• 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.

Why do Atheists not want to consider FineTuning ?

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
77
England
✟256,526.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
As Polonius said, 'This is too long', and 'Brevity is the soul of wit'.
You appear to be contradicting yourself. First you say that the universe is finely tuned for life. Then you quote all sorts of parameters required for a planet to be able to support life, and show that for almost all of the universe these requirements are not fulfilled; in other words almost all of the universe (everything but the earth) is not finely tuned for life and is therefore presumably lifeless. Which way do you want it? Did God create a universe that would be able to support life, or did he create a universe that he knew would not be able to support life, except for one small planet in a medium-size galaxy in a very small group of galaxies?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
I believe the puddle analogy is used to explain that Mother Nature chiseled mankind out of the gene pool, and that mankind will eventually go extinct thinking he was made in the image & likeness of God.

Correct?

It is used to explain how life adapts to the universe, not the other way around.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I believe the puddle analogy is used to explain that Mother Nature chiseled mankind out of the gene pool, and that mankind will eventually go extinct thinking he was made in the image & likeness of God.

Correct?

Uh . . . you're not entirely wrong. Why does a puddle of water exactly fit the hole it is in? Could this be analogous to why life on earth exactly fits the earth it is in?
 
Upvote 0

Goonie

Not so Mystic Mog.
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
10,430
10,017
48
UK
✟1,324,942.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Agreed.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
I think that science is atheist a priori, by nature of "methodological naturalism". So even if we saw Jesus (pbuh) fly down on a cloud or something, they'd be looking for a natural explanation.

We don't see Jesus flying down on a cloud. If Jesus was shown to cause genetic and morphological changes in species, then Jesus would be included in the theory. Science doesn't rule out the supernatural a priori. Rather, science can only include mechanisms that it can test and observe. Theists have defined the supernatural as being unevidenced and untestable, so it is really the theists who are keeping the supernatural out of science.
 
Reactions: GoldenBoy89
Upvote 0

JohnSerew

Newbie
Mar 27, 2014
53
1
✟15,289.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The fine-tune argument is nonsence because it just tries to calculate the odds for this specific event to happen. If I drop a hand of sand on the ground, there are billions of ways that it could have landed but it ended up picking some formation. The odds of that formation instead of any other is one in a trillion(im just picking random large numbers here, probably much much less than one in a trillion). That doesn't mean that that event is special. If I have a million sided die and It lands on 1000, there is a one in a million chance that happens but that is only unique because 1000, is special to us. However, it had to land on some number. We just don't think it is special if it lands on 459.372. We don't know the odds of 'intelligent life' to form when the constants are different. We just know it is vastly different from what we have now. This is the biggest problem of the fine-tuning argument.

Just listen to some Lawrence Krauss, he actually wrote those papers and he can explain why we are actually not that lucky at all.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0