You should have looked up the topic of fine tuning and it's massive flaws before you posted the absurdity. It's not the problem for the well educated that you are open to being duped by creationist fraud.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
That‘s both ignorant and dishonest claims about atheists.
For one, atheists ARE NOT SCIENTISTS, because atheism ISN’T SCIENCE.
Atheism is a purely philosophical position on theological question - whether a deity or deities exist - nothing more, nothing less.
The differences between a scientist and an atheist is that -
- a scientist is a working professional, who is qualified to do the work or research, and get paid a salary,
- whereas an atheist is personal position, who either don’t believe in any god or just lack the belief, a belief that don’t require him or her to be qualified in any science or its field.
So for you to insinuate that atheists must explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe is nothing more than you falsely (and dishonestly) equating atheism with science. It is False Equivalence fallacy, and even more false claims.
It is hypocritical that creationists tell us they believed in the Bible, and yet always seem willing to ignore or tiptoe around the Thou shalt not bear false witness part.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No he didn't. And with this you show you have problems with reading comprehension.
At no point did he say that claims are evidence of themselves, under whatever circumstance.
What he actually said was that certain circumstance, facts, about the people (like a local working at a hotel) can be considered evidence of the trustworthyness of the claims they make. Meaning that things OTHER then the claims can in a way be considered evidence in support of those claims.
The claims themselves are just claims. And claims are not evidence. Claims require evidence. Just like I have been saying all along.
No rational person does.
Nowhere in the definition I posted is it implied in any way that claims can be evidence. Let alone of themselves....
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No, it's a response to a claim.
A response that I already explained multiple times. It unsurprisingly got ignored every time.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
IOW: a fallacious argument from ignorance / incredulity.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Another argument from ignorance coupled with a red herring.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
"scourge"
That's just a matter of perspective.
The worms and parasites aren't "evil". They are just bad for us since they prey on us. But again, that's just from our perspective.
Now take the perspective of the fish we pull out of the water to eat. From that perspect we humans are the "scourge" and "infestation".
One of your biggest mistakes is thinking that we humans are the point of the universe. It's the epitome of narcism and egocentricity.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
How is that evidence for a god?
Sounds more like a "so what" argument then anything else.
So what?
Don't turn it around. It's you who's claiming that a god DOES exist AND that you have good evidence to support that claim.
That is what we are discussing.
Nobody has made that argument.
Support premise 2 and 3.
In fact, support premise 1. Specifically, the part where you include "design" as even being a valid option.
Looking at the silly argument above, it looks as if it is based on unsupported assumptions turning them into mere bare assertions.
That explains why it has that fallacious smell all over it.
LOL!
I'ld bet that most people here have heared those "arguments" before. We call them PRATTs.
But anyhow, I look forward to your answers to my above questions.
Last edited:
Premise 1: At present no evidence suggests that the fine tuning of the universe is due to design.
Nor does there presently appear to be any plausible testable hypothesis to determine otherwise.
Nor do the promoters of this claim appear to have attempted to devise one.
Premises 2 : It seems likely that the fine tuning necessarily arose from the starting conditions of the universe.
That moves the question back a step as to how the starting conditions of the universe themselves arose.
At present we don't have means to explore that question.
Premise 3: The idea of chance is usually but not necessarily associated with the idea that an unbounded number of universes are (or were) formed in a supposed metaverse, and that each of these have variables in their starting parameters which in our case simply by chance were perfect to allow our universe to be as it is. Again we presently have no means to explore that question.
And it might be arguable that if the number of universes that can be formed in this manner is unbounded then ─ since the existence of our universe shows that the "right" combination is possible ─ given an unbounded number of tries, necessarily at least one of them would eventually get it right, which would take us back to "Premise 2".
Alternatively it may be that only a few, or only one, universe could be formed, and that our universe is an extremely lucky fluke.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
You shouldn’t be such weak argument, because the same could be said about you.
You have never seen God. You didn’t see God create life. You didn't even see God create the Earth. You weren’t there when Jesus heal someone or Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life, or Jesus himself being resurrected.
You are making lame points, but it only make your beliefs in God, weaker than ever…and this day and age, your belief in God and the stories in the Bible preposterous fairytales.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Sounds like you are just making things up......you don't seem to be aware of any refutation to the argument
leroy
Well-Known Member
And you disagree with that statement, don't you ?
Yes your only conditions are
1Data matches the prediction
2 objectively verifiable
Claims could fullfil 1 and 2 therefore claims can be evidence by your definition
leroy
Well-Known Member
Under your fallacious definition of evidence it isn't
Among all the explanations that have been proposed God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe , if this isn't evidence for you that is ok with me
leroy
Well-Known Member
Sure pick a premise and I will support it.....pick the premise that you think it's more likely to be wrong
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why would I disagree with that which I have been stating all along?
Claims are the things that require the evidence, that make the predictions,......
Data is only evidence when it is supports or falsifies a claim. Without a claim, data is just data.
So I can only repeat myself for the upteenth time..............................................
Claims are claims. Claims are not evidence. Claims are the things that require evidence.
FYI: I also find it hilarious that when @Dan From Smithville calls you out on misrepresenting his post, that you then return by saying he's wrong as if you think you know better what he meant then he himself does.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Ha, you mean the "fallacious" definition that actually requires one to have an actual testable claim / hypothesis before there even can be evidence?
That's the claim.
I'm asking you how it is evidence.
How is "god" the "best" explanation for it?
What is there to explain and how does god explain it?
Where is the explanatory power?
What is the exact testable claim, how do the predictions naturally flow from this claim, what are those predictions and how does the data of FT fit those predictions? And what is that data?
Sounds like you have quote some 'splainin' to do.
So far, you haven't gotten further then the bare assertions:
- there is FT
- FT is a problem that require explanation
- god explains it
- FT is evidence of god
Each of these points require clarification
1. what is FT
2. how is it a problem / why does it require an explanation
3. how is god that explanation
4. how is it evidence of a god (and which god is that and why?)
But hey, if you don't want or can't clarify further and wish to simply stick to these bare assertions, be my guest.
But in that case, I'm gonna go with the good old "what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". I'm sure you can understand that.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I did not defend anyone but myself. You made erroneous statements. I corrected you. Stop dragging me into this. I'm done here.
Given the evidence that supports the claim in your scenario I would consider the claim worth pursuing. I've had local people steer me wrong. Also evidence.
You are incorrect. That has been amply demonstrated with evidence. That you don't want to agree that you are wrong is also evidenced in these threads.
There is a pizza at the end of my thread. Have a slice. Consider that evidence if you want to. I wouldn't. It's just a claim.
I have not been following your current argument with @TagliatelliMonster. I have lost interest in these threads for many reasons. All of them involve the anti-science/rejection of science for subjective personal reasons side of the arguments/discussions and the tactics I've seen employed in those efforts of rejection.
Please don't tag me further. If I find any reason to rejoin this or similar threads, it will be of my own volition and likely have more to do with some point of fact mentioned in furtherance of science. I currently have no interest in correcting the irrational positions of uninformed "experts" only to have that information rejected and nonsense perpetually repeated as if it were fact.
Good day sir!