Since you can't present evidence demonstrating the existence of a fine tuner, why should I have to disprove a fine tuner?
What evidence did Davies, Barnes, and Tipler present for the existence of a fine tuner?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)
- Thread starter paul becke
- Start date
- Status
Since you can't present evidence demonstrating the existence of a fine tuner, why should I have to disprove a fine tuner?
What evidence did Davies, Barnes, and Tipler present for the existence of a fine tuner?
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Victim? I am no victim. The fact that mockery is the only tool available has nothing to do with me.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
I am going to correct that mockery is the only possible tool...so is a straw man argument.
Upvote
0
I am going to correct that mockery is the only possible tool...so is a straw man argument.
No fine tuner, no fine tuning.
Upvote
0
Denial of a scientific term is no better.
Twisting of a scientific term is the worst, which is exactly what you do.
Upvote
0
Denial of a scientific term is no better.
Twisting of a scientific term is the worst.
Your whole argument is that a universe capable of supporting life could not occur by chance. Therefore, it requires a fine tuner. That is the fine tuning argument that you are using. Simply showing that the universe is capable of supporting life is not fine tuning.
Upvote
0
I'm sorry, but you can break free of them if you try hard. I have hope for you yet.
When you have actual evidence for a fine tuner, let us know.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
False. The term is a scientific term used by those in the field.
Upvote
0
Another poster, JimFit, was kind enough to spell out the fine tuning argument for us.
"
Here it is
The fine-tuning argument
The argument goes like this:
"
Here it is
The fine-tuning argument
The argument goes like this:
- The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
- It is not due to law or chance
- Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Then the position you are arguing for isn't related to ID or anything theistic.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
The position I am arguing for is that the fine tuning in the universe is claimed by scientists to appear as if it was designed. The fine tuning is evidence, the claim is that it appears to be designed. My subjective opinion based on this evidence and the appearance of design is that design is possible as the cause of the appearance and the evidence of the fine tuning.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
