That's demonstrated near the beginning of a short video I linked, here:Can you demonstrate P2?
Fine Tuning
Upvote
0
That's demonstrated near the beginning of a short video I linked, here:Can you demonstrate P2?
I agree the language is loaded, but unavoidably so. Can you unload it? The numbers are tuned, coordinated, arranged, "monkeyed with" (as Fred Hoyle said)... or what?
I think the premise is the raw observations, and the premise contains its own argument.
If the burden of proof were on me, I'd submit "fine tuning" as Exhibit A. I say it's clearly undeniable overwhelming evidence. Now it's your turn.
Thought you did the research? Virtually every debate between atheist and theist in the last 25 years gives an argument for P2.Can you demonstrate P2?
The point of the language is to describe reality, which you didn't do. All you said was a tautology - "it is what it is". You didn't say anything.First of all... Fred Hoyle didn't say that they WERE monkeyed with. He said "as if".
And I don't see why any of these terms are necessary. I just say that the values of the constants are such that the universe as we know it is possible. And that's it.
I see no point in using loaded language.
That would be an assumed conclusion.
Obviously. But the empirical observation does make the empirical observation so.I'ld say that declaring things to be a certain way, does not make it so.
I pointed to the video because it has the words of respected scientists and philosophers and I figured you'd respect their words more than mine. Basically, there is no connection between the laws and the numerical constants. There's no evidence and no reason that they necessarily have to be what they are. If we existed due to physical necessity it would mean that a life-prohibiting universe was impossible, but a life-prohibiting universe is logical and probable.Please use your own words to explain it here. Don't tell me to go watch a video.
Thought you did the research? Virtually every debate between atheist and theist in the last 25 years gives an argument for P2.
I won't do your homework for you but here are a couple links that might shorten your effort and let you land on the more sound philosophical argument rather than a straw version.
Fine Tuning | Reasonable Faith
Luke Barnes' Blog
Big Bang Theory is NOT an explanation of the origins of the universe.
So P2 has only one purpose: making the god-argument "work".
Non-sequitur. We aren't talking about cosmogony and it is unrelated.
You seem unfamiliar with the approach as no other atheists with an iota of philosophy training make this claim. It is foolish.
Here is a scenario that will help assuming you put more time in it than you have researching the fine-tuning argument)
WW3 happens and wipes out the entire population of Earth. 500 years pass and aliens land the planet. They land next to Mount Rushmore and see four what appears to be the likeness of not one, bit four US presidents. There is no history or people to give an account of what caused the four faces.
They investigate and try and ask if the figures were there by chance erosion, necessity of nature always having to form rock molecules into shapes of former presidents heads once they reach a certain size or a intelligent agent carved them.
Same inference as fine-tuning. But when you assume the very thing you are trying to prove (namely that an intelligence agent couldn't be involved) you make the fallacy of begging the question (or reasoning in a circle).
You send 1000 scientist to Rushmore today and given your method they would be unable to determine that an intelligent agent caused it.
All scientific methods to investigate archeology are now defunked given your method. Forensic science and cryptology gone.
More research, less reading new atheists should restore a method less destructive to scientific knowledge than your current approach.
start reading the old ones like Antony Flew, J.L. Mackey, J.h. Sobel, or Graham Oppy. Flew credits a switch from atheism to theism as a result in large part to the fine-tuning argument you eliminated fallaciously. Hope this helps.
you are talking about how and why the cosmological constants got to have the value
don't require any philosophy training
False analogy. Mt Rushmore shows signs of manufacturing. It is carved rock. Not eroded rock.
You said and I quoted, "Big Bang Theory is NOT an explanation of the origins of the universe."
I said non-Sequtur. Nobody is stating Big Bang cosmology is an explanations of origins!!!
So you are leading us away from the fine-tuning argument and Icalled BS.
Then apparently realizing you got caught you changed the subject again. Wow.
That is where you foolishly miss that you are making a philosophical statement about the lack of requiring philosophy.
Apparently you didn't understand. The rocks appear to be carved but how do they know since there is no record and the marks could be there by chance or necessity.
So until you are willing to engage fine tuning and not keep changing the subject
, or engage philsophy as the best atheists do I am tired of trying to educate someone on their own worldview, namely what the best arguments against design are.
My argument is: we don't know. That's the opposite of assuming things.Your approach is circular, you assume what you are trying to prove.
What you miss, due to your demand that you remain ignorant about philsophy and science, is that your justification can't possibly be true.
You are trying to prove something similar to a square circle.
3 strikes...your out.
". But apparantly you choose to not quote that part... Perhaps, because otherwise it would be to obvious that your accusation is invalid
I'm merely explaining that in order to have an explanation for the cosmological constants, we would have to have an explanation for the origins of the universe.
This has nothing to do with "philosophy". You are talking about physics.
1. atheism is not a worldview.
2. cosmology/physics is not philosophy
3. argument from ignorance is a fallacy.
Read it. We start with the fine-tuned constants
and initial conditions.
We don't say well, but they are a result of the Big Bang and we don't have an explanation for that yet.
This s known in philosophy of science (which you no doubt don't believe in) an explanation of the explanation.
I'm not having an "endless discussion". I merely asked a question. That question being "can you demonstrate premise 2?".In order to explain dual properties we see in light (the double slit experiment) we need to explain quantum mechanics, but in order to explain quantum mechanics we need a hand unified theory.
Again no one is arguing the way you are. If you had read the links I provided originally we wouldn't be having this endless discussion.
See above. Also recognize that fine-tuning goes up not down with the multiverse according to many cosmologists.
Again all experiments in science are based on inductive or abductive logic. They have premises, arguments, and inferences to the best explanation of the experimental data.
1-year jr college science class or philosophy class will make this point.
An answer to what? The "following" what?Again does the "atheist" have a different answer than the theist to the following
Yes. You start with an assumed conclusion. Exactly.
You just declare the constants to be fine-tuned and then conclude that they are fine-tuned.
But I'm the one with the "invalid logic" when I say that we don't know, ha?
We don't know what the initial conditions were.
Neither did I say that you do.
You can't explain the explanation that you don't yet have knowledge about.
I'm not having an "endless discussion". I merely asked a question. That question being "can you demonstrate premise 2?".
You then started an "endless discussion", instead of just answering the question. Which you, again, did not do in this post either.
Do you plan on actually answering the question one of these days or....?
What multi-verse?
I wasn't aware that it was demonstrated that other universes exist.
Yes. And conclusions are only as good as the premises are valid.
So..... can you demonstrate premise 2????
An answer to what? The "following" what?
Once more: can you demonstrate premise 2?
How many times must I repeat that I'm not pretending to have any answers? That's what you are doing.
You presented that "fine tuning argument". It included premises.
Can you demonstrate those premises?
There is another thread on fine tuning, but I have a more basic question. I am confused about the general philosophy/math/whatever of "fine tuning" and "intelligent design" arguments for God.
Here is my understanding of the argument using an analogy. I am standing in a maze facing an obelisk. I assume that the purpose of the universe is for me to find something interesting like this obelisk. I recall all the correct choices I had to make from the time I entered this maze until I found this obelisk, and I think about the low probability of reaching this destination by random decisions. Therefore, I conclude that God was at work somehow.
If my analogy is correct, then I think "fine tuning" and "intelligent design" make the mistake of assuming a divine purpose to our current circumstances. Maybe God's goal was to create a perfectly empty universe or something as opposed to the universe we have.
I think the rationale is fairly simple:
1. There is a very low objective chance that the universe would have come together the way it did without any higher power guiding the process.
2. Therefore there must have been some higher power guiding the process.
Another way to put it: either we were very, very, very lucky, or else the outcome was not pure chance but rather the product of a higher intelligence.
I think the rationale is fairly simple:
1. There is a very low objective chance that the universe would have come together the way it did without any higher power guiding the process.
2. Therefore there must have been some higher power guiding the process.
Another way to put it: either we were very, very, very lucky, or else the outcome was not pure chance but rather the product of a higher intelligence.
Do the homework. Or do you want me to cut and paste the argument from the sites.
It looks at the fact that those constants are not constrained by physical necessity
IF YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE FACTS or clicking through on the P2 resources I provided, THEN WHY KEEP POSTING?
Of the three above science tells us 2 (necessity) is not the case as the fine- tuning elements rule out
The argument is there is fine-tuning for life in the universe. It is either a result of chance, necessity, or design. It is not necessity or chance.
Therefore the best explanation we have of fine-tuning is design.
These New Atheist would try and conflate your point and point out necessity as an alternative even though they might know that necessity has been eliminated by science (current science that is). Hope this helps.
I don't want any extra arguments.
I want a demonstration of the premises of the argument already given.
For some reason, none of you are willing or able to answer that request.
This is the interesting part.
By whom, how, where and when was it demonstrated that the values could have been different?
I am interested in the facts.
That's why I'm asking you to share them.
After all, YOU people are the ones that are putting up this argument. It's upto YOU to support it.
I'm not asking for a cosmology crash course.
I'm asking a simple question.
By whom, how, where and when was it demonstrated that the constants of the universe were "not due to physical necessity or chance"?