The fine tuning of the universe.

[Athée]

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.

 

[Hieronymus]

So, after 71 pages people still deny the fine tuning of the universe?

 

[AirPo]

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.

From the link I posted.

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.

 

[AirPo]

So, after 71 pages people still deny the fine tuning of the universe?

After 71 pages some people still think fine tuning is a valid argument.

 

[Athée]

From the link I posted.

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.

 

[Davian]

So, after 71 pages people still deny the fine tuning of the universe?

I don't deny the perception of fine tuning.

I do wonder why the "fine tuning" argument would be considered evidence for a "god" that allegedly created the universe "miracle"-by-"miracle". Why would an allegedly all-knowing-all-powerful 'something' need to keep the constants constant, or tune anything?

Could this "god" not have us living on the surface of the sun?

Why did our ancestors need to muck about for billions of years before working out the multicellular routine? Poor tuning?

Now, if we found ourselves in a universe where the constants were not constant, and/or that the world was not conducive the the existence of life (as we know it), we could look to that conundrum as evidence for "something" other than the "natural".

 

[bhsmte]

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 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.

 

[4x4toy]

Isaiah 55:9 works for me ..

 

[bhsmte]

Isaiah 55:9 works for me ..

Whatever it takes.

 

[Hieronymus]

After 71 pages some people still think fine tuning is a valid argument.

It's a matter of chances and therefore likelihood.
You can forget about accidental coincidences.
Same (or maybe even more) for living nature.

 

[bhsmte]

It's a matter of chances and therefore likelihood.
You can forget about accidental coincidences.
Same (or maybe even more) for living nature.

If someone wins the lotto jackpot that was unlikely, does this mean it never happened?

 

[Athée]

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Some of us have a longer exposure to this poster than you do.

 

[Davian]

Einstein had most likely a higher IQ some believe it was closer to 190 and he absolutely believed the universe needed a fine tuner or mind behind it. Now what?

Citation needed.

 

[AirPo]

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.

But the point is the evidence does not support her conclusion at all. That's where the wishfull comes in.

 

[AirPo]

It's a matter of chances and therefore likelihood.
You can forget about accidental coincidences.
Same (or maybe even more) for living nature.

That doesn't mean anything. Just mumbo jombo.

 

[Veera Chase]

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.

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.

 

[4x4toy]

If someone wins the lotto jackpot that was unlikely, does this mean it never happened?

Not a thousand times in a row

 

[Athée]

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.

 

[4x4toy]

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.

Because some do find God hearing and believing but others don't because they refuse to believe is genius , else all would scramble to God to flee the destruction and hell for the wrong reason .. God fixed it so you get what you want according to free will , not because your butt is on fire and forced to come to him grudgingly .. So God has solved the problem in his wisdom making each choice by will and completely individual .. Perfect plan ..