Vote: what is the best argument against fine tuning

[TBDude65]

Hey ho, I am agnostic and I proposed the reason for the fine tuning could be that the universe is a matrix. You are attacking a caricature of a believer here and you posted more value judgments. Sorry I will ignore you from now on because you realy did not answer my arguments.

I'm sorry you don't like being disagreed with because your opinions lack substance and logic. Have fun

 

[Occams Barber]

If you think you have got it, I am afraid you haven't. What are the chances of Tower Bridge existing? Well, that there was enough money to build it for one. That a great enough incentive was there to build it for another.

TB and I seem to be saying exactly the same thing and I have no idea how to make this easier to understand.

I can only hope that, later, after you get your jammies on and toddle off to pillow land (which I'm about to do) you will have a sudden epiphany, an AHA! moment, when all this will suddenly make sense.

I mean this in the nicest possible way.
OB

 

[lesliedellow]

That is what some astrophysicists have hypothesized, but not concluded with any facts or evidence. It's not about liking it or not

Astrophysicists sometimes amuse themselves by playing around with toy universes. We will vary the charge on the electron a bit, and see what the calculations throw up. We will mess around with the strong nuclear force a bit, and see what happens.

What they found in so doing was that this universe seemed to be very special.

 

[TBDude65]

Astrophysicists sometimes amuse themselves by playing around with toy universes. We will vary the charge on the electron a bit, and then see what the calculations throw up. We will mess around with the strong nuclear force a bit, and see what happens.

What they found in so doing was that this universe seemed to be very special.

What they found is that if you alter the parameters of the universe, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Those modeled universes are about testing individual hypotheses regarding those universal parameters. The modeled universes do not logically conclude that our universe is "fine tuned."

 

[lesliedellow]

What they found is that if you alter the parameters of the universe, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Those modeled universes are about testing individual hypotheses regarding those universal parameters. The modeled universes do not logically conclude that our universe is "fine tuned."

They conclude that, out of all the potenial universes which might exist, but don't, there are incredibly few able to support chemistry, and that is just a fact.

I have got an appointment with my friendly neighbourhood physician in about half an hour, so I won't be responding further.

 

[TBDude65]

They conclude that, out of all the potenial universes which might exist, but don't, there are incredibly few able to support chemistry, and that is just a fact.

I have got an appointment with my friendly neighbourhood physician in about half an hour, so I won't be responding further.

It's a fact that the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Literally any other conclusion you attempt to draw from that isn't a fact supporting "fine tuning." It's a non sequitur

 

[LaraLara]

I find the antropic principle stupid now, I rereat from my earlier position. Even if fine tuning would be true (say you already met the designer and he explained it to you) and even if we would have found incredible amounts of fine tuning it would be impossible to disprove said argument.

 

[durangodawood]

I find the antropic principle stupid now, I rereat from my earlier position. Even if fine tuning would be true (say you already met the designer and he explained it to you) and even if we would have found incredible amounts of fine tuning it would be impossible to disprove said argument.

I dont get it. If the designer explained everything, how would the anthropic principle argue against a designer?

As I see it, the anthropic principle is a way of understanding the conditions of the universe in the absence of a directly evident designer.

 

[LaraLara]

I dont get it. If the designer explained everything, how would the anthropic principle argue against a designer?
.

He told me but not you. I only included the talk to make it more understandable that the situation is refering to a situation where I know fine tuning is true but can not proof it.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's a fact that the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. Literally any other conclusion you attempt to draw from that isn't a fact supporting "fine tuning." It's a non sequitur

If you threw a bucket of paint at a wall, and the result was a perfect likeness of Richard Dawkins, would you say, "Oh well, that particular arrangement of molecules is as likely as any other, and there is really nothing which needs explaining, and, furthermore, it exists, so the probability of it existing is 1?"

It is much more likely that you would conclude that somebody had busy with a chemical paint wouldn't ahdere to, putting it in all the right places. That may or may not be the right explanation, but such a circumstance would certainly demand an explanation

 

[TBDude65]

If you threw a bucket of paint at a wall, and the result was a perfect likeness of Richard Dawkins, would you say, "Oh well, that particular arrangement of molecules is as likely as any other, and there is really nothing which needs explaining, and, furthermore, it exists, so the probability of it existing is 1?"

It is much more likely that you would conclude that somebody had busy with a chemical paint wouldn't ahdere to, putting it in all the right places. That may or may not be the right explanation, but such a circumstance would certainly demand an explanation

First paragraph = straw man of my argument

Second paragraph:You would be much better off looking for the direct evidence instead of speculating about a potential cause. The "fine tuning" argument speculates with no evidence of its claims nor any evidence that its purported designer exists. You can't get around either of these observations

 

[lesliedellow]

First paragraph = straw man of my argument

Not so. Anything which has recognisable significance needs accounting for.

Second paragraph:You would be much better off looking for the direct evidence instead of speculating about a potential cause. The "fine tuning" argument speculates with no evidence of its claims nor any evidence that its purported designer exists. You can't get around either of these observations

It may say "Calvinist," below my avatar, but you are the one who brought up the subject of a designer. There is no shortage of scientists, who are atheists, and to whom the universe looks like a "fix," to borrow a term used by one of them.

 

[HitchSlap]

Any hypothesis that begins with an answer, then looks for the evidence, is the antithesis of science, and therefore why ID/Creo/cdesign proponentsists are not taken seriously.

 

[LaraLara]

Any hypothesis that begins with an answer, then looks for the evidence, is the antithesis of science, and therefore why ID/Creo/cdesign proponentsists are not taken seriously.

That is not how I came to the problem.

I first started to get suspicious as a twelf year old child when the TV explained what is matter and antimatter and my father who was well versed in physics could not explain to me why there is more matter than antimatter

- which is the first question coming to the mind of even a twelve year old when presented with the problem!

I come from a 100 % agnostic family so there was no bias at work. My parents talked with me once about god because I could not understand what the term lutherian and catholic mean.

 

[toLiJC]

If you distrust the realness of reality you might want to have a look into philosophical sceptcism (NOT scientific scepticism)

i am not a skeptic, i believe in the truth

Blessings

 

[LaraLara]

i am not a skeptic, i believe in the truth

Blessings

Philosophical sceptics concern themselves a bit how easy the human mind might be tricked - be it by a devil or anything else. They say for example that a human can not even savely distinguish beeing awake from beeing asleep. But I do not want to force that philosophy on you.

Have a good time!

 

[LaraLara]

posting error

 

[toLiJC]

We are not talking about "on the part of the true God" we are talking about the Bible. And it has flaws galore.

And we did not have to "be there". That is a losing argument. We do paternity tests every day. No one had to "be there". Murder cases are solved with forensic evidence every day. Once again, the prosecutors did not have to "be there".

And why must life be provided with a soul? The Earth, chemistry, life itself, and various other sources tell us that life is the product of evolution. Making the error of treating the Bible as God is ironically a violation of the Second Commandment.

the biblical Scripture is flawless, it is another question whether every person that read(s) it understands it correctly

yes, in principle we can understand the truth even without having seen what happened before, because we at least have minds to think/reason correctly

the soul is the main organ of senses and perceptions - when a person sees, hears, thinks, reasons, walks, etc., then their soul is the main thing that senses and perceives - after all, there must be something; how can we ever understand/interpret the Bible (correctly) in a way God doesn't understands/interprets it?!

Blessings

 

[toLiJC]

Philosophical sceptics concern themselves a bit how easy the human mind might be tricked - be it by a devil or anything else. They say for example that a human can not even savely distinguish beeing awake from beeing asleep. But I do not want to force that philosophy on you.

Have a good time!

the human mind could really be tricked, but for this reason there has been a true God to prevent the deceiver from tricking it, and from this perspective i can't say a human cannot distinguish one thing or another from other things

Blessings

 

[Subduction Zone]

the biblical Scripture is flawless, it is another question whether every person that read(s) it understands it correctly

yes, in principle we can understand the truth even without having seen what happened before, because we at least have minds to think/reason correctly

the soul is the main organ of senses and perceptions - when a person sees, hears, thinks, reasons, walks, etc., then their soul is the main thing that senses and perceives - after all, there must be something; how can we ever understand/interpret the Bible (correctly) in a way God doesn't understands/interprets it?!

Blessings

How is a book that has hundreds of self contradictions "flawless"? How is a book that gets so much science wrong if read literally "flawless"? And I can't even begin to get into the failed prophecies here. That discussion would have to be done in the apologetics area.