DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
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.
I didn't say that if they weren't I'd still believe they would point to God. That is ridiculous.
If the values couldn't have been different that makes the design even more convincing. If the universe could not have been different it would be even more fine tuned.
Back what claims for crying out loud?Nice attempt to jump from "some people think this" to "everyone but you thinks something". Or maybe I should just call it sad and add some frowny faces. That'll be sure to quiet the doubts.
Anyway, where do you get the idea that I'm afraid to address the argument from my multiple attempts at getting you to back up your claims related to it? Straw man much?
Its been asserted, why is it not evidence?As it's been pointed out already, fine tuning is not evidence.
So are you trying to say that it is not a scientific explanation?It's a subjective explaination of the observed data.
Back what claims for crying out loud?
But fine tuning is evidence.
So what you are saying is this: We don't know why the universe is fine tuned but I God is not it because there is no evidence. Yet, fine tuning is evidence that is reasonable and probable with the conclusion that there is a fine tuner. So it isn't asserted without evidence, there is evidence you just a priori dismiss it as such.
What is know is how highly unlikely these came about by chance.
I haven't dodged any.The ones you keep dodging. Have you been reading my posts before responding to them?
Scientists don't believe in a flat earth nor do Christians.
And the majority of scientists in the field do find it surprising whether or not you do.
Its been asserted, why is it not evidence?
I think others who actually read what is out there from experts in the field understand how unlikely. If you want to claim it isn't unlikely that is your opinion.How unlikely is that, exactly? Still waiting for you to come up with a number here.
What is know is how highly unlikely these came about by chance. We are determining which explanation best explains the evidence.
Stephen Hawking believes fine tuning is real. I am not sure of Krauss.
I think others who actually read what is out there from experts in the field understand how unlikely.
You've already responded to me saying this whole mess is an argument from ignorance. Not sure what would lead you to feel that I think I (or anyone else) have answers here.If you want to claim it isn't unlikely that is your opinion.
"fine tuning" in reality doesn't point to anything but "the values are what they are and the universe is the way it is because the values are what they are".
And that's it. The values being what they are, doesn't point in any way to why they are what they are.
I've only explained this like a dozen or so times.
Playing with words makes for a very poor argument.
Using strawmen will not work either.
See, this is why people (including scientists) should avoid using such potentially loaded language. Intellectually dishonest people will abuse it.
It's like Ben Stein when he said that Dawkins believes in a "designer" because he speaks about the "design of a human body".
It's ridiculous. You might be able to convince very poorly educated people in this way, but please...
So you believe only poorly educated people are the only ones that think the fine tuning argument for God is a good one?"fine tuning" in reality doesn't point to anything but "the values are what they are and the universe is the way it is because the values are what they are".
And that's it. The values being what they are, doesn't point in any way to why they are what they are.
I've only explained this like a dozen or so times.
Playing with words makes for a very poor argument.
Using strawmen will not work either.
See, this is why people (including scientists) should avoid using such potentially loaded language. Intellectually dishonest people will abuse it.
It's like Ben Stein when he said that Dawkins believes in a "designer" because he speaks about the "design of a human body".
It's ridiculous. You might be able to convince very poorly educated people in this way, but please...
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?