It seems to me that some Christians on here do not understand Atheists

[1robin]

We keep getting sidetracked. So I will ignore the ex nihilo tangent and stay focused this time.

Your fine tuning argument began with the claim that there are 10^500 different variables that need to be what they are for our universe to be as it is. Your argument insists that the universe must be fine tuned for this reason. My problems with this boil down to:

No, it is way worse than that. 10^500 are how many possible universes may exist. However for each universe it must have thousands of values to allow for life.

String theory landscape - Wikipedia
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-one-...eeds-10-500-Universes-to-explain-our-Universe
Why does string theory have such a huge landscape?

1. You have not provided anything to make me believe that these variables could be anything but what they are. If unknown natural laws resulted in the universe turning out the way it did than obviously there was no fine tuning.

In a debate where one person says a thing has no evidence and the other person says there is. The one making the positive claim has the burden of proof. The one making the negative claim can not do anything but point to the lack of evidence. If you said unicorns exist then you must provide evidence that they do, if I claim there is no evidence for them then my only burden is to see if you can produce any. It is a well established fact those values had no physical necessity of being what they are. Regardless if the universe came into being from nothing then there was no prior physical state to t = 0 to force anything to be anything.

2. Assuming that any of these variables could have been different in someway doesn't really prove the universe is fine tuned. All that would mean is that out of all the equally possible ways the universe could exist it exists in this form, that's it.

Just in the case where a man won the lottery 100 times in a row, when you see a unimaginably improbable event occur over and over and over any rational person would think an intentional intelligence is to blame. Why do you have one standard for every secular issue else and another for things that point to God?

Unless you can provide something to reasonably counter one or both of the above points I'm not sold on your fine tuning argument.

It is not my fine tuning argument, this argument goeas back to at least Paley's natural theology, has been championed by countless scholars, and has survived every argument raised against it.

 

[1robin]

If I throw 1000 quarters into the air, there are 499500 different combinations of heads or tails in which they can land. Any one of the combinations are a rare event given the number of different combinations, but the quarters have to land in one of them.

That is not an accurate analogy. To make your analogy apply, you would have to get every toss of the coin to come out heads. But it is even worse because a coin only has two possible states after being tossed, where as the values of the universe can have almost an infinite amount of possible values.

 

[ArtieE]

That is not an accurate analogy. To make your analogy apply, you would have to get every toss of the coin to come out heads. But it is even worse because a coin only has two possible states after being tossed, where as the values of the universe can have almost an infinite amount of possible values.

And there's also an almost infinite amount of DNA combinations and yet here you are having beaten impossible odds. Surely that must prove that everything was fine tuned so that exactly you could exist? That is the same reasoning you use if you claim that the universe was fine tuned so that life could exist...

 

[1robin]

And there's also an almost infinite amount of DNA combinations and yet here you are having beaten impossible odds. Surely that must prove that everything was fine tuned so that exactly you could exist? That is the same reasoning you use if you claim that the universe was fine tuned so that life could exist...

1. There is no such thing as almost infinite. If anything falls short of being infinite (and everything does), then it falls infinitely short of being infinite. As confusing as that may be to read it is never the less true.
2. Way back when you or another made their first post I knew what you were trying to say. I kept trying to get you to just go ahead and do so, but it took until now for you to finally do so.
3. What your stating is a well worn argument called the cosmological anthropomorphic principle. It utterly fails. However it takes a lot of reading to see why. Can you please look up that argument, so I do not have to post 100,000 words showing you why it simply isn't true?
4. I will point out one mistake your making. Now that you have finally fessed up to what I knew you would in the end let me show you a simplistic mistake your making. Your claiming that since the probability I exist is improbable and yet I do, then the fact the universe is fine tuned is nothing special. By that reasoning all improbable events are equal. If what your saying was true then the chance I pick the correct card out of a total of three by chance would be equivalent to the chance I would pick the correct molecule out of the 10^80th atoms that actually exist. Does that make any sense to you? BTW the chance I picked by random the correct atom out of all the atoms in the universe is far far more likely that we would get a life supporting universe by random. Ok, a couple more. Do you know the probability that any universe would begin to exist out of nothingness? Exactly 0%. Also, while there exists no physical necessity why the thousands of perfectly balanced values of a life permitting universe came into being there is a complete physical necessity that humans produce human DNA. Ok, one last one. I could have been born with any intact Human DNA. The universe could not have supported life with type of values and constants.
5. I am going to be very exacting from here on in now that it is certain what you have been trying to say, so please pick it up a bit.

 

[ArtieE]

1. There is no such thing as almost infinite. If anything falls short of being infinite (and everything does), then it falls infinitely short of being infinite. As confusing as that may be to read it is never the less true.

The expression is what we call a colloquialism. It means a very huge amount.

3. What your stating is a well worn argument called the cosmological anthropomorphic principle. It utterly fails. However it takes a lot of reading to see why. Can you please look up that argument, so I do not have to post 100,000 words showing you why it simply isn't true?

OK, I put "cosmological anthropomorphic principle" in Google search and found just 3! results. One of them was Anthropic principle - Wikipedia
Can you read that link and tell me what exactly it is that fails?

4. I will point out one mistake your making. Now that you have finally fessed up to what I knew you would in the end let me show you a simplistic mistake your making. Your claiming that since the probability I exist is improbable and yet I do, then the fact the universe is fine tuned is nothing special. By that reasoning all improbable events are equal. If what your saying was true then the chance I pick the correct card out of a total of three by chance would be equivalent to the chance I would pick the correct molecule out of the 10^80th atoms that actually exist. Does that make any sense to you?

No. You can list all the parameters that would have to be exactly the way they are in order for the universe and life to exist and claim that a god must deliberately have wanted life to exist, and I can list all the parameters that would have to have come out exactly the way they have come out during history in order for exactly your DNA to appear at this time and conclude that the same god must have wanted exactly you to exist. It's the same reasoning.

BTW the chance I picked by random the correct atom out of all the atoms in the universe is far far more likely that we would get a life supporting universe by random. Ok, a couple more. Do you know the probability that any universe would begin to exist out of nothingness? Exactly 0%.

Please read Is All the Universe From Nothing?

 

[Shad]

Just in the case where a man won the lottery 100 times in a row, when you see a unimaginably improbable event occur over and over and over any rational person would think an intentional intelligence is to blame. Why do you have one standard for every secular issue else and another for things that point to God?

Lotteries are human constructs thus a man winning 100 times could be due to a rigged system or system that must have a winner.

It is not my fine tuning argument, this argument goeas back to at least Paley's natural theology, has been championed by countless scholars, and has survived every argument raised against it.

Hume refuted the argument before it was even created. The objections to the argument are taught in basic philosophy classes. Your lack of knowledge on the subject caused you to create an erroneous conclusion.

 

[JustWondering]

In a debate where one person says a thing has no evidence and the other person says there is. The one making the positive claim has the burden of proof. The one making the negative claim can not do anything but point to the lack of evidence. If you said unicorns exist then you must provide evidence that they do, if I claim there is no evidence for them then my only burden is to see if you can produce any. It is a well established fact those values had no physical necessity of being what they are. Regardless if the universe came into being from nothing then there was no prior physical state to t = 0 to force anything to be anything.

You have not provided evidence that supports a fine tuned universe. During our debate I have used sources you tried to use for your argument to show that nobody knows how the universe began. There is no evidence that the universe came from nothing. Again, top physicists (who are honest) openly admit they don't know the how and why of the universes beginning.

Just in the case where a man won the lottery 100 times in a row, when you see a unimaginably improbable event occur over and over and over any rational person would think an intentional intelligence is to blame. Why do you have one standard for every secular issue else and another for things that point to God?

Out of all the possible ways the universe could be, it has to be one of them if it exists. Consider your argument from a different perspective. If the universe didn't support life would your argument still hold weight?

It is not my fine tuning argument, this argument goeas back to at least Paley's natural theology, has been championed by countless scholars, and has survived every argument raised against it.

I don't care about that. I am debating this with you. Your arguments thus far are not convincing. You have not provided suitable evidence to sway me in any way.

 

[1robin]

The expression is what we call a colloquialism. It means a very huge amount.

Colloquialisms should not be used in a technical debate. Almost no one who uses the word infinite has proper respect for the term. Claiming anything about the infinite is a huge issue. Infinity in math is the point that either a thing can't possibly reach (as in a asymptotic equation), produces self contradictory results (as in an infinite amount of coins minus the odd coins still leaves an infinite after an infinity is subtracted from infinity), or creates a paradox (as in Hilbert's hotel). In physics as values which do not exist (as in the infinite temperature of the singularity). To cut this short no natural infinites can or do exist. If your going to flirt with the concept of infinity then please us precise language. BTW claiming that something which is infinitely short of infinity is almost infinity is not a colloquialism, it is an abject absurdity.

OK, I put "cosmological anthropomorphic principle" in Google search and found just 3! results. One of them was Anthropic principle - Wikipedia

I am very familiar with the argument but I only saw the name for it a few days ago. If you want to debate the actual issues instead of semantic technicalities let me know when you wish to begin.

Can you read that link and tell me what exactly it is that fails?No. You can list all the parameters that would have to be exactly the way they are in order for the universe and life to exist and claim that a god must deliberately have wanted life to exist, and I can list all the parameters that would have to have come out exactly the way they have come out during history in order for exactly your DNA to appear at this time and conclude that the same god must have wanted exactly you to exist. It's the same reasoning.Please read Is All the Universe From Nothing?

1. The link you gave was simplistic definition of the argument. If you want to examine where any parts of it fail then you first must tell me which parts you wish to examine. I am familiar with a much more detailed and exhaustive version of the argument. I can't provide a refutation of an entire book's worth of theory. Which part of it are you referring to?
2. Why did you ask me a question and then immediately post what you wrongly think my response would be. Look, you do not need me to have a debate like that. You only need a mirror.
3. I am very well versed in every argument that applies here. I do not need to go and read your links, I have read book length arguments and their counter arguments. All you need to do is post in your words what you think is relevant and true in those arguments to indicate which part I need to address.

If you are going to make sweeping claims you must be willing to spend enough time to resolve them. Let me know when you are ready to start doing so.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

That is not an accurate analogy. To make your analogy apply, you would have to get every toss of the coin to come out heads. But it is even worse because a coin only has two possible states after being tossed, where as the values of the universe can have almost an infinite amount of possible values.

"would have to get every toss of the coin to come out heads"

All you did was ascribe arbitrary subjective value to one of the possible combinations. Other then that subjective value what makes it objectively more significant than the other possible combinations?

 

[JustWondering]

"would have to get every toss of the coin to come out heads"

All you did was ascribe arbitrary subjective value to one of the possible combinations. Other then that subjective value what makes it objectively more significant than the other possible combinations?

His argument basically boils down to a god of the gaps argument. I've never understood why some theists believe that if science cannot explain something, that it's evidence for their specific beliefs.

 

[1robin]

His argument basically boils down to a god of the gaps argument. I've never understood why some theists believe that if science cannot explain something, that it's evidence for their specific beliefs.

Ok that's it for you. Debating by proxy is the last straw and a sure sign of a failed argument. My arguments were either deductive or inductive and all sourced properly. You are a hypocrite and completely out of your depth. I do not have time to educate you enough to allow you to eventually become competent enough to make an argument. We are done.

 

[1robin]

"would have to get every toss of the coin to come out heads"

All you did was ascribe arbitrary subjective value to one of the possible combinations. Other then that subjective value what makes it objectively more significant than the other possible combinations?

I was going to generous and not take your failure in the homosexual thread to apply here. However you still can't format your responses correctly. I do not have the time to keep going back to figure out which parts I originally stated and which parts are your responses.

I will give you this last parting shot but that is it.

Saying the secular scientific facts I used for my argument are arbitrary or subjective is rationally incoherent. You might want to read a dictionary or two before posting. Beyond that I have no idea what your talking about, and I doubt you do either. We are done. What happened to this forum, I used to get a good argument from other posters on occasion in the past? Now I can't even get a coherent argument.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I was going to generous and not take your failure in the homosexual thread to apply here. However you still can't format your responses correctly. I do not have the time to keep going back to figure out which parts I originally stated and which parts are your responses.

I will give you this last parting shot but that is it.

Saying the secular scientific facts I used for my argument are arbitrary or subjective is rationally incoherent. You might want to read a dictionary or two before posting. Beyond that I have no idea what your talking about, and I doubt you do either. We are done. What happened to this forum, I used to get a good argument from other posters on occasion in the past? Now I can't even get a coherent argument.

"I have no idea what your [sic] talking about"

I am not surprised.

 

[JustWondering]

Ok that's it for you. Debating by proxy is the last straw and a sure sign of a failed argument. My arguments were either deductive or inductive and all sourced properly. You are a hypocrite and completely out of your depth. I do not have time to educate you enough to allow you to eventually become competent enough to make an argument. We are done.

So you finally admit defeat, good. Have a nice day.

 

[1robin]

"I have no idea what your [sic] talking about"

I am not surprised.

I am not surprised either. You have yet to show you have any idea concerning even the simplest arguments that apply here. I have given trying to teach others what they need to know to make a rational argument. I could not remember if I told you yet, but we are done for now.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I am not surprised either. You have yet to show you have any idea concerning even the simplest arguments that apply here. I have given trying to teach others what they need to know to make a rational argument. I could not remember if I told you yet, but we are done for now.

"I could not remember if I told you yet, but we are done for now"

You can't remember because you make that same statement to almost everyone and on almost every response. Of course you never follow through, as if you did you'd have no one left to talk to.