Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[leroy]

First you meed to establish the existance of this god, they we can examine his methods.

First you have to establish that gravity exist………only then you can claim that gravity is responsible for apples falling from trees………..honestly can’t you find the flaws of your logic?


Any argument for the existence of God can be dismissed because by your logic there is no prior evidence for the existence of God…..how can any present arguments or evidence if you always demand prior evidence?

 

[leroy]

Why are you pretending i haven't already answered this twice?



No, you just have a bunch of different arguments. You are once more conflating arguments with evidence. Once more for good measure:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity, chance, design, or it was pooped into existence by yours truly.

2. It is not due to physical necessity, chance or design.

3. Therefore, it is due to being pooped into existence by yours truly.

This SHOULD demonstrate why your OP is flawed.

No quite frankly I still dotn understand what is the point of changing my words with your “Therefore, it is due to being pooped into existence by yours truly.”


why do you think premise 1 is wrong?

why do you think premise 2 is wrong?

 

[Darkstorn]

First you have to establish that gravity exist………only then you can claim that gravity is responsible for apples falling from trees………..honestly can’t you find the flaws of your logic?

All of those things have already been done: General relativity, Newton before that. You're being dis-ingenious here. We don't need *logic* to establish gravity exists. You cannot use logic to do that. You need evidence.

Any argument for the existence of God can be dismissed because by your logic there is no prior evidence for the existence of God…..how can any present arguments or evidence if you always demand prior evidence?

Arguments and evidence are not equivalent. It is impossible to prove either the existence OR non-existence of a deity with logic.

 

[Darkstorn]

No quite frankly I still dotn understand what is the point of changing my words with your “Therefore, it is due to being pooped into existence by yours truly.”


why do you think premise 1 is wrong?

I don't think premise 1 is as much wrong as it is inaccurate: There are more than 3 possible choices. Among those that i pooped the universe into existence last morning.

why do you think premise 2 is wrong?

Because it's unsubstantiated. Just like my claim that the universe exists solely because i made a poopoo.

TLDR: I have as much evidence for that as you have for your claim.

/E: Oh and the point is that i didn't *change* your argument. It's that i can make an argument like that if you can make an argument like yours. BOTH are logically valid.

 

[Heyo]

@Darkstorn

Justify your assertion, which premise is wrong? Why?

@Subduction Zone and I have answered that question. Why don't you respond? Why are necessity or chance dismissed as possible explanations?

 

[leroy]

I don't think premise 1 is as much wrong as it is inaccurate: There are more than 3 possible choices. Among those that i pooped the universe into existence last morning.



Because it's unsubstantiated. Just like my claim that the universe exists solely because i made a poopoo.

TLDR: I have as much evidence for that as you have for your claim.

/E: Oh and the point is that i didn't *change* your argument. It's that i can make an argument like that if you can make an argument like yours. BOTH are logically valid.

That in red is logically incoherent, you can only exist and poop once the FT universe already exists.


But I can follow your game……. Did you willingly and intentionally pooped such that the contents have the value they have? Or are those values just a coincidence.

 

[leroy]

@Subduction Zone and I have answered that question. Why don't you respond? Why are necessity or chance dismissed as possible explanations?

I answered to that…………Boltzmann brain paradox disproves any chance hypothesis, the fact that these are multiple independent values disproves any physical necessity hypothesis.

For more detail you can go to the sources or you can share your favorite chance/necesity hypothesis and I can tell you why does it fail

 

[Subduction Zone]

That in red is logically incoherent, you can only exist and poop once the FT universe already exists.


But I can follow your game……. Did you willingly and intentionally pooped such that the contents have the value they have? Or are those values just a coincidence.

@Darkstorn is a transcendent being.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I answered to that…………Boltzmann brain paradox disproves any chance hypothesis, the fact that these are multiple independent values disproves any physical necessity hypothesis.

For more detail you can go to the sources or you can share your favorite chance/necesity hypothesis and I can tell you why does it fail

No, that was more handwaving. It was not a proof.

 

[leroy]

All of those things have already been done: General relativity, Newton before that. .

that is only a baseless asertion

 

[leroy]

No, that was more handwaving. It was not a proof.

Ok so where is your point of disagreement? At what point did I or the sources made a mistake/flaw in order to reach the conclusion that you reject?

 

[leroy]

@Darkstorn is a transcendent being.

And apples don’t fall from trees because of gravity, the fall because of @Darkstorn pooping…. My evidence is the same as your evidence for gravity ZERO.

 

[Darkstorn]

That in red is logically incoherent, you can only exist and poop once the FT universe already exists.

Not if i predate the universe. You know, first cause etc.

Even so, your objection is exactly the same type of objection i have with your premise 2: You cannot assert unsubstantiated claims as evidence. You might make a logically coherent but incredibly stupid statement like:

Hamburgers contain all possible onions.

This universe is an onion.

Therefore the universe is in a hamburger.

Arguments are basically a poor substitute for evidence. You cannot use logic to prove either the existence, OR non-existence of gods.

But I can follow your game……. Did you willingly and intentionally pooped such that the contents have the value they have? Or are those values just a coincidence.

You can't use personal incredulity to dismiss something like that. The fact is those things happened, and the evidence points to natural means. I welcome any evidence you can provide, but my hopes aren't exactly high as you still keep conflating arguments, evidence, and proof.

/E: Small edits. I'll stop using a phone to answer these.

/E2: Oh and one more thing, just so it won't remain unclear: If you can assert that i am not the creator of this universe, then i can also assert that your premise 2 is wrong.

 

[Darkstorn]

that is only a baseless asertion

If you drop a shoe and watch it fall to the ground, that's evidence of gravity. General Relativity is what explains this. Newton also explains it to a relatively accurate degree.

I.E An apple falling to the ground is evidence of gravity. Deal with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And apples don’t fall from trees because of gravity, the fall because of @Darkstorn pooping…. My evidence is the same as your evidence for gravity ZERO.

We can test apples falling from trees. How do we test your beliefs? By your standards @Darkstorn is a transcendent being since I claimed it.

 

[Darkstorn]

By your standards @Darkstorn is a transcendent being since I claimed it.

I claim it also.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I claim it also.

Ooh! Two to one. We win!

 

[Darkstorn]

I answered to that…………Boltzmann brain paradox disproves any chance hypothesis, the fact that these are multiple independent values disproves any physical necessity hypothesis.

For more detail you can go to the sources or you can share your favorite chance/necesity hypothesis and I can tell you why does it fail

Again, conflating arguments with evidence.

Firstly, there's no "chance hypothesis." What's happening, is physics. Just plain physics. Science attempts to explain the details of how things happened, using different areas of scientific enquiry.

Now here's the relevant part:

You cannot disprove scientific theories with logic. You need evidence that would falsify said theories.

The fact that you still think you can argue all the evidence away is just... "Hilarious." In plain speech: Your arguments do not, i repeat, do not in fact "disprove" any area of science.

 

[leroy]

If you drop a shoe and watch it fall to the ground, that's evidence of gravity. General Relativity is what explains this. Newton also explains it to a relatively accurate degree.

I.E An apple falling to the ground is evidence of gravity. Deal with it.

Just a gravity of the gaps assertions, why not “I pooped fairies that cause apples to fall”

 

[Heyo]

I answered to that…………

No you didn't.
In post #276 you asked @Darkstorn: "Ok which of the premises you think is wrong and why?"
In post #281 @Subduction Zone jumped in and said "And right away we go off the rails. This is a claim. This is not known at all. It may be due to physical necessity. It may be due to chance."
In post #285 you repeated your request for a specific point of content:
"the only way you can have a conversation with me is if you spot a specific comment, ether mine or from my sources, that you disagree with, and explain why do you disagree" to @Darkstorn, tagging @Subduction Zone but ignoring his post #281.
In post #287 I reminded you of post #281.
In post #299 you repeat your request to @Darkstorn: "Justify your assertion, which premise is wrong? Why?" ignoring @Subduction Zone and me.
In post #302 you repeat your request to @Darkstorn: "why do you think premise 1 is wrong?
why do you think premise 2 is wrong?" ignoring @Subduction Zone and me.
In post #305 I remind you: "@Subduction Zone and I have answered that question. Why don't you respond? Why are necessity or chance dismissed as possible explanations?"

During that complete exchange you didn't answer my question (and I went back several pages to see if you did there).

I may have missed it, but since you often requested specificity, I like to return the favor and ask you to point to the specific post #.

Boltzmann brain paradox disproves any chance hypothesis, the fact that these are multiple independent values disproves any physical necessity hypothesis.

We don't know whether the values are independent. (If you do, please cite the source.)

For more detail you can go to the sources

I'd like to repeat my request for specificity. Which source?

or you can share your favorite chance/necesity hypothesis and I can tell you why does it fail

Nope. I won't let you reverse the burden of proof.