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.
The universe isn't fine tuned for life. I don't understand how anybody could make that claims.
If I looked at the universe and had to prescribe an intention for which it was finely tuned, I would guess more in the direction of empty space. Or black holes. Or just the goal of running out of usuable energy.
The idea that it is finelly tuned for life is like looking at a lake full of toxic waste, which has one small corner the wast hasn't penetrated yet (but inevidably will in the future), in which some microorganisms live, clinging for their life, and then say that this lake has been finely tuned for these microbes.
Life seems like an extreme after-thought of this universe.
Sure, different valuables for the universe would lead to different universes... some hardly able to exist, some more stable. And maybe some more suitable for life, but even if not:
If you draw one cart out of a deck of a billion carts, the cart you'll draw has a 1:1000000000 chance of being drawn... and yet it got drawn!
Rare things happen all the time. It only becomes remarkeble, once we attribute meaning to some events and not others. And it's nice that some here think that our existence is the ONE cart that HAS to be drawn, for some reason, but unless there is justification, the universe we have is just the one we have... No justification of inserting anything else.
Also, the argument applies that the universe even COULD have unfolded in a different way. I don't even know if that's possible. And if the universe could have only unfolded in one way, then there certainly isn't any fine-tuning that needs to be done.
So either way, if the universe could have looked differently or if it couldn't, so far there is no justification to claim fine-tuning... unless of course you can demonstrate a fine-tuner.
We don't get along fine with the diseases that kill us though do we. We don't get along fine with Cancers and Tumors etc. You seem to be sidestepping the main issue here.
I didn't have an argument. I merely asked in this fine tuned universe are we fine tuned to be killed by these things. I don't care about their intention, the fact is we are at the mercy of viruses and bacteria... Was this gods intention? It's a question. Not an argument.
There are several good points made in this video relating to issues of just how livable the universe is, the problems with probabilistic reasoning on this issue, and other important issues.
eudaimonia,
Mark
The universe isn't fine tuned for life. I don't understand how anybody could make that claims.
If I looked at the universe and had to prescribe an intention for which it was finely tuned, I would guess more in the direction of empty space. Or black holes. Or just the goal of running out of usuable energy.
The idea that it is finelly tuned for life is like looking at a lake full of toxic waste, which has one small corner the wast hasn't penetrated yet (but inevidably will in the future), in which some microorganisms live, clinging for their life, and then say that this lake has been finely tuned for these microbes.
Life seems like an extreme after-thought of this universe.
Sure, different valuables for the universe would lead to different universes... some hardly able to exist, some more stable. And maybe some more suitable for life, but even if not:
If you draw one cart out of a deck of a billion carts, the cart you'll draw has a 1:1000000000 chance of being drawn... and yet it got drawn!
Rare things happen all the time. It only becomes remarkeble, once we attribute meaning to some events and not others. And it's nice that some here think that our existence is the ONE cart that HAS to be drawn, for some reason, but unless there is justification, the universe we have is just the one we have... No justification of inserting anything else.
Also, the argument applies that the universe even COULD have unfolded in a different way. I don't even know if that's possible. And if the universe could have only unfolded in one way, then there certainly isn't any fine-tuning that needs to be done.
So either way, if the universe could have looked differently or if it couldn't, so far there is no justification to claim fine-tuning... unless of course you can demonstrate a fine-tuner.
Ευδαιμονία
"Debunked"? lol. This video doesn't provide counter argument for Fine Tuning.
0:20
Anecdotal Fallacy
0:27
Appeal to emotion fallacy
1:16
Straw Man fallacy
2:00
Ambiguity fallacy
3:55
Burden of Proof fallacy
8:25
Gamblers fallacy
Please explain how what was argued are fallacies. Don't just say that they are.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Ευδαιμονία
Even from the preview of the video Gamblers fallacy is there, on the table of cards! LOL
There is nothing that needs to be explained, someone can mark the timeline, listen the argument and google the fallacy, its simple.
A table of cards does not prove any fallacy. Your credibility with me in detecting logical fallacies is low at this point.
Sorry, but I don't want to go on a wild goose chase looking for fallacies that aren't actually there. I'm not a mind-reader, and I don't know how you interpret the arguments in the video.
The only way that we can properly communicate is if you were to do the following for at least one (preferably all) of the fallacies that you have claimed are present:
1) Explain the fallacious argument in the video in your own words.
2) Give a link to a reputable source for the fallacy. Bonus points for briefly explaining the fallacy in your own words.
3) Explain how the fallacy applies to the argument.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Ευδαιμόνια
I can't post links yet. This video talks about delusional Multiverses as an answer to the Fine Tuning, they try to move the Fine Tuning problem to chance when chance doesn't exist. Chance is a philosophical idea that often Atheists use to tell that we are Cosmic mistakes and there was no intention to be created. Please watch the video, google the fallacies and you will see that i am right.
God is one because He is infinite, you can't use plural on something infinite, you can express God through universal values, Jesus said that you believe in God when you follow love, forgiveness, mercy, equality, philanthropy, peace, freedom, humility, patience. These are all accepted even by Atheists therefor the Word of God was the Truth because it is Universal. It doesn't matter if you think that God has four arms or that his name is Jim unless if your religion goes against Jesus Christ Teachings.
I suggest you to go back to page 13 of this thread and read my whole reply about the Fine Tuning. 122.
I did.
Wasn't convinced.
Too many baseless assertions, too much retro-activly fitting the data to the conclusion one wants to arrive.
"The argument goes like this:
Well, I disagree with number 1, because you can't know if these are all the possible options.
- 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"
It also already asserts fine-tuning, which I reject, since it hasn't been supported.
It also implies that there could be other ways the universe could have unfolded, which I find unsuported as well.
I also disagree with number two, since you can't justify excluding either of them.
...
Let me just say, that I absolutly agree, that, if this universe were any different, then life AS WE KNOW IT couldn't exist.
So what?
-We don't know if the universe could have been any different.
-We don't know if there couldn't be other potential universes which would have been much better suited for life than this one (which is extremly poorly suited).
-We have no justification to say that this universe is in any way special, just because WE value the fact that it allows the life that WE are part of.
But these three things are essential to the argument.
So, can you support any of them?
Question: A fetus forms neither by chance nor intelligently designed by either parent.
I am not detecting anything in that paragraph that even remotely addresses my semi-serios FTA turnaround.
But even so, there is lots of dubious and questionable stuff in there. For instance:
"you can't use plural on something infinite,"
I am not sure that is even true. But in any case it is completely beside the point.
You can alter an infinite set. In fact you can alter an infinite set in infinite ways. You can for instance take the set of all integers (which is infinite) and throw out the "3" which gives you the set of "all integers without 3" (which is infinite too). You can add 984.8764 to the set, which gives you the set of "all integers and 984.8764 but without 3". And so on and so forth.
Likewise with Gods. We could define all sorts of Gods, in all sorts of variations.
- No compassion, some compassion, a lot of compassion.
- Totally daft, a little daft, not daft at all.
- A high preference for carbon based lifeforms, some preference for carbon based lifeforms, a little preference for carbon based lifeforms, no preference for carbon based lifeforms.
And so on and so forth. YMMV. But nevertheless ... Many, many, many characteristicsts in many, many, many more variations than those lousy, miserable number of fine-tuning-constants that are being bandied about.
How are you defining "chance" here?
eudaimonia,
Mark
Spontaneous arising.
However it gets there, the egg of the mother requires a male sperm to create a developing fetus. The egg does not become one on it's own by "chance".
I did.
Wasn't convinced.
Too many baseless assertions, too much retro-activly fitting the data to the conclusion one wants to arrive.
"The argument goes like this:
Well, I disagree with number 1, because you can't know if these are all the possible options.
- 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"
It also already asserts fine-tuning, which I reject, since it hasn't been supported.
It also implies that there could be other ways the universe could have unfolded, which I find unsuported as well.
I also disagree with number two, since you can't justify excluding either of them.
...
Let me just say, that I absolutly agree, that, if this universe were any different, then life AS WE KNOW IT couldn't exist.
So what?
-We don't know if the universe could have been any different.
-We don't know if there couldn't be other potential universes which would have been much better suited for life than this one (which is extremly poorly suited).
-We have no justification to say that this universe is in any way special, just because WE value the fact that it allows the life that WE are part of.
But these three things are essential to the argument.
So, can you support any of them?
Sorry, what you write above just isn't convincing enough to make the effort. I can understand being philosophically opposed to the idea of "Chance", but it isn't a logical fallacy.
I'll tell you what. I can post links. Here is the basic description of the Gambler's fallacy:
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future, or that if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature).
Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tell me how and where the video makes this fallacy. You get -100 points if you just mention that a gaming table and a deck of cards was used in the video to make a point.
eudaimonia,
Mark
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?