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

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it is not fallacious nonsense

Yes it is. It's essentially an argument from ignorance.

, please make an honest effort and try to understand….

Right back at ya.

If you disagree with the statement “God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” then you are tacitly implying that you have a better explanation in mind

No. I explained this at length.
"god" isn't even an explanation to begin with.
In fact, I (and plenty of others) have even pointed out to you that it's not even clear that what you call "FT", requires any special kind of explanation at all.

……………..as an analogy if you disagree with the statement “A heart attack is the best explanation for John´s dead” you are implying that you have a better explanation in mind.

Not at all.

An autopsy could point out that there is no evidence of a heart attack at all.
The actually cause of death could still be unknown and the lack of evidence would rule out a heart attack.

Again: claims fall and stand on their own merit.
If there is no evidence of a heart attack, then there is no reason to assume a heart attack - regardless if the actual cause of death is known or not.

If you don’t want to propose an alternative explanation then your answer shouldn’t “I don’t know”

I have been saying "i don't know" throughout this entire thread. If you would have actually paid some attention when reading the posts, you would have known this. But as usual you have your blinders on.

………”I simply don’t know if God is the best explanation or not”

No, that's not the "i don't know".

The I don't know is about the actual origins of the universe. I don't know how the universe originated.
Sure, I also don't know if a god-dun-it. I equally also don't know if pixies-dun-it or if a multi-verse-dun-it.

I just don't know.
You're the one who claims to know.

And again: your god-claim, is not an explanation at all.
An explanation is explanatory, not mere assertion.

Granted, that is true, you are free to point the flaws and mistakes of the argument

Been there, done that. Many a people have done this in this thread.

…….so be my guest, please spot the specific points that you think are flawed or wrong.

Read the thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am tacitly implying that I have good reasons to think that he has hair------ why is this so hard to understand?

I think it's hilarious how you completely missed his point.

That point being: france doesn't have a king.

I bet you still don't get the point he's making.

Ok then explain what exactly do you mean by “an explanation”……

I already answered this question.
Explanations have explanatory power. They make testable predictions and increase our understanding of the phenomena being explained. Your god claim doesn't do this. Not even remotely.

It's not an explanation. It's just a religious assertion with no merit whatsoever.

…are other alternatives like “multiverse” “chance” anthropic principle” “cosmic evolution” “aliens” etc. qualify as explanations according to your own personal criteria?.....If these are not “possible explanations” then what are they?

None of these are "alternative explanations" for the imaginary problem you are insisting on.
This is another one of your fallacies.

And once again: we don't require "alternatives" to point out the flaws in yours.

Asking “based on your research and understanding what is the best explanation” is not shifting the burden proof,

It is when you are implying that your bare claims should be accepted by default unless one has a "better alternative", as if that exempts your from your burden of proof.

A better question is why do you what to avoid the burden proof at all cost?

We have no burden of proof here. In this thread, we are discussing YOUR claims.

…………. Why cant you say “I disagree specifically with “X” because “bla bla bla”

If X is your bare claim, then we did exactly that throughout the thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You might do your own research. I did mine. But -- the facts, so-called, speak for themselves. There IS no solid proof or evidence that life began from some soupy mass.

It seems as if your "research" did not inform you that the theory of evolution is about the origins of species, not of life itself.

Which is weird, because that's pretty much lesson 1.

There is also no evidence that the universe began from -- um -- nothing

The theory of evolution also has nothing to say about the origins of the universe.

. Or better yet -- a big bang

The theory of evolution also has nothing to say about the expansion of space-time.

In other words, do your research -- I did mine.

Clearly you didn't, if you think evolution is about the origins of life or the universe or about the expansion of space-time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The relevant question are: do you believe that life came from a priomdial soup/mass etc.) Do you believe that the universe came from nothing?.....whether if you personally whant to label them as part of the ToE or not is irrelevant.

Both the origins of life and the origins of the universe are scientifically unknown at this point in time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know what the "ToE" says.

Your comments, suggest otherwise.

Conjecture (theory)

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, I know the "Big Bang" theory has little to do in your mind with the "ToE,"

Not "in his mind". In reality.

Evolution is a theory of biology that addresses the origins of species, of biological diversity.
Big bang is a theory of cosmology that addresses the development of the early universe.

2 entirely different subjects, from entirely different scientific fields.

The literally have nothing to do with eachother. They don't even overlap. Not even a little bit.

but as the song goes, "nothing comes from nothing..." (lyrics from one of the songs from The Sound of Music) And that is what the "ToE" is all about

More exposure of deep rooted ignorance. No, that is not at all what evolution is about.
Evolution doesn't start with "nothing". It starts with existing life that reproduces with variation and is in competition with peers over limited resources.

Nothing from something? that comes from ?? Yes, the ToE is built on the premise that -- a soupy mass came from -- um -- somewhere?

No.

Evolution is build on the premise that life exists, that it reproduces with variation and that it competes with peers over limited resources. Looking around and seeing life existing, reproducing with variation and competing over limited resources - that seems like a rather justified premise.

Oh, another flying object maybe from an alien somewhere some time back?

Que?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yes, I know the "Big Bang" theory has little to do in your mind with the "ToE," but as the song goes, "nothing comes from nothing..." (lyrics from one of the songs from The Sound of Music) And that is what the "ToE" is all about. Nothing from something? that comes from ?? Yes, the ToE is built on the premise that -- a soupy mass came from -- um -- somewhere? maybe? Oh, another flying object maybe from an alien somewhere some time back?

First... the BB theory does NOT claim that 'something came from nothing'. Your phenomenal ignorance on the subject is showing again.

Second, the majority of Christians who believe in a creator god ALSO believe that evolution is the process that this creator god used to develop more complex life forms from less complex life forms. Just ask the pope. So your contention that anyone who believes in evolution ALSO believes that life started from a primordial soup is just plain Bull$hit.

You REALLY need to educate yourself.

 

[QuestioningMind]

P.S. You can keep waiting, when you do the research and come up with scientists talking about why evolution is NOT necessarily true, let me know. As another song goes -- I'll Be There -- ok maybe I won't be, gotta try it and see.

Just admit it, you haven't done ANY research at all, have you?

 

[QuestioningMind]

But the primordial soup, that's no figuring yet how it got there, what atoms were there and how they got there, is that right? That's not to mention what some scientists think were the earliest structures. As if they just got there, emerged by chance. Yup, finished with that. You can talk about it, but now I am convinced life did not just happen. What happened is when I realize gravity is there. A happenstance. I know gravity exists because I'm alive. See, otherwise, I wouldn't know it exists. Happenstance.

LOL Did you miss where I wrote that it's currently a hypothesis and NOT an established theory? Do you even know what the difference between the two is? You do realize that there are plenty of theists who believe that a creator god started the first spark of life and then evolution caused simple life forms to develop into more complex life firms, right? Believing in evolution does NOT mean a person automatically doesn't believe in a creator god. You could provide absolute proof that a creator god exists and it would do NOTHING to disprove the ToE. Really, you NEED to educate yourself on the subject.

 

[QuestioningMind]

P.S. You have no reasonable proof either that different happenstances by circumstance produced the various branches of the tree of evolution. What you do have is conjecture from artifacts.

Actually there's TONS of reasonable proof. IF you took the time to educate yourself you'd know as much. But if you insist on remaining willfully ignorant there's nothing I can do for you.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Something Good Julie Andrews Christopher Plummer Sound of Music flv YouTube - YouTube

Well THERE'S the problem! If watching videos like this is what you did for your 'research' NO WONDER you haven't a clue what your talking about. I suggest you read an actual text book on the subject.

 

[YoursTrue]

First... the BB theory does NOT claim that 'something came from nothing'. Your phenomenal ignorance on the subject is showing again.

Second, the majority of Christians who believe in a creator god ALSO believe that evolution is the process that this creator god used to develop more complex life forms from less complex life forms. Just ask the pope. So your contention that anyone who believes in evolution ALSO believes that life started from a primordial soup is just plain Bull$hit.

You REALLY need to educate yourself.

I know the "BB" theory does not claim something came from nothing. But nothing comes from nothing. What is your educated opinion about that, may I ask?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well THERE'S the problem! If watching videos like this is what you did for your 'research' NO WONDER you haven't a clue what your talking about. I suggest you read an actual text book on the subject.

OK, so does something come from nothing?

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually there's TONS of reasonable proof. IF you took the time to educate yourself you'd know as much. But if you insist on remaining willfully ignorant there's nothing I can do for you.

So instead of telling me I'm so uneducated, please -- do something ever come from nothing? Whatcha think? I mean what is your scientifically educated opinion tell ya?

 

[YoursTrue]

LOL Did you miss where I wrote that it's currently a hypothesis and NOT an established theory? Do you even know what the difference between the two is? You do realize that there are plenty of theists who believe that a creator god started the first spark of life and then evolution caused simple life forms to develop into more complex life firms, right? Believing in evolution does NOT mean a person automatically doesn't believe in a creator god. You could provide absolute proof that a creator god exists and it would do NOTHING to disprove the ToE. Really, you NEED to educate yourself on the subject.

Oh boy -- nothing you produce proves the ToE. But! have a good day.

 

[leroy]

I t
We have no burden of proof here. In this thread, we are discussing YOUR claims.



.

Then do that…….discuss my claims.

In other words find any claim made by me or the sources and explain why you disagree.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, the ToE is built on the premise that -- a soupy mass came from -- um -- somewhere? maybe?

You may not know this, but the most abundant elements in living things (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen) are also the most abundant chemically reactive elements in the universe. (I say 'chemically reactive elements' because helium, the second most abundant element in the universe, is chemically inert, does not form compounds, and therefore has no biological role.) This means that the elements that compose living things were present in abundance on the early Earth, and were available for organic, and perhaps pre-biotic, chemistry.

Oh, another flying object maybe from an alien somewhere some time back?

Sensational rubbish, and a straw man as well! If you are referring to the interstellar asteroid 1I/2017 U1 ('Oumuamua'), it is much more likely that this object was a comet or carbonaceous asteroid expelled from another stellar system (possibly a binary star) than that it was an alien spacecraft. In any case, it has no bearing on the origin of terrestrial life. Comets and carbonaceous meteorites are rich in organic compounds, and their impacts on the Earth may have provided the material for the organic 'primordial soup', if this material was not produced by chemical reactions in the Earth's Hadean or Archaean atmosphere. There is no need for aliens to come to the Earth to seed it with the first life-forms.

 

[YoursTrue]

You may not know this, but the most abundant elements in living things (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen) are also the most abundant chemically reactive elements in the universe. (I say 'chemically reactive elements' because helium, the second most abundant element in the universe, is chemically inert, does not form compounds, and therefore has no biological role.) This means that the elements that compose living things were present in abundance on the early Earth, and were available for organic, and perhaps pre-biotic, chemistry.



Sensational rubbish, and a straw man as well! If you are referring to the interstellar asteroid 1I/2017 U1 ('Oumuamua'), it is much more likely that this object was a comet or carbonaceous asteroid expelled from another stellar system (possibly a binary star) than that it was an alien spacecraft. In any case, it has no bearing on the origin of terrestrial life. Comets and carbonaceous meteorites are rich in organic compounds, and their impacts on the Earth may have provided the material for the organic 'primordial soup', if this material was not produced by chemical reactions in the Earth's Hadean or Archaean atmosphere. There is no need for aliens to come to the Earth to seed it with the first life-forms.

Ok whatever. To me now, it is apparent that God made the heavens and the earth. True that some elements attract, but that doesn't mean it all came about by itself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then do that…….discuss my claims. In other words find any claim made by me or the sources and explain why you disagree.

The thread is filled with posts doing just that. Perhaps you should read them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But nothing comes from nothing. What is your educated opinion about that, may I ask?

My educated opinion is that we don't have a "nothing" to study, so making any kind of claim about that is absurd.