Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
And you've disregarded them when they do not concur with you, as shown here.
Go on. Show how I've misrepresented Carroll.
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.
And you've disregarded them when they do not concur with you, as shown here.Yes, I am interested in what the scientific community thinks about fine-tuning. I've quoted them concurring with me several times.
Go on. Show how I've misrepresented Carroll.Yes, you misrepresented Carroll. He agrees with P1.
Rough example
What we find is that as we continue to uncover new constant requirements, it just keeps adding improbability upon improbability that a life-permitting universe could have been actualized.
Hawking on physical necessity:
"Does string theory predict the state of the universe? The answer is that it does not."
S.W. Hawking "Cosmology from the Top Down" paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting. U.C. Davis May 29, 2003.
You obviously don't understand the argument of an inference to the best explanation. As I explained, the scientific community agree that physical necessity and chance are extremely unlikely, and design explains the fine-tuning in spite of the odds against it.
I never said Hawking commented on every value.
Yes, I see the verbiage "seem to".
You confusing inductive inference with abductive inference.
But cherry picking does not apply in this case. Cherry picking is like I'm citing evidence that supports my conclusion and ignoring evidence that doesn't.
Using that logic, could we not then accuse atheistic scientists (there are theistic ones who agree with design) of cherry picking, since we use the same evidence, but come to a different conclusion?
1. Put a name to the fallacy you describe.
2. Demonstrate circular using using the argument of the OP.
3. Maybe you should do this first...read a book on the use of logic.
1. I can hear the universe perfectly. (p1)
Did you not see the word "perfectly"? That means not tuned to 107.954336578 or 107.811263754, but tuned exactly to 107.90000000.
My p1 is "The universe is fined-tuned for life."
When we insert "for life", we are dong the same thing as tuning the radio exactly to 107.90000000.
And if we insert any other "for..." we are tuning the radio to another frequency.When we insert "for life", we are dong the same thing as tuning the radio exactly to 107.90000000.
Then the fine-tuning argument misses the mark entirely because "fine-tuning" implies efficiency and the image of an engineer, not an artist. You've just deflated the argument.Regarding the question of efficiency on the part of any "designer" of the universe ...
Efficiency depends upon what the goal is. If you have unlimited resources and unlimited time, there is absolutely nothing to be gained in creating everything instantly and without any process or formulation going on.
To an Engineer for whom every kind of problem was designed in His own head, as well as its solution, the process is the goal. And that is also the case for a true Artist, who unlike most of us, does not need to revel in His own accomplishments, but then seeks only to share both the process and the results in a communion, in a relationship, that He establishes with those He loves and who return His love.
How does this have bearing upon our discussion of a "designer"? The fact is, you cannot throw out the other accepted truths that are a part of someone's model of the world while testing one of them for consistency with yours. If you want to falsify a world view, you have to take it on its own terms, and find a contradiction within that model. So it may be fine for you to suggest that any designer of the universe must be efficient in terms of not wasting any time or material as a potter or sculptor does, but that's because your world view accepts any such designer as primarily person-like in their desire to be efficient with resources. A world view that discounts this presumption about efficiency may also accept the designer as an artist with unlimited resources.
There is no basis to make your assumption, so looking for inefficiency in that regard to disprove ID is likewise baseless.
No, that presumes that if something is efficient it must not have an artist-designer. What I said was that if it has an artist-designer it is not true that it must be efficient.Then the fine-tuning argument misses the mark entirely because "fine-tuning" implies efficiency and the image of an engineer, not an artist. You've just deflated the argument.
A good argument against the teleological argument as presented!No, that presumes that if something is efficient it must not have an artist-designer. What I said was that if it has an artist-designer it is not true that it must be efficient.
Which means that the fine-tuning argument falls to pieces. An individual "fine-tunes" something so that it has the optimal settings to a perform a particular function. An aspiration toward efficiency is implied, or otherwise it wouldn't be "fine-tuning" so much as "playing around with the dials."No, that presumes that if something is efficient it must not have an artist-designer. What I said was that if it has an artist-designer it is not true that it must be efficient.
You're just repeating yourself by saying that fine-tuning implies efficiency, and if something is efficient it must not have an artist-designer ... and then boldly claiming that my statements make the argument based on fine-tuning simply fall apart.Which means that the fine-tuning argument falls to pieces. An individual "fine-tunes" something so that it has the optimal settings to a perform a particular function. An aspiration toward efficiency is implied, or otherwise it wouldn't be "fine-tuning" so much as "playing around with the dials."
If you are claiming that the universe is "fine-tuned," then you are invoking the metaphor of an engineer, not an artist; you are saying that someone tweaked the settings to optimise a particular function. Whether those settings are aesthetically pleasing or not is beside the point; all that matters is that they optimise the function in question. In art, it's the aesthetics that are important, not how "fine-tuned" the art is for performing a particular function. In fact, the artwork may have no clear purpose in mind at all; it may be open to interpretation. That's clearly not the same as fine-tuning.You're just repeating yourself by saying that fine-tuning implies efficiency, and if something is efficient it must not have an artist-designer ... and then boldly claiming that my statements make the argument based on fine-tuning simply fall apart.
My statements say that if there is an artist-designer it's not true that everything must show evidence of efficiency. That's not the same as saying that if there is an artist-designer then everything must not show evidence of efficiency. Nor is that the same as saying that if there are signs of efficiency then there couldn't be an artist-designer.
You are mixing your logic up to support your view.
This is not about supporting the view that the universe isn´t defined - it is about scrutinizing the teleological argument saying that it must be designed.You're just repeating yourself by saying that fine-tuning implies efficiency, and if something is efficient it must not have an artist-designer ... and then boldly claiming that my statements make the argument based on fine-tuning simply fall apart.
My statements say that if there is an artist-designer it's not true that everything must show evidence of efficiency. That's not the same as saying that if there is an artist-designer then everything must not show evidence of efficiency. Nor is that the same as saying that if there are signs of efficiency then there couldn't be an artist-designer.
You are mixing your logic up to support your view.
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?