Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 74373006" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>When I say you can't or won't support it, I'm referring directly to what you said: <em>"rather than I trying to support this...</em>"</p><p></p><p>You can't know that it's the <em>only</em> logical argument for fine-tuning unless you know that there can be no other logical arguments - and both previously and later on in this very post(!), you say you accept that the multiverse is a possible argument. The fact is that we <em>don't know</em> the answer, or even what the possibilities are, so it's fallacious to make an absolute statement like yours.</p><p></p><p>But you made the claim, so tell us the logic that supports it and why no other logical explanation is possible.</p><p></p><p>You say that, but I must have missed where you explained it. I think you're mistaken - but show that I'm wrong by posting a link or reference to that explanation.</p><p></p><p>I don't know what their reasons are, and I don't particularly care - I was asking for <em>your</em> reasons. If you just find quotes from people who appear to agree with your preconception and then assume it's reasonable & logical because <em>they</em> think it's reasonable and logical, then your claim that <em>you</em> think it's reasonable and logical is clearly misleading.</p><p></p><p>The predisposition to attribute events to hidden agency is what leads to beliefs like creative agents. I've explained why a tendency for such beliefs is not any indication that the beliefs are likely to be true. Why do you think we don't attribute earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, or floods to the direct actions of gods any more? Because we know that's a false attribution. ID is a pseudoscientific wrapper for God beliefs which are illogical and irrational - believers acknowledge that religious faith is not logical or rational.</p><p></p><p>On the contrary, magical thinking is as fundamental in human psychology as the attribution of agency, and is also common in religious beliefs.</p><p></p><p>You haven't justified how it "points to a mind" - The only minds we have evidence for are produced by animal brains. I suspect you're trying to invoke some kind of hand-wavy magical mind that can do anything, but by all means support your claim clearly and concisely with logic and reason.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That sounds like the circular argument again. Why should we say there is a creative agent who wanted a universe? and I've already explained why fine-tuning is a good argument <em>against</em> design.</p><p></p><p>To suppose a hidden agency for the unexplained when you <em>know</em> that the attribution of hidden agency is an ancient cognitive bias that has only ever been shown to be mistaken in such circumstances seems entirely perverse - and explains no more than does 'Magic' or simple chance.</p><p></p><p>You completely missed the point. You asserted that a 'creative agent' was present at the big bang when we know that the conditions <em>at that point</em> were inimical to life. This makes it illogical and irrational to suppose that any intelligent agency could be present (the simulation hypothesis would allow it, but that's a different idea). I was asking you to justify why it isn't illogical or irrational - without using fallacies like special pleading.</p><p></p><p>Nobody has argued that the parameters don't have specific values; the Weak Anthropic principle and the puddle parable explain why that doesn't support any particular explanatory argument. Simply asserting that it does is not an argument.</p><p></p><p>I've already told you the significant difference in logic and reason between those two hypotheses.</p><p></p><p>Now you're repeating yourself, and in the same post...</p><p></p><p>Again, there's a difference between finding it logical and reasonable for someone to hold a belief and the belief itself being logical and reasonable; if you know about cognitive biases it's logical and reasonable that people often have mistaken beliefs - and you do know about the relevant cognitive bias, yet you try to claim it as <em>support</em> for your assertion...</p><p></p><p>Repeatedly asserting it doesn't make it so. It's almost as if you keep repeating it just to avoid having to acknowledge you have no substantive argument for it.</p><p></p><p>I explained the error you're making here the last time you made this claim.</p><p></p><p>I'm not seeing reasoned discussion or argument from you, just the same old errors, assertions, and evasions. I don't want to repeat what I've already posted, so I'll leave it there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 74373006, member: 241055"] When I say you can't or won't support it, I'm referring directly to what you said: [I]"rather than I trying to support this...[/I]" You can't know that it's the [I]only[/I] logical argument for fine-tuning unless you know that there can be no other logical arguments - and both previously and later on in this very post(!), you say you accept that the multiverse is a possible argument. The fact is that we [I]don't know[/I] the answer, or even what the possibilities are, so it's fallacious to make an absolute statement like yours. But you made the claim, so tell us the logic that supports it and why no other logical explanation is possible. You say that, but I must have missed where you explained it. I think you're mistaken - but show that I'm wrong by posting a link or reference to that explanation. I don't know what their reasons are, and I don't particularly care - I was asking for [I]your[/I] reasons. If you just find quotes from people who appear to agree with your preconception and then assume it's reasonable & logical because [I]they[/I] think it's reasonable and logical, then your claim that [I]you[/I] think it's reasonable and logical is clearly misleading. The predisposition to attribute events to hidden agency is what leads to beliefs like creative agents. I've explained why a tendency for such beliefs is not any indication that the beliefs are likely to be true. Why do you think we don't attribute earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, or floods to the direct actions of gods any more? Because we know that's a false attribution. ID is a pseudoscientific wrapper for God beliefs which are illogical and irrational - believers acknowledge that religious faith is not logical or rational. On the contrary, magical thinking is as fundamental in human psychology as the attribution of agency, and is also common in religious beliefs. You haven't justified how it "points to a mind" - The only minds we have evidence for are produced by animal brains. I suspect you're trying to invoke some kind of hand-wavy magical mind that can do anything, but by all means support your claim clearly and concisely with logic and reason. That sounds like the circular argument again. Why should we say there is a creative agent who wanted a universe? and I've already explained why fine-tuning is a good argument [I]against[/I] design. To suppose a hidden agency for the unexplained when you [I]know[/I] that the attribution of hidden agency is an ancient cognitive bias that has only ever been shown to be mistaken in such circumstances seems entirely perverse - and explains no more than does 'Magic' or simple chance. You completely missed the point. You asserted that a 'creative agent' was present at the big bang when we know that the conditions [I]at that point[/I] were inimical to life. This makes it illogical and irrational to suppose that any intelligent agency could be present (the simulation hypothesis would allow it, but that's a different idea). I was asking you to justify why it isn't illogical or irrational - without using fallacies like special pleading. Nobody has argued that the parameters don't have specific values; the Weak Anthropic principle and the puddle parable explain why that doesn't support any particular explanatory argument. Simply asserting that it does is not an argument. I've already told you the significant difference in logic and reason between those two hypotheses. Now you're repeating yourself, and in the same post... Again, there's a difference between finding it logical and reasonable for someone to hold a belief and the belief itself being logical and reasonable; if you know about cognitive biases it's logical and reasonable that people often have mistaken beliefs - and you do know about the relevant cognitive bias, yet you try to claim it as [I]support[/I] for your assertion... Repeatedly asserting it doesn't make it so. It's almost as if you keep repeating it just to avoid having to acknowledge you have no substantive argument for it. I explained the error you're making here the last time you made this claim. I'm not seeing reasoned discussion or argument from you, just the same old errors, assertions, and evasions. I don't want to repeat what I've already posted, so I'll leave it there. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible
Top
Bottom