DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
"yep"?
Hilarious...
Well indeed, if we ignore all his work, then he presents no evidence.
Greeeeaaat.
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.
Yep, if there is evidence that design is an illusion no one has ever presented it.
This is about the calculations used to determine that
Ok, so your conclusion for the fine tuning is the multiverse. It takes all those multiverses to explain the fine tuning of Our universe. That then can be a starting point for discussion.
There is nothing special or remarkable about me.
It will be like water off a ducks back, it won't even register.Your DNA appears to have been fine tuned by a superior being which controls who sleeps with whom, and when...right?
I'm not anything special, but life itself is. It is no great feat for a specific person to exist but for life at all, that is another matter.It's exactly the same argument as your fine tuning of the universe. If any one of a mind numbing number of things happened differently, YOU would not have been born.
Therefore, according to your argument, YOU are fine tuned to exist, and god must have controlled every mating event to produce you.
After all, the odds are even worse than your multiple lottery winnings.
Do you know how they determine the universe is unlikely?
Yes. Your posts seem to alternate between "there's no consensus" and "scientists conclude the universe came from nothing" depending on the needs of your claim that day. It's not doing much to convince me to believe you.Do you remember what I said there was no consensus on by any chance?
Instead of who did what now? Come on, at least in the past your attempts to dodge uncomfortable questions were complete and relatively coherent sentences.Coming from someone who instead of using science to defend their point.
This implies that "fine tuning" is just a opinion certain people have about a particular outcome having more meaning than another equally likely one.Of course not. If you roll a dice a million times and come up with six a million times, yes.
Lets look at it this way. If I won the lottery tomorrow with the numbers 30-25-15-42-9. Then I won the lottery the following day with the numbers 30-25-15-42-9, and continued this for a month. Do you think that anyone would not question what was going on?
You're missing the part where you're supposed to define success after the fact as exactly where everything ended up. Then you have to act so amazed that it is what it is that gods must have been involved.It's exactly the same argument as your fine tuning of the universe. If any one of a mind numbing number of things happened differently, YOU would not have been born.
Therefore, according to your argument, YOU are fine tuned to exist, and god must have controlled every mating event to produce you.
After all, the odds are even worse than your multiple lottery winnings.
I'm not anything special, but life itself is. It is no great feat for a specific person to exist but for life at all, that is another matter.
Actually no, there is a difference. Lets say the lottery numbers are ping-pong balls and each drawing one number is the winner. We predict that number not only once in my example but everyday for a month. We place all the millions of possible "ping-pong" balls in a bag and shake it up really well. We reach in blindly and pull out that winning ball among the millions each and every day. Why is this improbable? It is not that the ball is unlikely...any ball is unlikely. It is the low probability along with the fact that the winning ball is specified independently of the choice. While the balls are all still in the bag, one is a winner (the number I predicted prior to the drawings) and the rest are losers. I didn't just pick an unlikely ball, I picked the winning ball each and every day for a month. Not just any ball in the bag can be picked and claimed a winner.What difference does that make to the argument? You are the target of this fine tuning argument. You are the million sixes in a row, you are the universe, you are the rigged lottery winner. And unlike those three examples (two hypotheticals and another with far too many unknowns to account for), we know with virtual certainty that there was only one path which could have been taken for you to get here, against FAR greater odds than any of the other examples, AND that that path actually occurred. It is the ultimate fine tuning argument. Your DNA appears to have been fine tuned by a superior being which controls who sleeps with whom, and when...right?
Stop being rude.It will be like water off a ducks back, it won't even register.
I replied to this.On the contrary. The odds that you, specifically, exist, are FAR, FAR, FAR greater than any estimate I have ever seen given by ID supporters for the "odds that the universe/life exist." (Please note, that I am using ID proponent "probability." In reality, I believe that the odds for both are 100%, with a couple reasonable assumptions. Life exists. You exist. 100%)
Besides, as I have already told you, importance of the target of fine tuning is utterly irrelevant to the argument. If your argument is that the chances of the universe existing naturally are so astronomically high--with just one of many variables being slightly different denying it--that some being must have fine tuned those variables, then the same must be applied to a specific person existing, because...odds.
Actually no, there is a difference. Lets say the lottery numbers are ping-pong balls and each drawing one number is the winner. We predict that number not only once in my example but everyday for a month. We place all the millions of possible "ping-pong" balls in a bag and shake it up really well. We reach in blindly and pull out that winning ball among the millions each and every day. Why is this improbable? It is not that the ball is unlikely...any ball is unlikely. It is the low probability along with the fact that the winning ball is specified independently of the choice. While the balls are all still in the bag, one is a winner (the number I predicted prior to the drawings) and the rest are losers. I didn't just pick an unlikely ball, I picked the winning ball each and every day for a month. Not just any ball in the bag can be picked and claimed a winner.
So now fill the bag with balls representing all the immensely possible outcomes of the different egg-sperm combinations. Out of all those possible outcomes out I come. I am not anything special because there is nothing to predict I am the winning ball. Nothing singles out my specific ball, as improbable as it is while it is still in the bag we only claim I am a winner "after" I come out of the bag. I am not the specified independently choice of the ball. Whatever ball comes out of the bag is the winner not the other way around. I couldn't lose, but Mary couldn't either if Mary was taken out of the bag rather than me. Then Mary would be the winner. Any ball is the winner just by existing.
What evidence does he have that shows it is an illusion?"yep"?
Hilarious...
Well indeed, if we ignore all his work, then he presents no evidence.
Greeeeaaat.
When we are discussing our universe we are not considering the probability of THIS universe. We are considering the probability of a universe that supports intelligent life. The universe is not special because it just happens to be ours and we exist but we are considering the probability of a universe that supports intelligent life. Going back to the ping-pong ball being a person...any ball will be a person (any ol' sperm and any ol' egg) = a person no matter. Pick a different sperm or egg get a different person. But if we take any universe we certainly do not get a different intelligent life form. You get no life at all.1. We didn't predict a winner for the universe. We are looking at it all in hindsight. That's the problem with these probability arguments. Once it happens, the previous odds of it happening are irrelevant.
2. The "winner" or "predicted winner" is arbitrarily assigned, post drawing, in both instances. You chose to use the universe, I chose to use you, specifically.
3. Mary is irrelevant. It is just one of the MANY failures of producing you.
I've given you support which shows how they determine it.No, because you continue to run away from my requests to post papers which describe how they do so and what the answer is.
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?