Fine tuning of the Universe

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Radrook, you seem to like science.

Have you realized the importance of a testable hypothesis yet?

 

[Radrook]

Really? Do tell!

Selective blindness isn't a rebuttal. It is simply a cunning evasion of the obvious.

 

[Radrook]

Radrook, you seem to like science.

Have you realized the importance of a testable hypothesis yet?

Have you realized the importance of a justifiable inductive leap yet?
It seems you have since you accept it in reference to Dark Energy and Dark Matter whose existence you consider beyond and dispute merely based on observation of their effect. Yes, the details of what they constitute is being sought. But their existence as forces due to cause and effect isn't open to any debate. So you are being inconsistent.

 

[KCfromNC]

Selective blindness isn't a rebuttal. It is simply a cunning evasion of the obvious.

If it were obvious you wouldn't have to resort to word games like this when people ask you to give a few references. Who are you hoping to fool?

 

[quatona]

That seems to be an entirely reasonable and logical presumption. And I don't think there is anything else as reasonable to presume.

Well, it´s presented as a conclusion. If it has been the presumption anyway, there isn´t much to discuss about the arguments that lead to the conclusion.

 

[durangodawood]

Selective blindness isn't a rebuttal. It is simply a cunning evasion of the obvious.

Hey, I admit your preferred explanation (God) is viable.

But you have not shown how the other explanation (natural conditions) isnt.

BOTH are viable. You are the one with selective blindess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you realized the importance of a justifiable inductive leap yet?

You have not been able to justify your leap. And it seems that you can't understand how what you push is not science. Why are you afraid to answer a basic question about the scientific method. It indicates that you know what you are doing is wrong.

It seems you have since you accept it in reference to Dark Energy and Dark Matter whose existence you consider beyond and dispute merely based on observation of their effect. Yes, the details of what they constitute is being sought. But their existence as forces due to cause and effect isn't open to any debate. So you are being inconsistent.

When have I ever said that Dark Energy and Dark Matter definitely exist? Please don't try to put words into the mouths of others. Their existence is open to debate. No one has found another viable explanation yet. Of course that does not mean that Dark Matter and Dark energy definitely exist. It seems that you keep forgetting that those concepts are supported by scientific evidence. Sadly you don't seem to understand the concept and refuse to discuss it. You will never learn if you maintain that behavior.

If you want to refute those two concepts you at the very least need a testable hypothesis that explains the observations that those explain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey, I admit your preferred explanation (God) is viable.

But you have not shown how the other explanation (natural conditions) isnt.

BOTH are viable. You are the one with selective blindess.

The problem is that one is supported by viable evidence. The other isn't. Most atheists would accept the concept of a god if believers could support viable evidence for that god.

 

[Chesterton]

Well, it´s presented as a conclusion. If it has been the presumption anyway, there isn´t much to discuss about the arguments that lead to the conclusion.

As was noted, it seems to be presented as conclusion because the conclusion is built into the presentation. I don't think human language can express it otherwise. No argument needs to be made. And no argument can be made against it, except - multiverse - an idea borrowed from a 1940's superhero comic book. If that's not stubborn desperation I don't know what is. Hey, at least my sacred metaphysical texts don't have ads for X-Ray goggles on the back page.

 

[quatona]

As was noted, it seems to be presented as conclusion because the conclusion is built into the presentation. I don't think human language can express it otherwise. No argument needs to be made.

Ok. These threads, however, look to me as though someone tried to present an argument for it. Sorry for my misinterpretation.

 

[Radrook]

Hey, I admit your preferred explanation (God) is viable.

But you have not shown how the other explanation (natural conditions) isnt.

BOTH are viable. You are the one with selective blindness.

Well, thanks for conceding the viability of an ID.

As I am sure you agree, rules of logic don't suddenly become irrelevant simply because we are dealing with nature. That is where atheist reasoning is flawed and glaringly and conveniently inconsistent. There is also its irrational propensity to disqualify the concept of an ID simply because biological machines evident in nature are functioning automatically. It's similar to denying a designer of a jumbo jet cruising on automatic pilot simply because the inventor isn't seated at the cockpit. Obviously machines can be designed to function automatically by themselves for extended periods of time. In fact, there are now plans to make self-replicating and self repairing machines in order to set up automated factories on the lunar surface.

About conceding the atheistic view as viable, as much as I would enjoy agreeing with you I am sorry but logic prevents me from conceiving such a mindless cause as viable for the reasons I have previously explained. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the feedback.

BTW
Preferences can be either logically justifiable or logically unjustified. Based on that criteria we then evaluate their worth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Funny how some facts are controversial while others aren't.

It's not the concept that is controversial. What is controversial is calling this a "fact", because it's not a fact. At best, it is an opinion.

The Earth is roughly 70% water, no problem.

Idd, no problem... because that is a demonstrable fact.

The universe is fine tuned for life, problem.

Idd, problem... because that is not a demonstrable fact.

It's only controversial to those who don't believe there's a God.

Nope. It's controversial to those who understand the difference between fact an opinion.

They don't like the implications that come with the fine tuning.

Actually, I don't like the implications of confusing facts with opinions.

The only tactic left it to write it off as coincidence, even though common sense says otherwise

1. common sense is not a pathway to unravel the unknown, as common sense can only keep into account that which is already known. Common sense has never lead to a paradigm shifting discovery, because common sense only works within the status quo. For example, "common sense" does not lead to understanding all the weird stuff that happens in quantum mechanics. Just about every big paradigm shifting discovery in the history of human kind, was counter intuitive.

Another example of not liking the implications:
"Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature."
-Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology
I wonder if Hubble was horrified because he was an athesit or by some qualitative measurement of the redshift.

For example, the sun is roughly 400 times larger than the moon and roughly 400 times farther away. It may be significant but that fact alone could hardly it horrifying to anyone.

No idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, well suited. You're trying to tone down the language to make it more palatable?

No. He is merely insisting on sticking to the actual observation, without having a priori beliefs cloud those observations.

The observation is that the nature of the universe is such that life is possible.
The observation does not include the "why" of how that is the case.

Yes, like a man who sits down to a poker game and gets dealt royal flushes on a million hands in a row, you could say the game is well suited to him. A rational man would say the game is fixed.

That again makes a bunch of assumptions about the universe that you can not demonstrate or know at this point in time.

For starters, it assumes that the universe COULD even be different in the first place.
Secondly, you don't have a million universes to compare with. You have access to just one.

Being dealt a SINGLE poker hand, won't tell you anything about the deck of cards.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't go "back" to anything. You just substituted "suited" for "tuned". If tuned implies a Tuner, suited implies a Tailor. You can't get around it.

Funny. It's that implication of the use of these loaded words, which is the assumed conclusion.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is also its irrational propensity to disqualify the concept of an ID simply because biological machines evident in nature are functioning automatically.

Anyone see anyone who actually said this? After all, it would be "irrational" to make up something like this as a dodge for actually address real objections real posters(*) in this thread have made to the problems of ID.

* - Not to mention all the problems raised by ID proponents in the court cases which showed that it is just warmed over creationism-as-a-political-movement.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, thanks for conceding the viability of an ID.

As I am sure you agree, rules of logic don't suddenly become irrelevant simply because we are dealing with nature. That is where atheist reasoning is flawed and glaringly and conveniently inconsistent. There is also its irrational propensity to disqualify the concept of an ID simply because biological machines evident in nature are functioning automatically. It's similar to denying a designer of a jumbo jet cruising on automatic pilot simply because the inventor isn't seated at the cockpit. Obviously machines can be designed to function automatically by themselves for extended periods of time. In fact, there are now plans to make self-replicating and self repairing machines in order to set up automated factories on the lunar surface.

About conceding the atheistic view as viable, as much as I would enjoy agreeing with you I am sorry but logic prevents me from conceiving such a mindless cause as viable for the reasons I have previously explained. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the feedback.

BTW
Preferences can be either logically justifiable or logically unjustified. Based on that criteria we then evaluate their worth.

"The way of a fool seems right in his own eyes..."

Sometimes "logic" and intuition can be anithetical to understanding, and arguments from incredulity unconvincing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I am sure you agree, rules of logic don't suddenly become irrelevant simply because we are dealing with nature

Logic is pretty abstract.
It is perfectly possible to create a logical argument that is internally consistent and sound, but where the conclusion simply is incorrect.

Just like it is perfectly possible to create a mathematical internally consistent model of a universe that does not actually exist.

The question is... how does the logical argument reflect actual reality? How much is it grounded in empirical reality?

That is where atheist reasoning is flawed and glaringly and conveniently inconsistent.

There is no such thing as "atheist reasoning", if you realise that atheism isn't a worldview. Theism is the worldview. Atheism is anything but that.

There is also its irrational propensity to disqualify the concept of an ID simply because biological machines evident in nature are functioning automatically.

Again, no.... there is nothing irrational about rejecting undemonstrable propositions and assertions.

My rejection of ID, has nothing to do with my worldview and everything with the actual content of ID.

It's similar to denying a designer of a jumbo jet cruising on automatic pilot simply because the inventor isn't seated at the cockpit.

It is not. You can actually visit the jumbo jet factory. A jumbo jet is demonstrably an unnatural, manufactured machine.

Obviously machines can be designed to function automatically by themselves for extended periods of time. In fact, there are now plans to make self-replicating and self repairing machines in order to set up automated factories on the lunar surface.

And they would show all the hallmarks of manufacturing. As will the "off spring" thereof.

About conceding the atheistic view as viable

Again... there's no such thing as the "atheistic view".
Theism is the view. Atheism is only the lack of that specific view. It is not a specific view in itself.

, as much as I would enjoy agreeing with you I am sorry but logic prevents me from conceiving such a mindless cause as viable

Likewise, just like atheism is not an actual "view", neither does atheism say anything about causes for anything.

BTW
Preferences can be either logically justifiable or logically unjustified. Based on that criteria we then evaluate their worth.

Maybe that's your problem.
Maybe you should be evaluating concepts based on the supporting independent evidence, instead of the consistency of the internal logic structures.

 

[durangodawood]

.... but logic prevents me ....

Mainly, what I see that prevents you from an open eyed look at things is your pre-existing personal theological commitment, which you have decided to protect at all costs.

Logic (and evidence) in no way rule out an intelligent creator being. But neither is it ruled in.

Stick with faith.

 

[Radrook]

Mainly, what I see that prevents you from an open eyed look at things is your pre-existing personal theological commitment, which you have decided to protect at all costs.

Logic (and evidence) in no way rule out an intelligent creator being. But neither is it ruled in.

Stick with faith.

I don't need faith to believe in an ID.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't need faith to believe in an ID.

It appears that you do. You do not have proper evidence for it at all. But then you are not willing to even discuss the nature of evidence so it is impossible for you to learn why you have none.