with this 2 points? please answer with a clear YES or a clear NO, please do not repeat the same stupid and irrelevant paragraphs.


Again, please demonstrate your second point. Without that, you are simply holding an empty bag.

leroy wrote:if instead of answering unambiguously (yes or no) you make an other unrelated comment that has nothing to do with the question, I will simply drop the conversation. I am tired of repeating the same over and over again, and tired of you pretending not to understand.


Meet your burden and present your evidence for your claim. This is what I have been telling you since day one. All this whining about it is starting to make me think that you cannot do this.

leroy wrote:there are 2 alternatives, ether you are too stupid and you cant understand my comments, or I am a very bad writer and very bad in transmitting ideas, but in ether case, I see no point in repeating the same over and over again


All you have to do is demonstrate your second point with some evidence. That is what I have been asking since day one. You are the one that keeps repeating this dance.

leroy wrote:
First off, you are right that our universe could be fine-tuned even if other universes do not exist or they do and have the same initial conditions. My point with that is how can you prove that? However, you are absolutely wrong in believing that our universe can be fine-tuned without the best possible set of initial conditions. The Fine-Tuning Argument states that every little aspect of life is perfectly placed in order to sustain life. That means if there is a possible better set for life, our universe could not be fine-tuned for life, sense it would not be perfect for it.


with perfectly the article is talking about the precision of all these independent values.


Nope. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:
You just stated this universe does not need the best possible set of initial conditions, yet can still be fine-tuned. You also claimed that busses were fine-tuned for drivers and pyramids were fine-tuned as burials. It seems like someone is projecting.


yes buses are FT for drivers, this is an uncontroversial statement, all you are doing is proving once again that you don't know what is meant by FT


:lol:

Every little aspect of a bus is perfectly placed in order for the driver? Again, that is what is meant by fine-tuning, that everything is perfectly placed for X. You demonstrate that you do not understand the argument, than project that fault onto me? How rich.

leroy wrote:
That was easy. As I already said, our sample could be one and the initial conditions could have only been what we see, but Fine-Tuning argues that it needs to be perfect for life. Meaning if we do not have the best set, how can we call it perfect? Perhaps, take a minute and actually research this argument before trying to make a case for it


wrong at so many levels, the article is talking about the perfection of the tuning of all these multiple values


:facepalm:

Work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:perfection is a subjective term, perfect according to whom?


Well, since it says it is perfect for life, I guess that whom would be life.

leroy wrote:why don't you provide an example of something that you consider to be FT for something and start form there? explain why that thing is FT, and explain why is that FT thing no analogous to the universe.


How about a calculator. From the batteries that power it, to the buttons it has, to its screen, are all place to allow a human to calculate large numbers within a matter of moments. in what way is this universe equivalent to it?

leroy wrote:
That is some real motivated reasoning in work right there. Remember, that is the case when we have 100 options. Since you do not know the actual sample space, than it approaches infinity (which is much larger than 100). That means the elimination of any option is smaller than .01 (and .01 is already statistically the same as no effect).



an other FYI, the relevant thing is the initial probability of the hypothesis that was falsified and the initial probability of your hypothesis. If the hypothesis that you are disproving had an initial probability of 50% and yours had an initial probability of 40%,,,,,after disproving the hypothesis your hypothesis will jump to a 80% probability.


Where are you getting these initial probabilities from and what relevance do they have to a discussion of the sample space that we have been talking about?

leroy wrote:
I know I said I was going to cut you off, but I have to point this out, because it made me laugh. Dragan Glas and Akamia already pointed out that Boltzmann Brain Paradox is itself a chance hypothesis. You are essentially saying chance cannot work, because chance works.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

and you accuse me for my lack of reading comprehension....


Yes I do. Both of them demonstrated that fact. Just click on the links I provided.

leroy wrote:
You have not demonstrated that our universe has fine-tuning yet. In fact, you keep sidestepping your burden whenever I ask you to meet it. Now will you please start to present evidence of fine-tuning or are you going to keep up this dance
?


how can I present evidence for FT if you have no idea what FT means?


:lol:

Says the guy that thinks every little aspect of a bus is perfectly placed in order for the driver.

leroy wrote:prove to me that you understand the concept, provide an example of something that is FT, an explain why is it FT. by doing this you will prove to me that you understand the concept and I will no longer accuse you for not understanding it.


I already did above and I honestly do not care what you accuse me of. I actually read your whole post and reply to most of it. You do not have to keep repeating things to me. I am not you.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:57 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
How about a calculator. From the batteries that power it, to the buttons it has, to its screen, are all place to allow a human to calculate large numbers within a matter of moments. in what way is this universe equivalent to it?..


That is an excellent example of FT, in order for calculators to work and provide correct results multiple independent things have to be paced in a very specific way, in a very specific order, each part needs to have very specific size, specific material etc...

If you change the position of the battery, even a littile bit, if you move any of the wires, if you move any of the chips, if you change the algorithm...even a little bit you will end up with something that can not produce any accurate result.

any life permitting universe is also FT to sustain life, becase the existence of life depends on multiple independent values (gravity, strong NF, weak NF, electromagnetism, entropy, the mass of the electron etc. If any of these values would have been different we will end up with a life prohibiting universe.

please tell me, what relevant difference do you find between universes and calculators?

If it has another purpose than it cannot be perfect for hosting X.
w
well what about these calculator? wouldt you say that this calculator is also FT to provide accurate results? would you say that this calculator is not FT?
Image
this calculator obviously has more than 1 purpose, but I am confident that you would also call it FT, and at least for some people this calculator is perfect

sure probably 99% of the volume of the calculator is irrelevant for the purpose of produce accurate sums and multiplications, but that doesn't indicate poor design, nor a designer with limitations,

so is this calculator FT?
If yes then we both agree.

If no, then I suggests to stop playing word games a and simply agree to use the term fine tuning to refer to your idea of FT (something that would not include this calculator) and use the term fine tuning (note the dark letters) to refer to my idea of FT (something that would include this calculator)

so can we agree on that the universe is ether finely tuned or finely tuned?




leroy wrote:2 in order to achieve those requirements, you need multiple independent forces and initial conditions to have very specific values


That is your claim, now demonstrate it.


Ok so for example if the force of gravity and the expansion energy where not balanced, say if gravity where 1% stronger....

1) the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2) life could not exist in a black whole,

therefore it would be a life prohibiting universe

so which do you find controversial 1 or 2? which one requieres evidence to convince you?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:36 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: 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:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
How about a calculator. From the batteries that power it, to the buttons it has, to its screen, are all place to allow a human to calculate large numbers within a matter of moments. in what way is this universe equivalent to it?..


That is an excellent example of FT, in order for calculators to work and provide correct results multiple independent things have to be paced in a very specific way, in a very specific order, each part needs to have very specific size, specific material etc...

If you change the position of the battery, even a littile bit, if you move any of the wires, if you move any of the chips, if you change the algorithm...even a little bit you will end up with something that can not produce any accurate result.


That is all demonstrable. We can take a calculator apart and play with it, put it back together differently and show that it is indeed fine-tuned.

leroy wrote:any life permitting universe is also FT to sustain life, becase the existence of life depends on multiple independent values (gravity, strong NF, weak NF, electromagnetism, entropy, the mass of the electron etc. If any of these values would have been different we will end up with a life prohibiting universe.


That is your claim, now please demonstrate it.

leroy wrote:please tell me, what relevant difference do you find between universes and calculators?


As I already said, one we can actually demonstrate the fine-tuning, one you keep proclaiming without providing evidence. Now, whenever you are ready, I will be willing to look at your evidence for fine-tuning. Please do not rely on counterfactuals.

leroy wrote:
If it has another purpose than it cannot be perfect for hosting X.
w
well what about these calculator? wouldt you say that this calculator is also FT to provide accurate results? would you say that this calculator is not FT?
Image
this calculator obviously has more than 1 purpose, but I am confident that you would also call it FT, and at least for some people this calculator is perfect


:facepalm:

The clipboard is not the calculator. Yes, the calculator on the clipboard is fine-tuned, the clipboard might also be fine-tuned, but they are fine-tuned for different jobs. Placing something that is fine-tuned onto something else does not detract from the fine-tuning of the former and it does not add fine-tuning to the latter. The Fine-Tuning Argument states that the universe as we see it is perfect for life not, a part of the universe or a planets in a universe. If you want this analogy to stick you need to change the argument.

leroy wrote:sure probably 99% of the volume of the calculator is irrelevant for the purpose of produce accurate sums and multiplications, but that doesn't indicate poor design, nor a designer with limitations,


Again, the calculator is not the clipboard. One can narrow into one aspect of a whole and find it to be fine-tuned on it, while the rest is not. However, if you make this case, you are no longer making the traditional Fine-Tuning Argument. I guess we are making progress.

leroy wrote:so is this calculator FT?
If yes then we both agree.

If no, then I suggests to stop playing word games a and simply agree to use the term fine tuning to refer to your idea of FT (something that would not include this calculator) and use the term fine tuning (note the dark letters) to refer to my idea of FT (something that would include this calculator)


Yes it is. However, the calculator is not the clipboard.

leroy wrote:so can we agree on that the universe is ether finely tuned or finely tuned?


As soon as you demonstrate it is like the calculator, we can. Whenever you are ready to provide your evidence, I will look at it.

leroy wrote:
leroy wrote:2 in order to achieve those requirements, you need multiple independent forces and initial conditions to have very specific values


That is your claim, now demonstrate it.


Ok so for example if the force of gravity and the expansion energy where not balanced, say if gravity where 1% stronger....

1) the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2) life could not exist in a black whole,

therefore it would be a life prohibiting universe

so which do you find controversial 1 or 2? which one requieres evidence to convince you?


:facepalm:

Again, all you have is a counterfactual as your argument. Stop relying on logical fallacies and just provide evidence already.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:32 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

he_who_is_nobody wrote:


The clipboard is not the calculator. Yes, the calculator on the clipboard is fine-tuned, the clipboard might also be fine-tuned, but they are fine-tuned for different jobs. Placing something that is fine-tuned onto something else does not detract from the fine-tuning of the former and it does not add fine-tuning to the latter. The Fine-Tuning Argument states that the universe as we see it is perfect for life not, a part of the universe or a planets in a universe. If you want this analogy to stick you need to change the argument.



I don't need to change my argument, my argument has never been that all the universe is perfect for life, look at any of my comments, and quote anywhere where I said or implied something like that....

the argument is and has always been that the values of multiple independent forces, constants and initial conditions, have to be very specific in order to have a life permitting universe.

granted> the creation wiki article is poorly written and doesn't really represent the argument, but there is a short video in the article, witch does represents the argument in a clear way.



Again, the calculator is not the clipboard. One can narrow into one aspect of a whole and find it to be fine-tuned on it, while the rest is not. However, if you make this case, you are no longer making the traditional Fine-Tuning Argument. I guess we are making progress.


I am not defending the argument presented in that wiki article, the article is poorly written, is ambiguous, and does not represent the argument accurately. but so what? I never used that article as a source, (you did)

the argument that I am defending is this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

which is to my knowledge the typical argument used by most apologetics.

[
Yes it is. However, the calculator is not the clipboard.


but if you view the whole thing as 1 item, would you still say that the item is FT for adding and subtracting numbers?






Ok so for example if the force of gravity and the expansion energy where not balanced, say if gravity where 1% stronger....

1) the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2) life could not exist in a black whole,

therefore it would be a life prohibiting universe

so which do you find controversial 1 or 2? which one requieres evidence to convince you?




[Again, all you have is a counterfactual as your argument. Stop relying on logical fallacies and just provide evidence already.


I am ready to provide the evidence, just tell which do you find controversial, 1 or 2? that way I could focus just in the point that you consider controvertial, and you dont make me loose time in defending something that you already agree with,


these are not a controversial statements, even atheist like Stephen Hawking would grant 1 and 2. but ok, you don't have to be SHs mirror, you are free to have a different view, just tell me which of these two statements do you find controversial, so that I can provide the evidence.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:33 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: 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:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:


The clipboard is not the calculator. Yes, the calculator on the clipboard is fine-tuned, the clipboard might also be fine-tuned, but they are fine-tuned for different jobs. Placing something that is fine-tuned onto something else does not detract from the fine-tuning of the former and it does not add fine-tuning to the latter. The Fine-Tuning Argument states that the universe as we see it is perfect for life not, a part of the universe or a planets in a universe. If you want this analogy to stick you need to change the argument.



I don't need to change my argument, my argument has never been that all the universe is perfect for life, look at any of my comments, and quote anywhere where I said or implied something like that....


You said you are arguing for Fine-Tuning, if you are using a different formulation of it, than please present it. Oh, and you might want to start spending your time educating your fellow creationists that the Fine-Tuning Argument they are presenting is wrong. Do not be crossed with me if your side is not on the same page.

leroy wrote:the argument is and has always been that the values of multiple independent forces, constants and initial conditions, have to be very specific in order to have a life permitting universe.


Yes, and I keep asking you to provide evidence for this claim. You keep dancing around it with counterfactuals.

leroy wrote:granted> the creation wiki article is poorly written and doesn't really represent the argument, but there is a short video in the article, witch does represents the argument in a clear way.


As I already said, feel free to present it here and take some time out of your busy schedule to correct your fellow creationists.

leroy wrote:
Again, the calculator is not the clipboard. One can narrow into one aspect of a whole and find it to be fine-tuned on it, while the rest is not. However, if you make this case, you are no longer making the traditional Fine-Tuning Argument. I guess we are making progress.


I am not defending the argument presented in that wiki article, the article is poorly written, is ambiguous, and does not represent the argument accurately. but so what? I never used that article as a source, (you did)


I have been referencing it for several pages now. This is the first time you have said that you do not agree with it. You could have said this the first time I brought it up, but that would have meant you would have had to take a few minutes and actually read the sources I am providing. Again, feel free to take a few minutes out of your busy schedule and educate your fellow creationists on the proper argument and stop being upset with me when your side is obviously not a united front. Than you can present your version of the argument.

leroy wrote:the argument that I am defending is this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

which is to my knowledge the typical argument used by most apologetics.


Thus, you believe the most typical form of the argument is not found on The Encyclopedia of Creation Science? As I keep saying, take some time to clean your own side up. Beyond that, feel free to present your form of the argument. I will be happy to point out its falls as well.

leroy wrote:
Yes it is. However, the calculator is not the clipboard.


but if you view the whole thing as 1 item, would you still say that the item is FT for adding and subtracting numbers?


Obviously not, since the whole item is not for calculations. Again, the calculator is not the clipboard.

leroy wrote:
Ok so for example if the force of gravity and the expansion energy where not balanced, say if gravity where 1% stronger....

1) the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2) life could not exist in a black whole,

therefore it would be a life prohibiting universe

so which do you find controversial 1 or 2? which one requieres evidence to convince you?




[Again, all you have is a counterfactual as your argument. Stop relying on logical fallacies and just provide evidence already.


I am ready to provide the evidence, just tell which do you find controversial, 1 or 2?


Prove that gravity and the expansion of the universe can be different than what we see as gravity and the way we see it is the best way for a universe to have life.

leroy wrote:these are not a controversial statements, even atheist like Stephen Hawking would grant 1 and 2. but ok, you don't have to be SHs mirror, you are free to have a different view, just tell me which of these two statements do you find controversial, so that I can provide the evidence.


You have not shown that gravity or the expansion of our universe can be different, nor have you shown that if they can be different, the way we see they is the best for life. Until you do both of those things, you are holding an empty bag.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:06 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[


You said you are arguing for Fine-Tuning, if you are using a different formulation of it, than please present it. Oh, and you might want to start spending your time educating your fellow creationists that the Fine-Tuning Argument they are presenting is wrong. Do not be crossed with me if your side is not on the same page.....



1 You don´t have to make a big deal out of it, many atheist (perhaps most scholars) like Stephen Hawking would disagree with you and would say that the universe is FT.......but so what? you don't have to agree with all theist, and I don't have to agree with all creationists.

2 The main problem with the article is that it is poorly written, the author of the article was not necessary wrong, who knows, the point is that he was unable to explain the argument accurately.

3 my view is represented by any of the sources that I have provided, or you can simply reed from my comments

4 one wonders, when you made your blog post, you made a critique based on a single wiki article?



Thus, you believe the most typical form of the argument is not found on The Encyclopedia of Creation Science? As I keep saying, take some time to clean your own side up. Beyond that, feel free to present your form of the argument. I will be happy to point out its falls as well.



Obviously not, since the whole item is not for calculations. Again, the calculator is not the clipboard.


well it is a matter of word games, but I am fine if you what to say that the universe is analogous to the item where...calculator would be our planet and the clipboard the rest of the universe.

weather if you what to call this FT or not is irrelevant

[




Prove that gravity and the expansion of the universe can be different than what we see as gravity and the way we see it is the best way for a universe to have life.


No I don't have to prove that gravity and the expansion could have been any different, all I have to do is prove ether 1 or 2

1) the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2) life could not exist in a black whole,
[/quote]


so which one should I prove? which one do you find controversial.


"Could have been different" is not an atribute of something that is FT, for example the spherical shape of our planet is FT, but we both know that spherical is the only possible shape given the laws of nature. this is an example of FT by necessity (not by design)

but these are all words, it is clear that we mean something different when we use the term FT, but who cares, just tell me what word should I use instead of FT to refer to what I call FT.


btw yes I know that the planet is not a perfect sphere but there are few examples of FT caused by nature, and I was unable to think in some other example......

just a side note, and to satisfy my curiosity....

aren't you suppose to be a non determinist? aren't you suppose to believe that the strength of the force of gravity was given by a stochastic event that could have gone different?.........according to your non determinist view, the force of gravity could have been different so why did you even bother in presenting a possibility that is inconsistent with your world view?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:49 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: 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:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:[


You said you are arguing for Fine-Tuning, if you are using a different formulation of it, than please present it. Oh, and you might want to start spending your time educating your fellow creationists that the Fine-Tuning Argument they are presenting is wrong. Do not be crossed with me if your side is not on the same page.....



1 You don´t have to make a big deal out of it, many atheist (perhaps most scholars) like Stephen Hawking would disagree with you and would say that the universe is FT.......but so what? you don't have to agree with all theist, and I don't have to agree with all creationists.


I would love to see a quote supporting this. Beyond that, if you do not see a problem with a huge source for your side presenting the wrong arguments, than that says more about you than I ever could.

leroy wrote:2 The main problem with the article is that it is poorly written, the author of the article was not necessary wrong, who knows, the point is that he was unable to explain the argument accurately.


Feel free to correct them. I mean, you do have such a wonderful command of language after all.

leroy wrote:3 my view is represented by any of the sources that I have provided, or you can simply reed from my comments


I have read your comments, you keep trying to hold your side up with a counterfactual conditional. It does say something about your arguments when they are held together with logical fallacies.

leroy wrote:4 one wonders, when you made your blog post, you made a critique based on a single wiki article?


Why would one wonder about that? Is that not The Encyclopedia of Creation Science? It is a blog post, not a journal article. Beyond that, I created this after watching a debate in which a Christian Apologist used pretty much the formation from that site. Amazing how you claimed most Apologist do not use that formation of it.

leroy wrote:
Obviously not, since the whole item is not for calculations. Again, the calculator is not the clipboard.


well it is a matter of word games, but I am fine if you what to say that the universe is analogous to the item where...calculator would be our planet and the clipboard the rest of the universe.


he_who_is_nobody wrote: :facepalm:

The clipboard is not the calculator. Yes, the calculator on the clipboard is fine-tuned, the clipboard might also be fine-tuned, but they are fine-tuned for different jobs. Placing something that is fine-tuned onto something else does not detract from the fine-tuning of the former and it does not add fine-tuning to the latter. The Fine-Tuning Argument states that the universe as we see it is perfect for life not, a part of the universe or a planets in a universe. If you want this analogy to stick you need to change the argument.

[Emphasis added]


I am glad you agree with me. It is almost as if you went out of your way to disagree with me, even though you actually did agree with what I was saying. That is amazing. However, if that is the case, that gets to the second point of my blog; why so long for us?

leroy wrote:weather if you what to call this FT or not is irrelevant


It seems very relevant, since you came here saying that the universe as we know it has fine-tuning. Now you are backing down to just our planet.

leroy wrote:
Prove that gravity and the expansion of the universe can be different than what we see as gravity and the way we see it is the best way for a universe to have life.


No I don't have to prove that gravity and the expansion could have been any different, all I have to do is prove ether 1 or 2


:lol:

Thus, you admit that your whole argument relies on a counterfactual conditional to support it. After months of me pointing this out, you finally admit to it.

leroy wrote:
1) the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2) life could not exist in a black whole,



so which one should I prove? which one do you find controversial. [/quote]

Again, until you prove that this is even possible, you are just holding an empty bag. Present your evidence of this already.

leroy wrote:"Could have been different" is not an atribute of something that is FT, for example the spherical shape of our planet is FT, but we both know that spherical is the only possible shape given the laws of nature. this is an example of FT by necessity (not by design)


Unless you were able to prove that life needs to form on a round body, you are just making shit up at this point. Beyond that, if you are saying that having a spherical object is necessary for life, would there not be life on all the planets and moons (at least the rocky planets)? That is to say, since you already admit that planets form spherically, is it not better to say that this is not fine-tuned, but something that just happens since the spherical nature of planets and moons does not lead to life in all cases?

leroy wrote:but these are all words, it is clear that we mean something different when we use the term FT, but who cares, just tell me what word should I use instead of FT to refer to what I call FT.


I do not know, you tell me. I have defined it (twice) for you, using sources you should accept, and you are now rejecting both of them. Thus, you tell me how something that is a basic fact about nature (planets being round) can also be equivalent to precisely calibrating an object for one function (like the calculator). You come up with a coherent definition for what you are talking about. It is not my job to make your arguments for you.

leroy wrote:just a side note, and to satisfy my curiosity....

aren't you suppose to be a non determinist? aren't you suppose to believe that the strength of the force of gravity was given by a stochastic event that could have gone different?.........according to your non determinist view, the force of gravity could have been different so why did you even bother in presenting a possibility that is inconsistent with your world view?


Do objects fall down when held from a height and dropped? Does the fact that that always happen mean that determinism is real? No. Just because somethings can be different does not mean all things can be different. Beyond that, you do not know that changing gravity will only change gravity. It is also possible that if you change one thing, other things change and we end up with pretty much the same initial conditions. That is why I keep asking you to demonstrate that gravity can be different and that changing it will automatically lead to lifeless universes. As I also keep pointing out, I believe this will be very hard to do because we have a sample size of one.

Since you bring that up, when are you planning on returning to that thread? I would still like to know how you square the idea of a creator living outside of our universe that uses deterministic reasoning, while believing that we have free will (not just will). Or are you just going to abandoned it like this one?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:23 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

he_who_is_nobody wrote:

I would love to see a quote supporting this. Beyond that, if you do not see a problem with a huge source for your side presenting the wrong arguments, than that says more about you than I ever could.


well if you would have seen the source that I provided you would have noticed the quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA
but this is a better quote from SH
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."[

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

so SH does agree with me, he would grant that the universe is FT, so if you disagree with an atheist scientist with a very good reputation like SH, why cant I disagree with a wiki article written by some anonymous guy?

]I don't see any problem with that, and you shouldn't ether, all it says that I am intellectually honest enough to drop a source even if the source is on my side.


]

It seems very relevant, since you came here saying that the universe as we know it has fine-tuning. Now you are backing down to just our planet.


again the argument is and has always been that in order to have a life permitting universe, multiple independent values have to be within a very "narrow life permitting range"

the second part of the argument states that design is the best explanation for this delicate balance.

this is how everybody understands the argument, the internet has thousands of articles on the topic, it is not surprising to find 1 or 2 sources that misrepresent the argument.

feel free to call it the fine tuning arguemnt or feel free to give it an other name.

[

Thus, you admit that your whole argument relies on a counterfactual conditional to support it. After months of me pointing this out, you finally admit to it.


ofcurse I do admit it, I haven't been able to provide any evidence because I haven't had the opportunity, I am asking you for specific points you disagree on and yo haven't provided such points. So of these 2 points which one do you disagree on?


weather if these values could have been different or not, concerns the second part of the argument (see above) but since we are stock in the first part of the argument

1) the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2) life could not exist in a black whole,



so which one should I prove? which one do you find controversial.





Unless you were able to prove that life needs to form on a round body, you are just making shit up at this point. Beyond that, if you are saying that having a spherical object is necessary for life, would there not be life on all the planets and moons (at least the rocky planets)? That is to say, since you already admit that planets form spherically, is it not better to say that this is not fine-tuned, but something that just happens since the spherical nature of planets and moons does not lead to life in all cases?


I never said that having a spherical shape is necessary for life, all I said was that spherical stuff is FT, even if no other shape is scientifically possible


Beyond that, you do not know that changing gravity will only change gravity. It is also possible that if you change one thing, other things change and we end up with pretty much the same initial conditions. That is why I keep asking you to demonstrate that gravity can be different and that changing it will automatically lead to lifeless universes. As I also keep pointing out, I believe this will be very hard to do because we have a sample size of one.


yes that is a possibility, but that concerns the second part of the argument, once you agree with the first part (most atheist do) we can move on to the second part and explore that possibility.

Since you bring that up, when are you planning on returning to that thread? I would still like to know how you square the idea of a creator living outside of our universe that uses deterministic reasoning, while believing that we have free will (not just will). Or are you just going to abandoned it like this one?[


I apologize for that, I am not abandoning the threat, it is just that in this moment I have no time to deal with everything.

But I did answer to that particular objection like 20 times, as I said before to have will does not imply that human choices are unpredictable.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:58 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: 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:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:

I would love to see a quote supporting this. Beyond that, if you do not see a problem with a huge source for your side presenting the wrong arguments, than that says more about you than I ever could.


well if you would have seen the source that I provided you would have noticed the quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA


As I keep saying, feel free to formulate the argument here. You see, unlike you (who can reply to me several times a day) I am actually busy.

leroy wrote:but this is a better quote from SH
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."[

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

so SH does agree with me, he would grant that the universe is FT, so if you disagree with an atheist scientist with a very good reputation like SH, why cant I disagree with a wiki article written by some anonymous guy?

[Emphases added]


I will chock this up to English being your worst subject, but seems to have been is the not the same as is. However, thank you for showing that you are able to actually back up a claim with citations. One wonders why you have failed all the other times I have asked. In addition, I see an ellipsis point in that quote, and that almost never turns out good for the person being quoted. One wonders what was left on the cutting room floor. Does anyone have access to A Brief History of Time to see what was left out? I know dandan/leroy does not care, but is all to happy to just repeat quotes that seem to agree with him.

leroy wrote:]I don't see any problem with that, and you shouldn't ether, all it says that I am intellectually honest enough to drop a source even if the source is on my side.


Again, if you think that source is wrong, than perhaps your time is better spent correcting your side. You know, since you are such a busy guy.

leroy wrote:
]

It seems very relevant, since you came here saying that the universe as we know it has fine-tuning. Now you are backing down to just our planet.


again the argument is and has always been that in order to have a life permitting universe, multiple independent values have to be within a very "narrow life permitting range"


That is your claim. Now one wonders how long it will be before you ever attempt to prove it.

However, that also does not jive with what you said here:

dandan/leroy wrote:well it is a matter of word games, but I am fine if you what to say that the universe is analogous to the item where...calculator would be our planet and the clipboard the rest of the universe.


Where we were talking about a calculator being attached to a clipboard, and you appeat to be saying that just our planet is fine-tuned and not the rest of the universe as we know it. You know, if you actually took the time to formulate your argument, instead of just mindlessly responding, you would not be in this pickle.

leroy wrote:the second part of the argument states that design is the best explanation for this delicate balance.


You still have not demonstrated the first part, thus the second part is irrelevant at this point.

leroy wrote:this is how everybody understands the argument, the internet has thousands of articles on the topic, it is not surprising to find 1 or 2 sources that misrepresent the argument.


:lol:

Everyone understands it even though one or two do not. Your lackluster mastery of English is always a great source for comedy.

:lol:

leroy wrote:feel free to call it the fine tuning arguemnt or feel free to give it an other name.


Thus, do you accept that fine-tuning is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental 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? You rejected the other two definitions I put forward and still refuse to give one yourself. Do you agree with this definition?

leroy wrote:
Thus, you admit that your whole argument relies on a counterfactual conditional to support it. After months of me pointing this out, you finally admit to it.


ofcurse I do admit it, I haven't been able to provide any evidence because I haven't had the opportunity, I am asking you for specific points you disagree on and yo haven't provided such points. So of these 2 points which one do you disagree on?


Thus you freely admit that your whole argument relies on a logical fallacy from its start. Well, I am glad to hear you admit to this. I guess that means we are done.

leroy wrote:weather if these values could have been different or not, concerns the second part of the argument (see above) but since we are stock in the first part of the argument

1) the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2) life could not exist in a black whole,



so which one should I prove? which one do you find controversial.


Irrelevant, since you already admitted that your whole argument is based off of a logical fallacy. Any consecutive parts to follow are all negated by the fact that it is all based off of a flawed premise.

leroy wrote:
Unless you were able to prove that life needs to form on a round body, you are just making shit up at this point. Beyond that, if you are saying that having a spherical object is necessary for life, would there not be life on all the planets and moons (at least the rocky planets)? That is to say, since you already admit that planets form spherically, is it not better to say that this is not fine-tuned, but something that just happens since the spherical nature of planets and moons does not lead to life in all cases?


I never said that having a spherical shape is necessary for life, all I said was that spherical stuff is FT, even if no other shape is scientifically possible


:facepalm:

Stick with a consistent definition of fine-tuning already. Do you agree with how I defined it above or not? If you do, than the earth being a sphere is not fine-tuned. If you do not, than please create a definition in which earth being a sphere is consistent with it.

leroy wrote:
Beyond that, you do not know that changing gravity will only change gravity. It is also possible that if you change one thing, other things change and we end up with pretty much the same initial conditions. That is why I keep asking you to demonstrate that gravity can be different and that changing it will automatically lead to lifeless universes. As I also keep pointing out, I believe this will be very hard to do because we have a sample size of one.


yes that is a possibility, but that concerns the second part of the argument, once you agree with the first part (most atheist do) we can move on to the second part and explore that possibility.


:lol:

You are still insisting on me just agreeing with your first premise even though you admitted that it is based off a logical fallacy! What is wrong with you?

leroy wrote:
Since you bring that up, when are you planning on returning to that thread? I would still like to know how you square the idea of a creator living outside of our universe that uses deterministic reasoning, while believing that we have free will (not just will). Or are you just going to abandoned it like this one?[


I apologize for that, I am not abandoning the threat, it is just that in this moment I have no time to deal with everything.


:lol:

You have no time, yet enough time to reply to me multiple times a day in this thread?

:lol:

leroy wrote:But I did answer to that particular objection like 20 times, as I said before to have will does not imply that human choices are unpredictable.


Yeah, and like twenty times, everyone in that thread pointed out how logically flawed that statement is. Just because you can form words together and reply does not mean you created a rebuttal. However, I will not open up that can of worms on this thread. Whenever you are no longer busy, you can try (and fail) to make your point over there.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:13 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

Thus, do you accept that fine-tuning is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental 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? You rejected the other two definitions I put forward and still refuse to give one yourself. Do you agree with this definition?



Yes, I agree with that definition,

so does the universe has this property?


note that the definition does not say, nor implies that something with less that 1% could not be FT, the definition does not say nor imply that if things could have not been different it could not be FT, the definition does not say nor imply that we need a sample grater than 1 in order to call it FT. none of your objections would apply to this definition of FT


if you still claim that the universe is not FT, please explain exactly why not? what part of the definition is the universe missing?

There are 2 things that you might say

1 the life permitting rage is not narrow. Maybe life can exist in a universe without matter, planets, stars chemistry etc. (you might argue)

2 it doesn't matter if you change this values, everything will naturally fall in to this life permitting rage. (matter, planets, stars, chemistry would still form even if we change all this values (you might argue)

or maybe there is a 3 point that I haven't think of.

my question is what exactly do you find controversial? what do exactly do I have to prove? I have no problem is presenting evidence, just tell me exactly what point do you find controversial.? what property does the universe lack that makes it not FT?


witch point do you affirm 1 or 2? or maybe you have a third point in mind, just answer clear and unambiguously, what characteristic does the universe has that makes it NOT FT?

what are all your atheist peers missing? most of them would agree that the universe is FT, so what are they missing, why are they wrong? why is Stephen Hawking's wrong?

I am not saying that you most agree with all other atheist, but if you are going to disagree with the majority of them one would expect you to have reason for your disagreement.


what property does the universe lack that makes it not FT?


I have the feeling that I will ask this question like 20 times and that you wont provide an answer.



Where we were talking about a calculator being attached to a clipboard, and you appeat to be saying that just our planet is fine-tuned and not the rest of the universe as we know it. You know, if you actually took the time to formulate your argument, instead of just mindlessly responding, you would not be in this pickle



that is a strawman understanding, the claim is that the whole universe is FT to allow the existence of life in some spots. this is entirely consistent with your definition of FT


As I keep saying, feel free to formulate the argument here. You see, unlike you (who can reply to me several times a day) I am actually busy



I have formulated the argument multiple times, but since you are unable to understand my words, I thought it would be a good idea to provide a source that explains the argument.

it doesn't matter if you are too busy, the video is only 5 minutes long and no one is forcing you to answer in less than 1 day.


Irrelevant, since you already admitted that your whole argument is based off of a logical fallacy. Any consecutive parts to follow are all negated by the fact that it is all based off of a flawed premise



yes I am making a logical fallacy, because I haven't proved that the universe is FT

but that is your fault since you haven't told me exactly what point(s) do you disagree with, so that I can provide the evidence.

I will provide the evidence until you explain what specific points do you find controversial and worthy of justification.


I mean, If I come here to argue that Radiometric dating is not reliable, wouldn't you ask me why not? would you expect me to provide specific points that cause my disagreement with radiometric dating?


so just answer which of this points do you find controversial?

1) the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2) life could not exist in a black whole,


witch of these 2 points do you find controversial?

is all based off of a flawed premise
.

ok and what is that false premise?

these are my premises...

1 if gravity would have been stronger, the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2 life can not exist in a black hole

these are my 2 premises, which premise is suppose to be wrong? If you tell me which premise you think is wrong, I could provide my evidence.


You have no time, yet enough time to reply to me multiple times a day in this thread?


I don't reply multiple times a day, I don't even reply every day. You might find this surprising, but I have other things to do, apart form commenting in this forum.


Yeah, and like twenty times, everyone in that thread pointed out how logically flawed that statement is


I can predict that you will read this sentence

you willingly decide to read the sentence.

even though you have will I was capable of predicting your choices.

therefore it is not imposible nor logically inconsistent to predict choices.

but even if you disagree, you can not accuse me for not answering, at most you should accuse me for answering incorrectly, so you accusation is still false.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jan 31, 2017 5:29 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: 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:
Thus, do you accept that fine-tuning is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental 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? You rejected the other two definitions I put forward and still refuse to give one yourself. Do you agree with this definition?



Yes, I agree with that definition,

so does the universe has this property?


I do not know. That is something you have to demonstrate.

leroy wrote:note that the definition does not say, nor implies that something with less that 1% could not be FT, the definition does not say nor imply that if things could have not been different it could not be FT, the definition does not say nor imply that we need a sample grater than 1 in order to call it FT. none of your objections would apply to this definition of FT


Seeing as how you still have not demonstrated that the universe as we know it meets that definition, than yes, my objections still do apply.

leroy wrote:if you still claim that the universe is not FT, please explain exactly why not? what part of the definition is the universe missing?


You are making the claim to knowledge, you support it with evidence. Stop trying to shift your burden.

leroy wrote:There are 2 things that you might say

1 the life permitting rage is not narrow. Maybe life can exist in a universe without matter, planets, stars chemistry etc. (you might argue)

2 it doesn't matter if you change this values, everything will naturally fall in to this life permitting rage. (matter, planets, stars, chemistry would still form even if we change all this values (you might argue)

or maybe there is a 3 point that I haven't think of.


Yeah, the third point is that you have not demonstrated the universe as we know it to be fine-tuned. You just have proclaimed it to be. Now meet your burden and present your evidence.

leroy wrote:my question is what exactly do you find controversial? what do exactly do I have to prove? I have no problem is presenting evidence, just tell me exactly what point do you find controversial.? what property does the universe lack that makes it not FT?


You still have not demonstrated that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. You just proclaim it to be. Now meet your burden and present your evidence.

leroy wrote:witch point do you affirm 1 or 2? or maybe you have a third point in mind, just answer clear and unambiguously, what characteristic does the universe has that makes it NOT FT?


You still have not demonstrated that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. You just proclaim it to be. Now meet your burden and present your evidence.

leroy wrote:what are all your atheist peers missing? most of them would agree that the universe is FT, so what are they missing, why are they wrong? why is Stephen Hawking's wrong?


I never said he was wrong. I also pointed out that he did not agree with what you said. Remember, seems to have been is not the same as is. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:I am not saying that you most agree with all other atheist, but if you are going to disagree with the majority of them one would expect you to have reason for your disagreement.


You still have not demonstrated that any disagree with me. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:
what property does the universe lack that makes it not FT?


You still have not demonstrated that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. You just proclaim it to be. Now meet your burden and present your evidence.

leroy wrote:I have the feeling that I will ask this question like 20 times and that you wont provide an answer.


I have answered it already with: You still have not demonstrated that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. You just proclaim it to be. Now meet your burden and present your evidence. Again, work on your reading comprehension.


leroy wrote:
Where we were talking about a calculator being attached to a clipboard, and you appeat to be saying that just our planet is fine-tuned and not the rest of the universe as we know it. You know, if you actually took the time to formulate your argument, instead of just mindlessly responding, you would not be in this pickle



that is a strawman understanding, the claim is that the whole universe is FT to allow the existence of life in some spots. this is entirely consistent with your definition of FT


:lol:

No it is not. Something cannot be fined-tuned for X well having a whole section of it that has nothing to do with X.

leroy wrote:

As I keep saying, feel free to formulate the argument here. You see, unlike you (who can reply to me several times a day) I am actually busy



I have formulated the argument multiple times, but since you are unable to understand my words, I thought it would be a good idea to provide a source that explains the argument.


Where did you formulate it? A link would be nice.

leroy wrote:it doesn't matter if you are too busy, the video is only 5 minutes long and no one is forcing you to answer in less than 1 day.


:lol:

That is some advice better spent on yourself. Tell me this, since we both finally agreed on a definition of fine-tuning, is it still worth me watching it?

leroy wrote:
Irrelevant, since you already admitted that your whole argument is based off of a logical fallacy. Any consecutive parts to follow are all negated by the fact that it is all based off of a flawed premise



yes I am making a logical fallacy, because I haven't proved that the universe is FT

but that is your fault since you haven't told me exactly what point(s) do you disagree with, so that I can provide the evidence.


Yes I have. You are making the claim that the universe is fine-tuned, thus you should have the evidence to back up that claim. Where/what is it? Without that, you are stuck holding an empty bag. You need to meet your burden already.

leroy wrote:I will provide the evidence until you explain what specific points do you find controversial and worthy of justification.


Your whole premise that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. Please provide evidence that this is the case and stop just proclaiming it to be so.

leroy wrote:I mean, If I come here to argue that Radiometric dating is not reliable, wouldn't you ask me why not? would you expect me to provide specific points that cause my disagreement with radiometric dating?


No. I would just give you the evidence for why it is right. Your objections are irrelevant. Remember when that happened already?

leroy wrote:so just answer which of this points do you find controversial?

1) the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2) life could not exist in a black whole,


witch of these 2 points do you find controversial?


Neither.

leroy wrote:
is all based off of a flawed premise
.

ok and what is that false premise?


Exactly what you already admitted to. That your whole argument is based off of a logical fallacy.

leroy wrote:these are my premises...

1 if gravity would have been stronger, the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2 life can not exist in a black hole

these are my 2 premises, which premise is suppose to be wrong? If you tell me which premise you think is wrong, I could provide my evidence.


:facepalm:

Those are not your premises. Your premise is that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. That is a claim to knowledge and needs to be backed with evidence.

leroy wrote:
You have no time, yet enough time to reply to me multiple times a day in this thread?


I don't reply multiple times a day, I don't even reply every day. You might find this surprising, but I have other things to do, apart form commenting in this forum.


The last two times you replied to me (just scroll up) were on the same day. The two times before that were also on the same day. You are only kidding yourself at this point.

leroy wrote:
Yeah, and like twenty times, everyone in that thread pointed out how logically flawed that statement is


I can predict that you will read this sentence

you willingly decide to read the sentence.

even though you have will I was capable of predicting your choices.

therefore it is not imposible nor logically inconsistent to predict choices.

but even if you disagree, you can not accuse me for not answering, at most you should accuse me for answering incorrectly, so you accusation is still false.


If you want to open up this can of worms again, please go back to this thread. I will gladly show the flaws in your logic there, again. You know, whenever you are not busy. Beyond that, just because you can form words together and reply does not mean you created a rebuttal.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:49 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[

Neither

l.


well if you find none of this points controversial then by default you accept that the universe is FT


1) the whole universe would have collapsed in a black hole

2) life could not exist in a black whole,


to say that the universe is FT implies 2 things
1 that the life permiting rage is narrow

2 that most of the times any small change in these values would end up producing a universe outside this narrow rage


since you seem to acept both points, then you are accepting that the universe is FT.


if you insist that the universe is not FT, then for the second time I will ask this question,
what property does the universe lack that makes it not FT?


and this was your previous answer.....everyone can note that you didn't answer the questions, as usually you made an irrelevant comment that has nothing to do with the question


You still have not demonstrated that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. You just proclaim it to be. Now meet your burden and present your evidence




I never said he was wrong. I also pointed out that he did not agree with what you said. Remember, seems to have been is not the same as is. Again, work on your reading comprehension


ok so do some research in any source that you consider reliable, find out about SH view, and after you conclude your research let us know if he grants that the universe is FT or not.

I already made my research and I am already familiar with SH and his views, I already know that he grants that the universe is FT, but since you seem to reject me and my sources by default, why don't you do your own research in sources that you consider reliable?

after you find out that SH accepts the FT of the universe, you can explain why is he wrong, what is he missing.

That is some advice better spent on yourself. Tell me this, since we both finally agreed on a definition of fine-tuning, is it still worth me watching it?


I don't know if the video is worth watching it,...... even though you provided an accurate definition of FT, you are still making comments that imply that you still don't understand what FT means.

For example you still think that containing less that 1% implies no FT, even though no where in the definition does it say that FT requires to contain more that 1%

you think that with a sample of 1 one cant tell if something is FT or not, even though there is nothing in the definition that says or implies that you need a sample grater than 1 in order to proclaim FT

You think that to be FT implies that things could have been different, even though no where in the definition does it say that FT requires that things could have been different.

I am not sure if watching the video would make any difference, but you need to do some research on FT, because you clearly don't understand it,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:49 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: 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:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:[

Neither

l.


well if you find none of this points controversial then by default you accept that the universe is FT


:facepalm:

I said neither because you keep placing the cart before the horse. You still need to demonstrate the universe as we know it to be fine-tuned before you can make another argument. Stop trying to shift your burden and demonstrate your claim.

leroy wrote:to say that the universe is FT implies 2 things
1 that the life permiting rage is narrow


It does. Now demonstrate that that is the case. I can wait.

leroy wrote:2 that most of the times any small change in these values would end up producing a universe outside this narrow rage


Exactly! Now demonstrate it.

leroy wrote:since you seem to acept both points, then you are accepting that the universe is FT.


I accept that that is your claim and I accept that you need to demonstrate it. Get to work.

leroy wrote:if you insist that the universe is not FT, then for the second time I will ask this question,
what property does the universe lack that makes it not FT?


Again, you attempt to shift your burden. You are making the claim that it is fine-tuned. You provide the evidence that it actually is.

leroy wrote:and this was your previous answer.....everyone can note that you didn't answer the questions, as usually you made an irrelevant comment that has nothing to do with the question


You still have not demonstrated that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. You just proclaim it to be. Now meet your burden and present your evidence



Please work on your reading comprehension. You still expect me to accept the universe as we know it is fine-tuned based on nothing more than your proclamation. That is not how this works. You need to provide evidence for that claim. I will not deal with counterfactuals.

leroy wrote:
I never said he was wrong. I also pointed out that he did not agree with what you said. Remember, seems to have been is not the same as is. Again, work on your reading comprehension


ok so do some research in any source that you consider reliable, find out about SH view, and after you conclude your research let us know if he grants that the universe is FT or not.

I already made my research and I am already familiar with SH and his views, I already know that he grants that the universe is FT, but since you seem to reject me and my sources by default, why don't you do your own research in sources that you consider reliable?

after you find out that SH accepts the FT of the universe, you can explain why is he wrong, what is he missing.


You have never read A Brief History of Time, thus you have no idea what Steven Hawkins's actual opinion is on this subject. You just parroted a quote. I doubt you even knew that quote game from A Brief History of Time before I pointed it out.

However, what Hawkins believes or does not is irrelevant. You are dealing with me, deal with my arguments.

leroy wrote:
That is some advice better spent on yourself. Tell me this, since we both finally agreed on a definition of fine-tuning, is it still worth me watching it?


I don't know if the video is worth watching it,...... even though you provided an accurate definition of FT, you are still making comments that imply that you still don't understand what FT means.


Says the person that does not see a difference between seems to have been and is.

leroy wrote:For example you still think that containing less that 1% implies no FT, even though no where in the definition does it say that FT requires to contain more that 1%


I stand by that, in the proper context. Remember, that was an objection to the original definition of fine-tuning I presented. That is no longer the definition we are using, thus that objection does not stand with the new definition I presented. Amazing how I am the one presenting your case.

leroy wrote:you think that with a sample of 1 one cant tell if something is FT or not, even though there is nothing in the definition that says or implies that you need a sample grater than 1 in order to proclaim FT


:facepalm:

I never said can't, I said it seems very difficult to conclude something would be fine-tuned if we have only one sample of that thing. Again, you can prove me wrong by actually demonstrating that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. Whenever you are read, I will be happy to look at your evidence.

leroy wrote:You think that to be FT implies that things could have been different, even though no where in the definition does it say that FT requires that things could have been different.


:docpalm:

Wikipedia - Fine-tuned Universe wrote:The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental 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.


I never implied that things could be different, again, work on your reading comprehension. However, the definition we both agree with says the conditions that allow life can only occur with certain constants lying within a very narrow range. My question to you is how does one know that? Without being able to look at another universe that is different, how does one know that what we see is a narrow range? That is something you have yet to prove. Please meet your burden.

leroy wrote:I am not sure if watching the video would make any difference, but you need to do some research on FT, because you clearly don't understand it,


I see the problem here. You need to work on your reading comprehension and actually understand my objections. Stop proclaiming things and start providing evidence. Stop whining that I write to much and actually take some time to read and think about what I am saying.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:02 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1765Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

just to be clear.

if I prove these 2 points, that would imply that the universe is FT right?


1 that the life permiting rage is narrow

that most of the times any small change in these values would end up producing a universe outside this narrow rage
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:16 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: 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:just to be clear.

if I prove these 2 points, that would imply that the universe is FT right?


1 that the life permiting rage is narrow

that most of the times any small change in these values would end up producing a universe outside this narrow rage


:lol:

Wow. Look at that. Tell me again how busy you are and how you cannot comment on other threads because you are so busy. Not only are you able to respond to me twice in one day, but your second reply came in 14 minutes after I posted mine. This rapid fire approach you have to this discussion might be factoring into your poor reading comprehension. Honestly, did you even read my whole post before replying? Because, part of that 14 minutes also went into you typing your response after all.

However, to get to your question; yes. The blog I wrote asked that question, since you started commenting here I have asked you to prove this. You are the one that kept up this dance of trying to shift your burden and offering up a counterfactual as your argument.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Feb 02, 2017 6:06 pm
YIM WWW
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 260Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

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

leroy wrote:just to be clear.

if I prove these 2 points, that would imply that the universe is FT right?


1 that the life permiting rage is narrow

that most of the times any small change in these values would end up producing a universe outside this narrow rage



How narrow is that range for a life permitting universe and in what units are these values? And how did you determine that range. And how did you determine that most of the time any small change (another vague non-value term) in these values would end up producing a universe outside this narrow range.

One of the problems I have with the fine tuning argument is that the people who use this argument view the physical constants as if all of these are set by a Cosmotron 9000 with a turning knob for each constant.
Image

This is my FOURTH objection to the fine tuning argument.
4. What are the odds?
The argument asserts that the odds of these physical constants, being as they are, coming about by change is so low that it couldn't have happened by chance alone. However there is no way to conclude this since we only have one universe and you cannot calculate any probability by a sample size of 1.
To understand why, lets say you are allowed to play in a lottery and you are thus the only one that plays in the lottery.
The number you got was: 1234567890
Wow, what are the chances? But not only that it turns out that you won the lottery! What are the chances now? Well, what is it? Seriously, how can you tell? You need more information.
For example could it be that you could've gotten a ticket with a number other then 1234567890 or was this the only ticket that they had?
And how did you win? Could it be that the winning number could only be the number 123457890 or could the number vary within 0000000000 and 999999999 or where there other limits that increases the likely hood like if the limit was between 1234567889 and 1234567891 in which case the chance of the number 1234567890 being the winning number is one in three?
Without knowing all this, you cannot tell what the chance was of you winning the lottery. By all we know, the chance could've been 1 in 1.
Now what would you say about someone who comes up to you and say that the odds were astronomically low and puts up a number even though he has the exact same amount of information you have? I say he is talking out of his ass, which proponents of the fine tuning argument also do.
They assert for the sake of their argument the notion of "altering the constants" by saying if you alter slightly the constants the chances are yadayada. And they will pull out some big number like 1 in 10 to the power of something out of their asses and make absurd analogies like "this event is so improbably it is like winning the lottery every week for the rest of your life" just to impress the weak mined, but they don't have the calculations to demonstrate any of that.


Based on the assumption that this is how the values values are (values that can change along a range impossible to define), they (the ones that uses the argument) assert that a god had to tune those knobs or else, the knobs would have set on any value by random change and having the knobs tuned in this exact way for a life permitting universe, just by change, is so low it is practically impossible.

There is no math to be done here to calculate what the changes are for these values.

So can you prove these two points you have laid out. I highly doubt that.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:54 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 10 of 18
 [ 352 posts ] 
Return to Blog of Reason

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest