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.
Then I am confused because nowhere that I can see has she made the argument: I want god to be the fine tuner, therefore God is the fine tuner.Of course I meant the formal way. That's why I linked the fallacy site.
Then I am confused because nowhere that I can see has she made the argument: I want god to be the fine tuner, therefore God is the fine tuner.
Why accuse her of a formal fallacy that she hasn't committed, it just distracts from the actual discussion. We want her to debate the evidence and the interpretation, not to defend herself from baseless assertions of fallacy.
Of course, this type of thinking seldom takes the explicit form of an argument from a premiss about one's belief to the conclusion that one's wish is true. Such bald wishful thinking would be patently fallacious even to the wishful thinker. Rather, wishful thinking usually takes the form of a bias towards the belief in P, which leads to the overestimating of the weight of evidence in favor of P, as well as the underestimating of the weight against. As in the case of the Example, it can lead to ignoring the evidence against a cherished belief, which is a case of one-sidedness.
This sounds to me like confirmation bias. It would also seem that an accusation of this wishful thinking fallacy can only be sustained if the proposition under discussion is known to be true or false. We both think Once is over valuing the evidence that supports her conclusion and undervaluing our objections but we can't say for certain that this is the case because we don't know the answer ourselves. If we can prove our positive case then we would have the vantage point to evaluate her use of evidence but since we are really just offering objections to her model and proposing unproven ones of our own, we just can't judge.From the link I posted.
I don't deny the perception of fine tuning.So, after 71 pages people still deny the fine tuning of the universe?
This sounds to me like confirmation bias. It would also seem that an accusation of this wishful thinking fallacy can only be sustained if the proposition under discussion is known to be true or false. We both think Once is over valuing the evidence that supports her conclusion and undervaluing our objections but we can't say for certain that this is the case because we don't know the answer ourselves. If we can prove our positive case then we would have the vantage point to evaluate her use of evidence but since we are really just offering objections to her model and proposing unproven ones of our own, we just can't judge.
It's a matter of chances and therefore likelihood.After 71 pages some people still think fine tuning is a valid argument.
I think what Once has been trying to get us to agree to is that the science shows, and scientists agree that if the conditions of our universe were even a tiny bit different that life (and she conflates life as we know it with life generally and with intelligent life ) would not be possible. I think we are all jumping ahead, predicting where we think she is going to take the argument and jumping the gun. On the question of fine tuning I find I agree with Sean Carroll that it is the best argument theists have from cosmology, there are phenomena (constants and values) and different models (theism, naturalism) and we try to see which model best fits the data. Sure I think fine tuning is an argument from ignorance and that it is more of a post hoc explanation than a predictive model but Once hasn't actually gotten that far in her argument yet except in bits and pieces while trying to respond to our anticipatory objections.From my observation, there appears to be only one side here claiming that science supports their conclusions and I think we all know, which side that is.
I think what Once has been trying to get us to agree to is that the science shows, and scientists agree that if the conditions of our universe were even a tiny bit different that life (and she conflates life as we know it with life generally and with intelligent life ) would not be possible. I think we are all jumping ahead, predicting where we think she is going to take the argument and jumping the gun. On the question of fine tuning I find I agree with Sean Carroll that it is the best argument theists have from cosmology, there are phenomena (constants and values) and different models (theism, naturalism) and we try to see which model best fits the data. Sure I think fine tuning is an argument from ignorance and that it is more of a post hoc explanation than a predictive model but Once hasn't actually gotten that far in her argument yet except in bits and pieces while trying to respond to our anticipatory objections.
But the point is the evidence does not support her conclusion at all. That's where the wishfull comes in.This sounds to me like confirmation bias. It would also seem that an accusation of this wishful thinking fallacy can only be sustained if the proposition under discussion is known to be true or false. We both think Once is over valuing the evidence that supports her conclusion and undervaluing our objections but we can't say for certain that this is the case because we don't know the answer ourselves. If we can prove our positive case then we would have the vantage point to evaluate her use of evidence but since we are really just offering objections to her model and proposing unproven ones of our own, we just can't judge.
The problem with fine tuning is you need to find out what did the fine tuning, it can't be a God because a supernatural God is indistinguishable from a God that doesn't exist so you're back where you started, you might just as well say it was done by a plinkerty plonk.On the question of fine tuning I find I agree with Sean Carroll that it is the best argument theists have from cosmology, there are phenomena (constants and values) and different models (theism, naturalism) and we try to see which model best fits the data.
If someone wins the lotto jackpot that was unlikely, does this mean it never happened?
If noting else plinkerty plonk is fun to say. Actually though I disagree. A supernatural god is fine, the problem is that this one dosent seem to manifest in any detectable way. If it did, it would be even more testable than it already is (hint : it fails at every turn) but to agree with you a god that doesn't manifest in reality is indistinguishable from one that does not exist.The problem with fine tuning is you need to find out what did the fine tuning, it can't be a God because a supernatural God is indistinguishable from a God that doesn't exist so you're back where you started, you might just as well say it was done by a plinkerty plonk.
If noting else plinkerty plonk is fun to say. Actually though I disagree. A supernatural god is fine, the problem is that this one dosent seem to manifest in any detectable way. If it did, it would be even more testable than it already is (hint : it fails at every turn) but to agree with you a god that doesn't manifest in reality is indistinguishable from one that does not exist.
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?