Fine tuning of the Universe

[Radrook]

"I've never heard of a term therefore you are wrong"? Uh, OK



Good, you're starting to understand.

Attribution of mind to mindless chemicals as you are doing us nonsensical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that I don't detect intellectual honesty from those who refuse to see any significance in fine tuning.

There is a difference between seeing "significance" and plainly asserting all kinds of things in an attempt to "explain away" the significance.

You are here, making all kinds of assertions and you offer NOTHING to back it up. And then accuse us of all kinds of things because we refuse to take your nonsense claims at face-value, or because we aren't convinced by a bunch of PRATTs.

 

[Radrook]

Errrr..... when you make claims about probabilities, then you imply probability calculations. Where are they?

You don't feel like you need probability calculations in order to make claims about probability?

Okay. In that case, I'll just go ahead and say that the probability of the universe existing in its present form is 1 in 1. I don't need to support that assertion, because why would I need to show what is plainly there to see?

I assert it, that settles it.

Yep, makes perfect sense!



It is, when you start making claims about probabilities, without the math to back it up.



I have no reason to acknowledge bare assertions.

And there we go again, with the "atheistic" nonsense.

Ken Miller. Francis Collins. The pope.
Armoured. Speedwell.

All theists that disagree with your nonsense.

You really need to start being a bit more honest.

Claiming not to see the obvious comes across as peevish hypocrisy. Do you need calculations to know that bow and arrow are the product of a mind? Of course not. If I demanded calculations from you in reference to a bow and arrow you would consider me as making a joke or else to be extremely feeble minded.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Attribution of mind to mindless chemicals as you are doing us nonsensical.

Nobody here does that. Stop lying.

 

[Radrook]

There is a difference between seeing "significance" and plainly asserting all kinds of things in an attempt to "explain away" the significance.

You are here, making all kinds of assertions and you offer NOTHING to back it up. And then accuse us of all kinds of things because we refuse to take your nonsense claims at face-value, or because we aren't convinced by a bunch of PRATTs.

The ones making assertions of fine tuning are your own scientists. So your beef is with them not me. I am merely drawing a conclusion based on their opinion. If indeed you don't accept any one of their fine tuning claims then which one is it? Describe it so it can be researched.

 

[Radrook]

Nobody here does that. Stop lying.

Of course you are because mind is essential for the things you claim that your chemicals are doing mindlessly. Or are you claiming not to know the difference between the activity of a planning mind and mindlessness? Thee is the problem. You are smart enough to tell the difference as long as telling the difference doesn't involve recognition of mind in nature because evidence of mind in nature goes contrary to atheist preferences. Such a biased modus operandi isn't science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Claiming not to see the obvious comes across as peevish hypocrisy.

"it's obvious" is not an argument.

Do you need calculations to know that bow and arrow are the product of a mind? Of course not.

No, but, as you know off course, that's not the probability I'm talking about.
You've been making claims about the "probability" of the constants being as they are.

And fyi: we don't infer human manufacturing of a bow and arrow by saying "it's obvious" either.

If I demanded calculations from you in reference to a bow and arrow you would consider me as making a joke or else to be extremely feeble minded.

Where did those goalposts go? They've moved so far, I can't even see them anymore.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The ones making assertions of fine tuning are your own scientists.

Yet, none of them are drawing the conclusion that you are.

So your beef is with them not me. I am merely drawing a conclusion based on their which is readily available to you.

And it's your conclusion that is in dispute.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course you are

No. Again: stop lying.

because mind is essential for the things you claim that your chemicals are doing mindlessly.

It is not.
Chemical reactions are subject to the laws of physics. No "mind" is making chemicals do what they do.

When 2 H atoms bind with an O atom to form H2O, it's just physics/chemistry. There is no "mind" piecing them together like a puzzle.

You are smart enough to tell the difference as long as telling the difference doesn't involve recognition of mind in nature because evidence of mind in nature goes contrary to atheist preferences. Such a biased modus operandi isn't science.

More lies, more accusations proven false multiple times over.

You're hitting a new low.

 

[Radrook]

No. Again: stop lying.



It is not.
Chemical reactions are subject to the laws of physics. No "mind" is making chemicals do what they do.

When 2 H atoms bind with an O atom to form H2O, it's just physics/chemistry. There is no "mind" piecing them together like a puzzle.



More lies, more accusations proven false multiple times over.

You're hitting a new low.

The product of those laws indicate mind. That you dismiss the result of those interactions as traceable only to mindless laws does not in any way obliterate the evidence of a planning conscious mind who fixed things to work toward a purpose. Your claim that mindless chemicals assemble a brain is ludicrous.

BTW
Your monotonous, dishonest accusation that we are ignorant of, or denying the laws that cause chemical reactions is called strawman. You stop lying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The product of those laws indicate mind.

Why?

That you dismiss the result of those interactions as traceable only to mindless laws does not in any way obliterate the evidence of a planning conscious mind who fixed things to work toward a purpose.

You act as if your super-duper-mind is the default position. That's kind of funny.

You make the claim, you have the burden of proof.
Demonstrate/support the idea that the laws of nature "require" a mind.

ps: am I to understand this statement of yours as some sort of deistic position? As in a deity who triggers the universe in such a way that it has the physical laws that it has, and then left it to develop itself as it did? Because that would be quite some progress in your understanding of nature.

Your claim that mindless chemicals assemble a brain is ludicrous.

Maybe read up on embryology and evolution as well.
Last time I checked there were no "minds" at work in my wife's whomb when our baby grew his brain.

BTW
Your monotonous, dishonest accusation that we are ignorant of, or denying the laws that cause chemical reactions is called strawman. You stop lying.

lol

Says the guy who insists on misrepresenting everybody, including the scientists he quotes, as well as accusing anyone who doesn't agree as having an "atheistic agenda", eventhough we can point to hundreds of millions of theists who disagree.

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

The original post of this thread has requested it's closure. Therefore, this thread has been permanently closed.

MOD HAT OFF​