Ahm...
Didn't say any of this.
Don't know where you got that from.
...
It's probably easier to attack something you wanted me to say, than my actual position. Get it.
Btw: I don't need to prove that your assertions are not valide, as long as they are just assertions.
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Its not an attack, whatever doesn't created with intention its a mistake.
Riiiiight.
Either an apple falls from a tree towards the center of mass of the planet because somebody intentionally pulls it there, or it's just change that it always goes in that direction. There is no third option.
...
Oh, wait...
That sounds like a flawed argument, I just can't put my finger on it...
;-)
The apple fells in the ground because of physics, there was no intention behind it without an observer. The observer recognizes intention not the apple.
Honestly, this "either deliberate design/intention or pure chance" is one of the most obvious false dichotomies I can think of. Why do people still fall for this?
You didn't offered a third option.
I might agree, if you could show that there was some fine tuning.
...
And that "fine tuning" necessitates intention.
Can you do either of those, or is this just another assertion?
Scientific findings
Cosmologists can calculate what they believe happened from the very earliest moments of the big bang, and can estimate the values of a range of cosmic constants and physical properties. There are scores of these numbers, but not all are independent. Physicist Paul Davies lists 13 constants and 12 derived quantities; cosmologist Martin Rees discusses six numbers, but as most of these are ratios of other numbers, his total comes to about a dozen.
It turns out that many of these numbers must lie within very narrow ranges, both now, and right back at the early stages of the big bang, for the universe to exist and form galaxies, stars and planets, and to provide the opportunity for complex life to appear.
A list of some of the most notable of these examples of "fine-tuning" (e.g. relating to the strength of the four fundamental forces, the mass of fundamental particles, etc) is at it looks like it was designed, so I will only describe two of the most amazing examples here.
The cosmological constant, or vacuum energy, is a major determining factor of whether the universe collapsed in on itself shortly after the big bang, or flew apart so fast that no matter coalesced into stars and planets, or is in a narrow range that allows a viable universe to form. Its value is obtained by subtracting two large cosmic forces, and theory suggested that it too would be large. But for the universe, stars & planets to exist, it must be very small. It turns out that the large forces cancel out accurately to 119 decimal places, yielding the required value. String theory "guru", Leonard Susskind says: "To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident."
Cosmologist and mathematician Roger Penrose once attempted to calculate the probability that chance allowed the initial state of the universe and its entropy to be exactly 'right' to allow it to still exist now. His answer was 1 chance in 10^10^123, a probability so small as to effectively be zero. To get a picture of this number, note that the number of baryons (protons & neutrons) in the universe is estimated to be about 10^80. We could write that number as 1 followed by 80 zeros. But to write Penrose's number would require 1 followed by a zero on every baryon in the universe, and then more.
It HAS to! Otherwise your argument makes even less sense!
If there was only one way the universe could have unfolded, you didn't need a fine-tuner!
The Universe is not Eternal and demands a cause.
Yes, I'm aware that you CLAIM that. I'm still waiting for an actual argument, for why you think that.
We don't know how universes form, so how on earth could ANYBODY claim that one specific way is "the only way"?
This makes absolutly no sense. It's speculation, at best.
We know how the Universe was formed. There are no other Universes, first find me proof about other Universes then we can discuss them.
Ok, so if that was true:
Why would we need a fine-tuner? You admit yourself, that this is the only universe that could exist. You negate the necessity of your fine-tuner here.
Yes because the Universe is Deterministic and you can't have Determinism from Randomness, that's why Atheists try to include delusional Multiverses in the Creation because they must have an excuse to justify Determinism before this Universe, a mother Universe that creates Universes.
Also: To say that from all the possible configurations that the universal constances could have had, ALL of them would lead to unstable universes that wouldn't last... sorry, THAT'S defenetly conjecture!
If the rate of the expansion was different (smaller of bigger) the Universe would have collapsed.
Wait...
We have no proof for other universes, therefor they don't exist? Is that the first part of the argument?
Interessting...
So you are saying that things we can't prove (yet) don't exist...
I wouldn't dare to take that position, I have to say.
And you shouldn't either, given that you apparently believe in all kind of things we can't prove.
The proof of God is the Universe because it is a Deterministic event that creates Humans, you can create beings with intention only if you know what intention is.
99.9% of all of the universeis hostile for life. This is just a fact. So yes: Something that as a norm has the conditions to destroy something else is poorly suited to contain this thing, even if 0.1% isn't hostile.
Very flawed argument. The sun is lifeless, the moon is lifeless, the rock we sit on is lifeless but that doesn't mean they are irrelevant to life. We know that galaxies belong to clusters, the Universe as a whole is a closed system but everything inside the Universe is an open system and everything interacts with each other, we don't know what it takes to have life, maybe it takes the whole Universe. Recently it was discovered that planet Zeus had an affect to our atmosphere. Also the Universe is big because of the expansion and as i already told you if it was smaller there would be no Universe!
And I've already granted you that to have life exactly as we have it now, we need to have exactly this universe.Yet, what you've writen is not adressing the point I've made.
If you draw from a deck of a billion cart, any cart you draw will have a 1:1000000000 chance to be drawn. So, even if I grant you that an infinite amount of universes could be possible (which IS a necessary attribute of your fine-tuning argument) and just by pure luck or coincidence (which I'm not claiming either) we have "drawn" this one universe... so what? If it was by mere chance, this universe had the same odds of being created by chance as all other possible universes. So, unless you show that there is something special about this universe, nothing even speaks against it being a chance-product (which I'm not saying it is, but I don't even see any argument against that either).
That's the argument for chance, it isn't logical to believe.
Youre not reasoning properly. What youre reasoning is:
1. like causes like effects
2. the effect of fine-tuning is caused by intelligence
3. Therefore, I think there is not enough evidence to choose between chance or intelligence.
But let me do it even more formally:
1. if something is fine-tuned, then it came into existence
2. if something comes into existence, then it does so either due to chance or not chance
3. if something is not chance, then it is intentional
4. there is no known instance of chance fine-tuning any complex thing
5. therefore, it is more plausible that that which is fine-tuned is due to intention, rather than chance
6. the universe is fine-tuned
7. therefore, it is more plausible that it is due to intention
Now lets apply this same logic to the pyramids. we have no evidence that the pyramids were built by humans, only a prior reasoning.
1. if something is fine-tuned, then it came into existence
2. if something comes into existence, then it does so either due to chance or not chance
3. if something is not chance, then it is intentional
4. there is no known instance of chance fine-tuning any complex thing
5. therefore, it is more plausible that that which is fine-tuned is due to intention, rather than chance
6. the pyramids are fine-tuned
7. therefore, it is more plausible that it is due to intention
