The fine tuning of the universe.

[AirPo]

Right, there is no reason for necessity to be the explanation for fine tuning and THAT is why fine tuning is so surprising. Life could not be an inevitable outcome if not for fine tuning.

What makes you think life was an inevitable outcome?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, which automatically makes it true.

It doesn't make it false either.

I'm not debating the fact that ancient stories sometimes seem reasonable on the surface. However, every single time science makes significant advancements, and our understanding grows, it's always a naturalistic explanation. And the god of-the-gaps becomes less and less reasonable.

This is not a god-of-the-gaps argument and even those in the scientific realm understand that.

I shouldn't be surprised, I just sometimes forget how vigorously unreasonable beliefs are defended against all reason.

The thread spelled it out if you have a problem with that you are free not to post in it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What makes you think life was an inevitable outcome?

Not sure what you are asking. Personally, scientifically or what?

 

[AirPo]

It is not that I am interpreting what they are saying incorrectly and have in fact in numerous posts have made it clear that the majority of scientists do not claim that the supernatural is behind the fine tuning; however, they do understand that they need to explain it in a naturalistic way and the best they can come up with is the multiverse or something like it.

Of course you are since what you are saying is not what they are saying. Unless of course, you are intentionally misrepresenting what they are saying.

 

[HitchSlap]

I do understand how science works.

Not in the least.

All you have done, and has been pointed out ad nauseum, is that you have taken various quotes, out of context, to create a narrative that suggests that all these "prominent" scientists are all so flummoxed by appearance of "fine tuning," that they're on the verge of throwing in the towel and becoming theists.

 

[AirPo]

They go with the exact same fine tuning that I do. They don't explain it the same. Please understand the difference.

No it isn't. You say things they don't.

 

[AirPo]

Not sure what you are asking. Personally, scientifically or what?

You made the statement.

 

[HitchSlap]

Of course you are since what you are saying is not what they are saying. unles of course, you are intentionally misrepresenting what they are saying.

Consensus would seem to suggest this is true.

 

[Veera Chase]

The point of the thread was to provide reasons that theism is a better explanation than an atheistic naturalistic explanation.

Atheism explains absolutely nothing, atheism is about one issue and one issue only, it is a rejection of theistic claims that have not met their burden of proof.
You claim there is a God and I say I reject your claim, that is atheism, I reject your claims just as we both reject every other regions claims.
I am an atheist in respect to all religions while you are an atheist in respect to all religions except one.
My reason for rejecting your religion is exactly the same reason you give for rejecting all the other religions.
Now you know what an atheist is because you are one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course you are since what you are saying is not what they are saying. Unless of course, you are intentionally misrepresenting what they are saying.

The fine tuning is the fine tuning and I am not interpreting it incorrectly. It is what it is. I believe theism explains that better than the atheistic naturalistic explanations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not in the least.

All you have done, and has been pointed out ad nauseum, is that you have taken various quotes, out of context, to create a narrative that suggests that all these "prominent" scientists are all so flummoxed by appearance of "fine tuning," that they're on the verge of throwing in the towel and becoming theists.

Prove they were taken out of context. Prove that they are misrepresenting what the person is saying. Back up your assertions rather than throwing false accusations around.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No it isn't. You say things they don't.

Not about the data I don't. Understand the difference.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Consensus would seem to suggest this is true.

Consensus of whom?

 

[HitchSlap]

The fine tuning is the fine tuning and I am not interpreting it incorrectly. It is what it is. I believe theism explains that better than the atheistic naturalistic explanations.

Fine, believe what you need to. Just don't expect us to accept that all these scientists are somehow flummoxed to the point of theism.

 

[HitchSlap]

Consensus of whom?

Everyone in this thread not "Oncedeceived."

 

[AirPo]

The fine tuning is the fine tuning and I am not interpreting it incorrectly. It is what it is. I believe theism explains that better than the atheistic naturalistic explanations.

Sure you are. You are saying things like "needs to be" as opposed to "seems to be."

 

[KCfromNC]

Especially when you aren't providing information from the actual paper I linked.

I tried, see post 1254 for example. It is strange how often in this thread I can simply point to a post number to identify things which you claim don't exist.

 

[KCfromNC]

It was a paper recommended as an early paper for fine tuning by many of the later papers actually. It is referenced quite a lot.

Kinda makes one think there might be something worth reading in it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Atheism explains absolutely nothing, atheism is about one issue and one issue only, it is a rejection of theistic claims that have not met their burden of proof.
You claim there is a God and I say I reject your claim, that is atheism, I reject your claims just as we both reject every other regions claims.
I am an atheist in respect to all religions while you are an atheist in respect to all religions except one.
My reason for rejecting your religion is exactly the same reason you give for rejecting all the other religions.
Now you know what an atheist is because you are one.

No, you reject all religions out of hand and I reject all other religions because I have God's revelation, reason and evidence to support mine.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I tried, see post 1254 for example. It is strange how often in this thread I can simply point to a post number to identify things which you claim don't exist.

The point is the quote you gave was not from that paper and you implied it was.