Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:39 pm
leroy wrote:leroy wrote:
granted counterfactuals are not necessarily true ether, as you said before, we need evidence, but the evidence has been provided.......................for example the second law tells us that if the entropy where high the temperature of the universe would be homogenous and no hot spots (stars) would not exist.
the law of gravity tells us, that if the force of gravity is too strong (and the space too small) the whole system would collapse in a black hole
so my CF are supported by evidencehe_who_is_nobody wrote:
You just admitted that I am right about counterfactuals by stating they are not necessarily true without evidence right after demanding that I admit that I am wrong. Beyond that, you have not provided any evidence. All you are doing (again) is pointing to the initial conditions of our universe and claiming them as fine-tuned without demonstrating it.
There is a big difference between this 2 statements, I am sure that even your atheist friends in this forum would grant that there is a difference between this 2 statements, and I am sure that you also know it, but for some reason you like to act like a 12yo and pretend that you disagree.
1 Counterfactuals (CF) are necessarily fallacious (your claim)
2 Counterfactuals are not necessarily true (my claim)
leroy wrote:So far you haven't done anything to prove your claim, all you have done is post 2 random links from 2 un related articles than don't even claim (let alone prove) that counterfactuals are necessarily fallacious.
Incorrect. Read the citation I provided for you.
leroy wrote:To say that Counterfactuals are not necessary true, implies that I would have to provide additional evidence. But in this case evidence has been provided....
You have not provided evidence. All you keep doing is pointing to our initial conditions and claiming them as fine-tuned. That is not evidence for fine-tuning, that is defining fine-tuning into existence.
leroy wrote:We know that the force of attraction depends on the force of gravity (the stronger the force of gravity the stronger the attraction)
we know that if gravity is too strong, and the space too small, all matter would be attracted in a small point creating a black whole.
we knw that the universe was small in the past (when it was just a few seconds old)
we know that stars, planets, molecules etc. can not exist inside a black hole
we know that life as we know it, can not exist if stars, planets, molecules don't exist.
Yes. I agree with the initial conditions. How many times do I have to say that?
leroy wrote:this is what is meant by FT, if you accept all this uncontroversial statements you agree with FT, if you don't what to call it FT, feel free to use a different word,
No it is not. Remember when I defined it and you agreed? It is not enough for you to just point to the initial conditions and claim them as fine-tuned. You need to demonstrate that to be the case. However, you have already admitted that you cannot. Thus, how about instead of trying to shoehorn in fine-tuning into the initial conditions, you work from them and try to demonstrate that they were indeed fine-tuned?
leroy wrote:Leroythere is a difference between skepticism and disagreement, ..........so who are you?
the skeptic guy> are you the guy who doesn't know anything about John or his classmates and therefore you don't have enough information to judge weather if John is the best student or not (no burden proof required)
the guy who disagrees> the guy who thinks that there are good reasons to assert that there are better students that John? (burden proof required)
HWNYou should be able to tell that from my answer, the one you are responding to. You do love to ask questions that have already been answered. Perhaps you would not do that if you worked on your reading comprehension. I am the first guy.
Well if you are the first guy, then do some research on the topic, look for arguments for and against design, and after you do that please let us know if you disagree with this statement or notstatement> design is the best explanation of FT that has ever been proposed
If you do your research and conclude that the statement is wrong, that would imply that you have a better explanation in mind.
You have not demonstrated that our universe has fine-tuning. You cannot even ask the question correctly.
Beyond that, I have already pointed out my reasons why I believe fine-tuning is the worst argument for theism. Why do you keep asking question that have already been answered? Thus far, all I have needed to demonstrate that in this discussion with you is my first argument.
leroy wrote:leroyyes, and even more important, I what to know why you agree or disagree........
hwnNo, because of the second point of my argument.
yes granted, evolution is also a posible source of FT, something can be FT because of evolution, however we do have good reasons to reject evolution and we do not have any good reasons to reject design.
We have no good reasons to reject evolution and no reason to consider design in the first place. Stop trying to pretend that design is on the same plain as biology.
leroy wrote:with evolution you might mean>
1 that the cosmos evolved, by some selective mechanism that created a bias to create FT universes (something like this http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Cosmolo ... _universes) for example
2 that life evolved to adapt in the cosmos
both are posible explanations, but in both cases I think there are good reasons to reject them
I do not mean the first one, and I also do not know why you would think that after the years you have been on this forum. Beyond that, what you think is irrelevant to this discussion. You have tried and failed for years to demonstrate flaws in evolutionary theory throughout this forum. It has brought me no end of amusement to laugh at your inept handling of it every time.
leroy wrote:just 2 questions
are you suggesting that evolution is a better explanation than design? this is a yes or no question
Obviously yes. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
leroy wrote:which one of the 2 evolutions are you supporting? in your argument you seem to support number 2, but I just what to be sure.
You honestly do not have to keep demonstrating your lack of understanding of evolution. We already know that you have a biases that does not allow you to understand it.
leroy wrote:leroy wrote:
BTW, I am not claiming that FT always implies design, I am saying that it usually implies design..Than, by your own admission, even if you could show that the universe as we know it was fine-tuned, you would have no way to show that it was designed. You just keep doing a fantastic job destroying your own argument.
granted, the FT of the universes is an uncontroversial fact, as I told you earlier, most scientists accept that the universe is FT,
the controversy rest on what is the best explanation for FT,
You never demonstrated that, please stop repeating this falsehood. Beyond that, all you have done is point to the initial conditions of our universe and claimed them as fine-tuned. You even admitted that you could not demonstrate that to be the case.
leroy wrote:Again, if you think this is a point in your favor, than you should really start to question your positionThe fact that your god is on the same level as fairies should be all one needs to know about your arguments and your god
the thing is that you really think that you are making a grate point with your farriers, as I told you earlier the FT argument does not aspire to prove that my God is the fine tuner, the argument aspires to show what it was designed by any intelligent designer,
weather if the designer is God, Aliens,, or farriers is relevant for an other discussion where I would provide evidence that excludes Aliens and farriers
Yet, you have already admitted that you cannot demonstrate our universe is fine-tuned. Thus, what does that say about your god?
Do you honestly believe this is a point in your favor? Beyond that, do you not see the world of difference between a science journal and a philosophy/history journal? This statement alone says more about you than I ever could
well this quote also says much about you, ..... you reject an article by default just because it is published in a philosophical journal, ...
Yes! We are dealing with science. Why would you think a philosophy journal would be appropriate in that context?
leroy wrote:They all did. Work on your reading comprehension. Beyond that, your solving of the BBP was GodDidIt. You know that is not an actual answer, right
well if your atheist friends solve the BBP, then they should be very busy working in a research article that solves a problem that no one has ever solved, maybe they can even win a novel price with their article..........well that explains why they abandoned the conversation, they are simply to busy working in their article.
That, or they just became tired of repeating themselves. You do have a habit of asking questions that have already been answered.
leroy wrote:No God did it is not my solution..........my solution is chance didn't done it. the BBP only applies if you adopt a chance hypothesis, so you have to alternatives, ether solve the BBP or adopt a none chance hypothesis (design and evolution are examples of non chance hypothesis)
Thus, as I said, you solved it with GodDidIT.
Beyond that, Nesslig20 never argued for chance. I cannot remember (and I cannot be bothered to look back) but I am not sure what the other two were arguing for. If that is all it takes to defeat the BBP, than by your own addition Nesslig20 also defeated it.
leroy wrote:leroy wrote:
but even more important, they where unable to proof that the universe could have been different (as predicted by the multiverse) so by your standards (not mine) this is sufficient reason to reject the multiverse hypothesis, ............using your own standards there are good reasons to reject the multiverse hypothesis therefore you agree with this statement.I never claimed to be a devotee to the multiverse. Not sure why you think this is a big deal. In fact, Nesslig20 went out of his way to say he was not arguing for the multiverse either. Perhaps, work on your reading comprehension?
As it is usually the case with you, your answer has nothing to do with my comment,
Yes it does. Since Nesslig20 and I never argued for the multiverse, than you are right that we both already rejected it. Why you think you pointing it out is a big deal is beyond me. Work on your reading comprehension.
leroy wrote:the point that I was making is that the multiverse hypothesis presupposes that things like the initial conditions of the universe could have been different, since none of your atheist friends proved that things could have been different, then by your own standards the multiverse hypothesis has to be rejected by default, until they prove that things could have been different. So even by your own standards and even if we ignore the BBP, your atheist friends failed.
Seeing as how Nesslig20 never argued for the multiverse, how could he fail?
See how my above comment was relevant to your comment? How about instead of inventing Nesslig20's position out of straw, you be honest for once and admit that he never argued for the multiverse.