How does your view explain how the earth appears made for life?

[A Vestigial Mote]

But I suspect you'll resort to the atheist 'God did it',, which is 'it just is':

I don't have to "resort" to it... it is clearly a possibility that you cannot simply explain away, nor can you refute it. Just as I can't refute the idea of the universe being "fine tuned." And this is what I am trying to get across. Citing actual numbers for some statistical probability, when we can't even know whether or not the universe could have been setup any other way, is RIDICULOUS. I am not the one engaged in this. You are.

The first article you linked (https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html) doesn't really say much of anything, does it? It marvels at the "accuracy" of these values to have produced life, but itself admits that the "why" behind any of it is a mystery. Meaning that we can't tell the difference between a "fine tuned" universe and a universe that "just is." We can't. Tell me how we can tell the difference.

Fine tuning argument are about the structure of this universe the argument you're using is 'it just is'

Your comment doesn't actually answer to my point, or refute it. All you tell me is what the "fine tuning argument" tries to base itself on, and then you try to frame up my points in a lesser light. You didn't refute or discuss anything of importance, and I feel that you understand exactly what I mean when I say that the probability was 1 in 1 - you're just unwilling to concede to the simple logic of it, because it shatters your "1 in quadrillions of quadrillions" nonsense to pieces.

I see no reason why it could not have many other ways, some capable of life (in whatever form) , some not, short duration , massively long duration,,, but I know I'll be wasting my time all you'll ever post is ' it just is'

I have you pegged with a simple question on this one (provided you're willing to answer it... which my bet is that that is highly unlikely - I mean... you're a theist after all, for cripes sake). Here's the question:
Taking your beliefs in account, do you believe that the universe could have ended up any other way than it is now? Truly? Given what you expect of "God" and how important you think humans are to "the plan" - could the universe have ended up any other way in your belief system?

 

[Darkforbid]

First question: do you know what probability is?

Spoiler: it is very probable that you do not.

Ciao

- viole

Well maybe I don't can your ultimate IQ help me with, what is the chance of six dice landing showing six, ten times in a row?

 

[viole]

Well maybe I don't can your ultimate IQ help me with, what is the chance of six dice landing showing six, ten times in a row?

Ultimate IQ? You do not really need a high IQ to see that.

The same as any other ordered configuration of numbers.

Keep it simple, so that you do not get confused
with combinatorics.

The chance that throwing a coin 100 times you get

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.......

Is the same as the chance of getting

HTHHTHHHTTTTHHTHTTTTTHHHTTTTT......

So, you really have no idea, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Darkforbid]

I don't have to "resort" to it... it is clearly a possibility that you cannot simply explain away, nor can you refute it. Just as I can't refute the idea of the universe being "fine tuned." And this is what I am trying to get across. Citing actual numbers for some statistical probability, when we can't even know whether or not the universe could have been setup any other way, is RIDICULOUS. I am not the one engaged in this. You are.

The first article you linked (https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html) doesn't really say much of anything, does it? It marvels at the "accuracy" of these values to have produced life, but itself admits that the "why" behind any of it is a mystery. Meaning that we can't tell the difference between a "fine tuned" universe and a universe that "just is." We can't. Tell me how we can tell the difference.


Your comment doesn't actually answer to my point, or refute it. All you tell me is what the "fine tuning argument" tries to base itself on, and then you try to frame up my points in a lesser light. You didn't refute or discuss anything of importance, and I feel that you understand exactly what I mean when I say that the probability was 1 in 1 - you're just unwilling to concede to the simple logic of it, because it shatters your "1 in quadrillions of quadrillions" nonsense to pieces.


I have you pegged with a simple question on this one (provided you're willing to answer it... which my bet is that that is highly unlikely - I mean... you're a theist after all, for cripes sake). Here's the question:
Taking your beliefs in account, do you believe that the universe could have ended up any other way than it is now? Truly? Given what you expect of "God" and how important you think humans are to "the plan" - could the universe have ended up any other way in your belief system?

'could the universe have ended up any other way in your belief system?'

So you didn't even read my last post:

I see no reason why it could not have many other ways, some capable of life (in whatever form) , some not, short duration , massively long duration

The problem with your 'and I feel that you understand exactly what I mean when I say that the probability was 1 in 1 - you're just unwilling to concede to the simple logic of it'

"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life." However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." Physicist Paul Davies

But you'll stick with 'it just is'

 

[Darkforbid]

Ultimate IQ? You do not really need a high IQ to see that.

The same as any other ordered configuration of numbers.

Keep it simple, so that you do not get confused
with combinatorics.

The chance that throwing a coin 100 times you get

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.......

Is the same as the chance of getting

HTHHTHHHTTTTHHTHTTTTTHHHTTTTT......

So, you really have no idea, right?

Ciao

- viole

I know exactly for the dice the probability of rolling three 6s in a row is: (0.167)(0.167)(0.167) = 0.0046 or 1/216

How come you couldn't calculate a coin toss?

 

[viole]

I know exactly for the dice the probability of rolling three 6s in a row is: (0.167)(0.167)(0.167) = 0.0046 or 1/216

How come you couldn't calculate a coin toss?

Because any ordered sequence of head/tail of a coin toss has the same probability to happen, assuming the coin is fair. And that is why playing roulette by betting on red all the time, gives you the same chances to win as by alternating red and black in any way you choose.

Do you think it is not? if you do, I recommend you do not play roulette.

I mean, with all due respect, didn’t you learn that in college or school? That is pretty basic stuff.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well maybe I don't can your ultimate IQ help me with, what is the chance of six dice landing showing six, ten times in a row?

Texas sharp shooter fallacy.

 

[Darkforbid]

Because any ordered sequence of head/tail of a coin toss has the same probability to happen, assuming the coin is fair. And that is why playing roulette by betting on red all the time, gives you the same chances to win as by alternating red and black in any way you choose.

Do you think it is not? if you do, I recommend you do not play roulette.

I mean, with all due respect, didn’t you learn that in college or school? That is pretty basic stuff.

Ciao

- viole

So what is the chance of 5 heads in a row?

 

[Darkforbid]

Texas sharp shooter fallacy.

Fallacist's fallacy

 

[viole]

So what is the chance of 5 heads in a row?

1 in 32. Like the chance of THTTH, or any other ordered sequence of five throws you can define.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Darkforbid]

1 in 32. Like the chance of THTTH, or any other ordered sequence you can define.

Ciao

- viole

Yep, 3%

 

[viole]

Yep, 3%

Yes, like the chance of any other sequence of five.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Aupmanyav]

OP: "How does your view explain how the earth appears made for life?"
It is the other way round. Life is made according of the conditions of Earth. It is possible that in some other world life is silicon-based and not carbon-based.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

'could the universe have ended up any other way in your belief system?'

So you didn't even read my last post:

I see no reason why it could not have many other ways, some capable of life (in whatever form) , some not, short duration , massively long duration

Fine... got it. So I would take this to mean that the "plan" is actually fairly arbitrary? If you believe there was "a plan," but that the universe could have taken many other forms, then "the plan" being selected as this particular one we now find ourselves within was just one choice among many, right? And that means, necessarily, that it ultimately comes down to a whim - which itself implies no ultimate purpose. And be careful now, because you sort of have to back-track on this idea of multiple possibilities, and that the universe could have gone many other ways if you change-up and say that God (or whatever selecting agent) made the choice of our particular universe all as part of "the plan." Because if this selection was all part of "the plan," then there still was really no other choice that could have been made. This was ultimately the plan that was going to be chosen - because it was part of "the plan." Which would bring us all the way back around to the 1-in-1 probability.

"There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life." However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." Physicist Paul Davies

This, in itself, is a belief. Would these physicists set forth formal hypotheses regarding the idea that what they are terming "fine tuning" had a "fine tuner?" Meaning - would they be willing to posit to the scientific community that an agent was responsible for the fine-tuning, do you think? The article you linked even admits that this is more a philosophical arena of thought than a scientific one - saying that it basically takes marrying the two to even come up with hypotheticals. Which is really all they are - hypotheticals. Not fact, not necessarily correct. Wild guesses.

But you'll stick with 'it just is'

Not even physicists can eliminate the "it just is" possibility (yet) - that is all I have been trying to get across, and you can't deny this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fallacist's fallacy

Wrong, but nice try. Your questions tell us that you do not understand how to apply odds questions. You made the error of thinking that the current set up is the target of the bull's eye without justification.

 

[Darkforbid]

Wrong, but nice try. Your questions tell us that you do not understand how to apply odds questions. You made the error of thinking that the current set up is the target of the bull's eye without justification.

No you claimed a fallacy just by stating the fallacy that is the fallacist's fallacy, and here again you've done the same, fallacies point to the possibility of a logical flaw which you can exploit just stating the fallacy is pointless

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No you claimed a fallacy just by stating the fallacy that is the fallacist's fallacy, and here again you've done the same, fallacies point to the possibility of a logical flaw which you can exploit just stating the fallacy is pointless

While the presence of a fallacy in your reasoning doesn't mean that the position you are arguing from is incorrect/wrong/etc., it does mean that you are employing poor modes of thinking and applying arguments incorrectly. You could be entirely right about "God" for example, but still be straw-manning your opponent in a debate left and right - and a fallacy like that being present in your argumentation means that you are not doing yourself any favors if you are trying to impress the validity of your position on anyone.

In other words, while employing fallacies doesn't make one "wrong," it does make one look like an idiot.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

For example as Nasa discovered in 2015, the Sahara sends phosphorus to the Amazon rain forest which provides for life

Saharan Dust Feeds Amazon’s Plants

Why do I need an explanation? That the Earth can sustain life, and does so according to a variety of features and ongoing activities present on and off its surface is proof of not much more than the fact that it does so.

Could I look for an explanation, like many others are doing? Sure. Should I settle on my preferred explanation even though I have not one ounce of inter-subjectively verifiable evidence to support my conclusions. No... no I should not.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Why do I need an explanation? That the Earth can sustain life, and does so according to a variety of features and ongoing activities present on and off its surface is proof of not much more than the fact that it does so.

Could I look for an explanation, like many others are doing? Sure. Should I settle on my preferred explanation even though I have not one ounce of inter-subjectively verifiable evidence to support my conclusions. No... no I should not.

And yet, the largest dessert blowing phosphorus towards the largest rain basin would be consistent with a world made for life.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

And yet, the largest dessert blowing phosphorus towards the largest rain basin would be consistent with a world made for life.

Let's see...one area of the world benefits by receiving nutrients from another, where we see a substantial biodiversity...but the donor area is largely devoid of life...and is losing its nutrients that could support life there...

that seems more like life taking advantage of conditions than being especially beneficial for life...

Keep in mind, too, that the current arrangement of the Sahara as a desert and the Amazon as a rain forest with tropical winds carrying dust from the Sahara across the ocean to the Amazon has not always been the case, as plate tectonics has moved the continents around over millions of years

from wikipedia:

If the gif isn't visible, here's a link to the page: Continental drift - Wikipedia