Fine tuning of the Universe

[durangodawood]

You claim that our observation of mind in nature and our conclusion that mind is manifest in nature is faith.
It isn't faith at all. It is based on an observation and a justifiable conclusion.
You on the other hand have absolutely no observational basis for giving credence to a multi-universe idea. Yet you accept it as a possibility? To me that comes across as a baseless belief simply because it has no basis in anything observable as our conclusion of an ID does. Yet you tell US to have faith? LOL!

Why do you reject my no-evidence possibility (many universes), but expect I should accept your no-evidence possibility (God made it)...?

You should hold yourself to the same standard you hold me to, dont you think?

 

[Radrook]

Why do you reject my no-evidence possibility (many universes), but expect I should accept your no-evidence possibility (God made it)...?

You should hold yourself to the same standard you hold me to, dont you think?

Your standard is to assume your no-evidence idea of multiple universes as logical while suggesting that I base my ID view which does have compelling observational reasons to support it on mere faith. No sir, I cannot abide by that standard.

Now comes the " I cain't see!" response!

 

[bhsmte]

Your standard is to assume your no-evidence idea of multiple universes as logical while suggesting that I base my ID view which does have compelling observational reasons to support it on mere faith. No sir, I cannot abide by that standard.

Now comes the " I cain't see response!""

Then you should be able to produce reliable scientific evidence to support your own claim.

 

[durangodawood]

Your standard is to assume your no-evidence idea of multiple universes as logical while suggesting that I base my ID view on mere faith. No sir, I cannot abide by that standard.

Nooo. They are BOTH logical given our state of knowledge.

And since they are BOTH logical, reason doenst incline us to favor one over the other.

Sooo, if you want to stick with ID, you need to do it by faith, not reason. The same applies to me: if I'm going to insist on multiverses as the correct explanation, Id have to do it by faith too!

 

[Radrook]

Nooo. They are BOTH logical given our state of knowledge.

And since they are BOTH logical, reason doenst incline us to favor one over the other.

Sooo, if you want to stick with one, you need to do it by faith, not reason. The same applies to me: if I'm going to insist on multiverses, Id have to do it by faith too!

Sorry but it takes zero faith for me to conclude an ID based on what I see in DNA and all other aspects of nature. Now, the multiple universe idea would indeed necessitate a great deal of faith since there is absolutely NOTHING for me to justify that idea on. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry but it takes zero faith for me to conclude an ID based on what I see in DNA and all other aspects of nature. Now, the multiple universe idea would indeed necessitate a great deal of faith since there is absolutely NOTHING for me to justify that idea on. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Ok, you say it takes zero faith. If so, provide the scientific evidence that allows this zero faith.

 

[durangodawood]

Sorry but it takes zero faith for me to conclude an ID based on what I see in DNA and all other aspects of nature. Now, the multiple universe idea would indeed necessitate a great deal of faith since there is absolutely NOTHING for me to justify that idea on. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Thats simply assuming the preferred conclusion. I could perform the exact same maneuver to favor any other possible explanation.

 

[Chesterton]

Our particular universe is the one we are in.

I dont know if there are others. But its perfectly plausible that there are infinitely many, and that they represent infinitely many conditions.

So... my question...?

Can you explain how it's plausible? See, I'm an a-multiversist, you need to try and understand how we think. You can't expect me to accept your irrational metaphysical claims as legitimate premises without evidence. It's transparently obvious that Information Age men would invent a mythology based on the elaborate and unneccessary multiplication of information, and imbue it with life-giving power, even though in violation of Occam's Razor. Please don't hold it against me. We a-multis are normal, decent people. We can be good without multiverse.

 

[durangodawood]

Can you explain how it's plausible? See, I'm an a-multiversist, you need to try and understand how we think. You can't expect me to accept your irrational metaphysical claims as legitimate premises without evidence. It's transparently obvious that Information Age men would invent a mythology based on the elaborate and unneccessary multiplication of information, and imbue it with life-giving power, even though in violation of Occam's Razor. Please don't hold it against me. We a-multis are normal, decent people. We can be good without multiverse.

Go with what you prefer.

But if occams razor is a guide it would slice away an entire new and different order of reality (the divine realm) well before it cuts down to simply more of the same (multiverse).

 

[Chesterton]

Go with what you prefer.

But if occams razor is a guide it would slice away an entire new and different order of reality (the divine realm) well before it cuts down to simply more of the same (multiverse).

I don't see it. Multiverse is many, many new and different orders of reality. One poorly defined God versus a possibly infinite number of completely undefined mysteries.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't see it. Multiverse is many, many new and different orders of reality. One poorly defined God versus a possibly infinite number of completely undefined mysteries.

That to me seems a real downgrade of the divine. Nothing special here!

Multiverses dont necessarily implies whole new orders of reality. They could well just be slightly different takes on the same basic stuff. That would be enough to do the job of negating the fine tuning argument.

 

[Chesterton]

That to me seems a real downgrade of the divine. Nothing special here!

Multiverses dont necessarily implies whole new orders of reality. They could well just be slightly different takes on the same basic stuff. That would be enough to do the job of negating the fine tuning argument.

Well what makes up reality? Math and physics? New maths and physics would mean new realities.

What the observation of fine tuning tells us is that any slightly different take on the same basic stuff would mean there can be no other basic stuff (except in some fantasy in the mind). Rather than negating fine tuning it reinforces it.

 

[durangodawood]

Well what makes up reality? Math and physics? New maths and physics would mean new realities.

What the observation of fine tuning tells us is that any slightly different take on the same basic stuff would mean there can be no other basic stuff (except in some fantasy in the mind). Rather than negating fine tuning it reinforces it.

So? New math and physics are still math and physics.

Its much less a whole-new-category than a divine realm.

Careful with that razor!

 

[KCfromNC]

The difference between us is that you are willing to trash logic

Just not in any way you're actually able to demonstrate. Talk is cheap, but that's all this kind of rhetoric is.

 

[KCfromNC]

I base my ID view which does have compelling observational reasons to support it

What compelling evidence is that? And why did the people who made up ID not provide it to defend their beliefs in the court cases they eventually ended up losing?

 

[Radrook]

Thats simply assuming the preferred conclusion. I could perform the exact same maneuver to favor any other possible explanation.

Not simply preferring a conclusion but being impelled by logic to prefer that conclusion lest I find myself being illogical. In contrast, what you describe is a mindless preference regardless of rhyme or reason which has absolutely no similarity to my motives and criteria whatsoever.

 

[Radrook]

That to me seems a real downgrade of the divine. Nothing special here!

Multiverses dont necessarily implies whole new orders of reality. They could well just be slightly different takes on the same basic stuff. That would be enough to do the job of negating the fine tuning argument.

Multiverses, and alternate dimensions, have absolutely no effect on the clearly-observed fine tuning implications. They are just hypothetical wishful thinking scenarios without any observational basis. They are similar to saying that maybe somewhere and somehow one plus one doesn't really equal two despite all the evidence we have that it does.

 

[durangodawood]

Multiverses, and alternate dimensions, have absolutely no effect on the clearly-observed fine tuning implications. They are just hypothetical wishful thinking scenarios without any observational basis. They are similar to saying that maybe somewhere and somehow one plus one doesn't really equal two despite all the evidence we have that it does.

Wow! All that describes God too!

Realize: we are both proposing solutions that utterly lack objective evidence. In that respect, the God answer is just like the multiverse answer!

If you claim that the state of the universe IS the evidence, well that applies equally to both hypotheses.

(Incidentally, I like the God hypothesis better. But this line of reasoning doesn't compel us to it. Stick with faith).

 

[Radrook]

Wow! All that describes God too!

Realize: we are both proposing solutions that utterly lack objective evidence. In that respect, the God answer is just like the multiverse answer!

If you claim that the state of the universe IS the evidence, well that applies equally to both hypotheses.

(Incidentally, I like the God hypothesis better. But this line of reasoning doesn't compel us to it. Stick with faith).

As I explained before, that is a false analogy because you have no observational basis for a multiuniverse wherefore I have observational phenomena which indicates an ID. So the one that needs faith galore to entertain such a baseless concept as a multiuniverse is you. So let's just agree to disagree. OK?

 

[durangodawood]

...I have observational phenomena which indicates an ID.....

Really? Do tell!