The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

[he_who_is_nobody]

leroy wrote:
granted counterfactuals are not necessarily true ether, as you said before, we need evidence, but the evidence has been provided.......................for example the second law tells us that if the entropy where high the temperature of the universe would be homogenous and no hot spots (stars) would not exist.

the law of gravity tells us, that if the force of gravity is too strong (and the space too small) the whole system would collapse in a black hole

etc.......

so my CF are supported by evidence

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
You just admitted that I am right about counterfactuals by stating they are not necessarily true without evidence right after demanding that I admit that I am wrong. Beyond that, you have not provided any evidence. All you are doing (again) is pointing to the initial conditions of our universe and claiming them as fine-tuned without demonstrating it.

There is a big difference between this 2 statements, I am sure that even your atheist friends in this forum would grant that there is a difference between this 2 statements, and I am sure that you also know it, but for some reason you like to act like a 12yo and pretend that you disagree.

1 Counterfactuals (CF) are necessarily fallacious (your claim)


2 Counterfactuals are not necessarily true (my claim)

Fair enough.

So far you haven't done anything to prove your claim, all you have done is post 2 random links from 2 un related articles than don't even claim (let alone prove) that counterfactuals are necessarily fallacious.

Incorrect. Read the citation I provided for you.

To say that Counterfactuals are not necessary true, implies that I would have to provide additional evidence. But in this case evidence has been provided....

:facepalm:

You have not provided evidence. All you keep doing is pointing to our initial conditions and claiming them as fine-tuned. That is not evidence for fine-tuning, that is defining fine-tuning into existence.

We know that the force of attraction depends on the force of gravity (the stronger the force of gravity the stronger the attraction)

we know that if gravity is too strong, and the space too small, all matter would be attracted in a small point creating a black whole.

we knw that the universe was small in the past (when it was just a few seconds old)

we know that stars, planets, molecules etc. can not exist inside a black hole

we know that life as we know it, can not exist if stars, planets, molecules don't exist.

Yes. I agree with the initial conditions. How many times do I have to say that?

this is what is meant by FT, if you accept all this uncontroversial statements you agree with FT, if you don't what to call it FT, feel free to use a different word,

No it is not. Remember when I defined it and you agreed? It is not enough for you to just point to the initial conditions and claim them as fine-tuned. You need to demonstrate that to be the case. However, you have already admitted that you cannot. Thus, how about instead of trying to shoehorn in fine-tuning into the initial conditions, you work from them and try to demonstrate that they were indeed fine-tuned?

Leroy

there is a difference between skepticism and disagreement, ..........so who are you?

the skeptic guy> are you the guy who doesn't know anything about John or his classmates and therefore you don't have enough information to judge weather if John is the best student or not (no burden proof required)

or

the guy who disagrees> the guy who thinks that there are good reasons to assert that there are better students that John? (burden proof required)

HWN

You should be able to tell that from my answer, the one you are responding to. You do love to ask questions that have already been answered. Perhaps you would not do that if you worked on your reading comprehension. I am the first guy.

Well if you are the first guy, then do some research on the topic, look for arguments for and against design, and after you do that please let us know if you disagree with this statement or not

statement> design is the best explanation of FT that has ever been proposed

If you do your research and conclude that the statement is wrong, that would imply that you have a better explanation in mind.

:lol:

You have not demonstrated that our universe has fine-tuning. You cannot even ask the question correctly.

:lol:

Beyond that, I have already pointed out my reasons why I believe fine-tuning is the worst argument for theism. Why do you keep asking question that have already been answered? Thus far, all I have needed to demonstrate that in this discussion with you is my first argument.

leroy

yes, and even more important, I what to know why you agree or disagree........

hwn

No, because of the second point of my argument.

yes granted, evolution is also a posible source of FT, something can be FT because of evolution, however we do have good reasons to reject evolution and we do not have any good reasons to reject design.

:lol:

We have no good reasons to reject evolution and no reason to consider design in the first place. Stop trying to pretend that design is on the same plain as biology.

with evolution you might mean>


1 that the cosmos evolved, by some selective mechanism that created a bias to create FT universes (something like this http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection_(fecund_universes) for example

or

2 that life evolved to adapt in the cosmos

both are posible explanations, but in both cases I think there are good reasons to reject them

:facepalm:

I do not mean the first one, and I also do not know why you would think that after the years you have been on this forum. Beyond that, what you think is irrelevant to this discussion. You have tried and failed for years to demonstrate flaws in evolutionary theory throughout this forum. It has brought me no end of amusement to laugh at your inept handling of it every time.

just 2 questions
are you suggesting that evolution is a better explanation than design? this is a yes or no question

Obviously yes. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

which one of the 2 evolutions are you supporting? in your argument you seem to support number 2, but I just what to be sure.

:docpalm:

You honestly do not have to keep demonstrating your lack of understanding of evolution. We already know that you have a biases that does not allow you to understand it.

leroy wrote:
BTW, I am not claiming that FT always implies design, I am saying that it usually implies design..

Than, by your own admission, even if you could show that the universe as we know it was fine-tuned, you would have no way to show that it was designed. You just keep doing a fantastic job destroying your own argument.

granted, the FT of the universes is an uncontroversial fact, as I told you earlier, most scientists accept that the universe is FT,

the controversy rest on what is the best explanation for FT,

:facepalm:

You never demonstrated that, please stop repeating this falsehood. Beyond that, all you have done is point to the initial conditions of our universe and claimed them as fine-tuned. You even admitted that you could not demonstrate that to be the case.

Again, if you think this is a point in your favor, than you should really start to question your position

The fact that your god is on the same level as fairies should be all one needs to know about your arguments and your god

the thing is that you really think that you are making a grate point with your farriers, as I told you earlier the FT argument does not aspire to prove that my God is the fine tuner, the argument aspires to show what it was designed by any intelligent designer,

weather if the designer is God, Aliens,, or farriers is relevant for an other discussion where I would provide evidence that excludes Aliens and farriers

Yet, you have already admitted that you cannot demonstrate our universe is fine-tuned. Thus, what does that say about your god?

he_who_is_nobody
Do you honestly believe this is a point in your favor? Beyond that, do you not see the world of difference between a science journal and a philosophy/history journal? This statement alone says more about you than I ever could

well this quote also says much about you, ..... you reject an article by default just because it is published in a philosophical journal, ...

Yes! We are dealing with science. Why would you think a philosophy journal would be appropriate in that context?

They all did. Work on your reading comprehension. Beyond that, your solving of the BBP was GodDidIt. You know that is not an actual answer, right

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: well if your atheist friends solve the BBP, then they should be very busy working in a research article that solves a problem that no one has ever solved, maybe they can even win a novel price with their article..........well that explains why they abandoned the conversation, they are simply to busy working in their article.

That, or they just became tired of repeating themselves. You do have a habit of asking questions that have already been answered.

No God did it is not my solution..........my solution is chance didn't done it. the BBP only applies if you adopt a chance hypothesis, so you have to alternatives, ether solve the BBP or adopt a none chance hypothesis (design and evolution are examples of non chance hypothesis)

Thus, as I said, you solved it with GodDidIT.

Beyond that, Nesslig20 never argued for chance. I cannot remember (and I cannot be bothered to look back) but I am not sure what the other two were arguing for. If that is all it takes to defeat the BBP, than by your own addition Nesslig20 also defeated it.

leroy wrote:
but even more important, they where unable to proof that the universe could have been different (as predicted by the multiverse) so by your standards (not mine) this is sufficient reason to reject the multiverse hypothesis, ............using your own standards there are good reasons to reject the multiverse hypothesis therefore you agree with this statement.

I never claimed to be a devotee to the multiverse. Not sure why you think this is a big deal. In fact, Nesslig20 went out of his way to say he was not arguing for the multiverse either. Perhaps, work on your reading comprehension?

As it is usually the case with you, your answer has nothing to do with my comment,

Yes it does. Since Nesslig20 and I never argued for the multiverse, than you are right that we both already rejected it. Why you think you pointing it out is a big deal is beyond me. Work on your reading comprehension.

the point that I was making is that the multiverse hypothesis presupposes that things like the initial conditions of the universe could have been different, since none of your atheist friends proved that things could have been different, then by your own standards the multiverse hypothesis has to be rejected by default, until they prove that things could have been different. So even by your own standards and even if we ignore the BBP, your atheist friends failed.

Seeing as how Nesslig20 never argued for the multiverse, how could he fail?

See how my above comment was relevant to your comment? How about instead of inventing Nesslig20's position out of straw, you be honest for once and admit that he never argued for the multiverse.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just to address something from the above post:

No God did it is not my solution..........my solution is chance didn't done it

If neither a deity or chance is the cause, then what caused FT?

Claiming that the universe is fine-tuned for life implies that hosting life is its purpose when all is said and done

Trying to claim that it's not its only purpose denies the whole point of the fine tuning argument as you use it..

arguing that the universe is FT for life, does not imply that hosting life is the only purpose of the universe. I challenge you to quote any theits who has ever claimed otherwise, I challenge you to look for the definition of FT in any source that you consider reliable and quote anywhere where its says that FT implies that hosting life is the only purpose.

The fact that it's called the "Fine-Tuned (for Life)" argument means that that is the purpose of the universe.

What other purpose is argued for by this argument? None!

Quote any source you care to use where the FT argument implies/states that it's not the only purpose of the universe.

I don't believe I'm a BB - that''s what you claim I believe I am.

to be a BB is an implication of your world view, so ether change your world view or accept the implications of such view.

That is simply not the case.

Our universe could be one where BBs don't exist.

BTW why are having such an immature and condescending attitude ? I presented solid evidence against the multiverse hypothesis, so why don't you deal with my argument instad of acting like a 10yo.

I'm not - you haven't presented "solid evidence".

The fact that I reject your attempts to defend the FT argument doesn't mean I have a "immature and condescending attitude" - nor that I'm "acting like a 10yo".

You're still assuming a false dichotomy between being a BB and a multiverse - the latter is just one of the many possible undesigned explanations. And the BBP doesn't disprove it, since there's no evidence that BBs exist.

if the multiverse hypothesis is true, then there would be evidence for BB and there would be evidence that you are a BB.........the BBP is an implication of the multiverse hypothesis, if you what to escape the BBP all you have to do is drop the multiverse hypothesis. and select a different world view.

As I've explained, our universe could be one that doesn't have BBs - therefore, there'd be no "evidence for BB".

The BBP is a poor argument against the multiverse because it's a chance hypothesis.

If it's only usually - by man - then this does not necessitate design when we see order in Nature.

Examples have already been given elsewhere - such as snowflakes.

I think snowflakes is not a good example, but I can grant your point, the FT could have been caused by nature, there are many naturalistic hypothesis on the table, so feel free to select your favorite and then explain why is that hypothesis better than design.

Given that you acknowledge that FT could have been caused by Nature, you should realize that any naturalistic explanation for FT is more parsimonious than a non-natural one.

Here are further reasons why the FTA fails.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

We know that the force of attraction depends on the force of gravity (the stronger the force of gravity the stronger the attraction)

we know that if gravity is too strong, and the space too small, all matter would be attracted in a small point creating a black whole.

we knw that the universe was small in the past (when it was just a few seconds old)

we know that stars, planets, molecules etc. can not exist inside a black hole

we know that life as we know it, can not exist if stars, planets, molecules don't exist.

Yes. I agree with the initial conditions. How many times do I have to say that?

As I told you before, I have no idea what you mean by initial conditions, you haven't explained the difference between initial conditions and FT. besides some of those statements (that you seem to grant) are counterfactuals.............so which one is it? are all counterfactuals necessary fallacious or not?.........


should we add this to the list of your contradictions?

First you said that CF are necessary fallacious

But sometimes you seem to grant statements that are based on CF.

but the fact is that accepting those statements implies acceting FT.........agree?

this is the definition of FT

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.[1][2][3][4] The possible explanations for fine-tuning are discussed among philosophers, scientists, theologians, and proponents and detractors of creationism. The fine-tuned Universe observation is closely related to, but is not exactly synonymous with, the anthropic principle, which is often used as an explanation of the observation.

So what am I missing if this statements don't imply FT

We know that the force of attraction depends on the force of gravity (the stronger the force of gravity the stronger the attraction)

we know that if gravity is too strong, and the space too small, all matter would be attracted in a small point creating a black whole.

we knw that the universe was small in the past (when it was just a few seconds old)

we know that stars, planets, molecules etc. can not exist inside a black hole

we know that life as we know it, can not exist if stars, planets, molecules don't exist

what else am I missing?

 

[leroy]

The BBP is a poor argument against the multiverse because it's a chance hypothesis.

[

You don't seem to understand the BBP.........


In a multiverse scenario

Of all the observers that exist in the multiverse, and that observe themselves in a universe with low entropy, the vast majority of this observers live in a universe with higher entropy and imagine themselves living in a universe with low entropy. (a BB for example)

the paradox is that if you observe yourself living in a universe with low entropy, you most conclude that this observations are illusory, just part of your imagination becase it would be the most probable scenario.

Eventhough it is possible to live in a universe with low entropy just by chance it is also possible (and vastly more probable) to imagine a universe with low entropy while you live in a universe with high entropy.


an analogy.
If you observe yourself walking through a solid wall, it would be obvious that you are in a dream, even though it is possible to walk trough a solid wall just by chance, it is vastly more probable to have a dream where you walked through a door.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The BBP is a poor argument against the multiverse because it's a chance hypothesis.

You don't seem to understand the BBP.........

In a multiverse scenario

Of all the observers that exist in the multiverse, and that observe themselves in a universe with low entropy, the vast majority of this observers live in a universe with higher entropy and imagine themselves living in a universe with low entropy. (a BB for example)

the paradox is that if you observe yourself living in a universe with low entropy, you most conclude that this observations are illusory, just part of your imagination becase it would be the most probable scenario.

Eventhough it is possible to live in a universe with low entropy just by chance it is also possible (and vastly more probable) to imagine a universe with low entropy while you live in a universe with high entropy.


an analogy.
If you observe yourself walking through a solid wall, it would be obvious that you are in a dream, even though it is possible to walk trough a solid wall just by chance, it is vastly more probable to have a dream where you walked through a door.

And you don't seem to understand the implications of probabilities associated with the multiverse.

The multiverse and BBs are both chance hypothesies.

Further, by the law of averages, half of the universes in a multiverse will support BBs, the other half won't.

Hence, the BBP does not debunk the multiverse.

Understand?

I note that you haven't addressed the rest of the post - may I take it that you acquiesce to what I said?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

.

The multiverse and BBs are both chance hypothesies.

Further, by the law of averages, half of the universes in a multiverse will support BBs, the other half won't.

Hence, the BBP does not debunk the multiverse.

Understand?

I note that you haven't addressed the rest of the post - may I take it that you acquiesce to what I said?

Kindest regards,

James

A However it is still true that there are universes with observers that live in a universe with relativly high entropy


B It is true that some of this observers would be imagining themselves living in a universe with low entropy

C It is true that these observers are more abundant than observers that really live in a universe with low entropy.

therefore if you observe yourself living in a universe with low entropy, chances say that this observation is an illusion.


Or lets put it this way.

the fact is that you observe yourself living in a universe with low entropy.....agree?

....there are at least 2 explanations for this fact.

1 you observe a universe with low entropy, because the entropy is low

2 you observe a universe with low entropy, because you are imagining it.

given that 2 is more probable than 1 you most conclude that 2 is true.



so even if I grant everything you said, you haven't donde anything to disprove this conclusion.


And I honestly did my best effort to explain the BBP, if you fail to understand it, then ether you are very stupid and cant understand something very simple, or I am very bad in explaining stuff, in ether case I see no point in repeating the same thing over and over again.

Given that you acknowledge that FT could have been caused by Nature, you should realize that any naturalistic explanation for FT is more parsimonious than a non-natural one.

So what? parsimony is not the only nor even the most important criteria to determine the best explanation.


BB is by far the most parsimonious explanation of all, so once again according to YOUR criteria you should conclude that you are a BB

 

[Dragan Glas]

.

The multiverse and BBs are both chance hypothesies.

Further, by the law of averages, half of the universes in a multiverse will support BBs, the other half won't.

Hence, the BBP does not debunk the multiverse.

Understand?

I note that you haven't addressed the rest of the post - may I take it that you acquiesce to what I said?

Kindest regards,

James

A However it is still true that there are universes with observers that live in a universe with relativly high entropy


B It is true that some of this observers would be imagining themselves living in a universe with low entropy

C It is true that these observers are more abundant than observers that really live in a universe with low entropy.

therefore if you observe yourself living in a universe with low entropy, chances say that this observation is an illusion.


Or lets put it this way.

the fact is that you observe yourself living in a universe with low entropy.....agree?

....there are at least 2 explanations for this fact.

1 you observe a universe with low entropy, because the entropy is low

2 you observe a universe with low entropy, because you are imagining it.

given that 2 is more probable than 1 you most conclude that 2 is true.



so even if I grant everything you said, you haven't donde anything to disprove this conclusion.


And I honestly did my best effort to explain the BBP, if you fail to understand it, then ether you are very stupid and cant understand something very simple, or I am very bad in explaining stuff, in ether case I see no point in repeating the same thing over and over again.

Given that you acknowledge that FT could have been caused by Nature, you should realize that any naturalistic explanation for FT is more parsimonious than a non-natural one.

So what? parsimony is not the only nor even the most important criteria to determine the best explanation.


BB is by far the most parsimonious explanation of all, so once again according to YOUR criteria you should conclude that you are a BB

If that's the case, then your claims for FT, God, etc, are equally spurious.

You've ignored everything else I've said, and focused only on the BB comment.

Just to recap the points you've ignored:

1) If neither a deity or chance is the cause, then what caused FT?

2) The fact that it's called the "Fine-Tuned (for Life)" argument means that that is the purpose of the universe.

What other purpose is argued for by this argument? None!

Quote any source you care to use where the FT argument implies/states that it's not the only purpose of the universe.

3) The most parsimonious explanation is the best explanation - other criteria don't change this fact.

4) Here are further reasons why the FTA fails.

Are you going to address any of these or will you continue to ignore them in the hope that they'll go away?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

leroy[/url]"]we ve been here before...................Why don't you simply write a small conclusion and I will write mine and end with this conversation, none of us has anything new to add.

Oh well.

Yes. I agree with the initial conditions. How many times do I have to say that?

As I told you before, I have no idea what you mean by initial conditions, you haven't explained the difference between initial conditions and FT. besides some of those statements (that you seem to grant) are counterfactuals.............so which one is it? are all counterfactuals necessary fallacious or not?.........

:facepalm:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Basically, I have been using initial conditions to reference what is believed to be what our universe was like at its beginning. It is not a formal definition. Fine-tuning, as we finally agreed, is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood. Thus, I would say the difference is that you believe that you know why the initial conditions of our universe were the way they were, whereas I do not. That also means, that if you know why they were the way they were you should have evidence for that claim.

What a surprise, you are not reading my post, and you wonder why I do not bother wasting my time to quote things for you.

None of those are counterfactuals. All you are doing is listing what the beginning of our universe was like. I grant those observations because they are facts. What is the counterfactual is that you believe those initial conditions can be different. Tis a difference between simply listing our observations and acting as if those observation could be different. You have not demonstrated this to be the case and admitted that you cannot.

should we add this to the list of your contradictions?

:lol:

You mean the list that turned out not to be contradictions, just misunderstandings?

:lol:

First you said that CF are necessary fallacious

They are.

But sometimes you seem to grant statements that are based on CF.

No I have not. You listing off the initial conditions of our universe and me agreeing with them is not me agreeing with counterfactuals That is me just agreeing with observed facts.

but the fact is that accepting those statements implies acceting FT.........agree?

No it does not. In order for that, you would need to demonstrate that the initial conditions of our universe could be different, and that we exist in the the best of those difference conditions. I can list off the facts of the rocks I have sitting on my desk all day long, yet nothing about that would show that they are fine-tuned for anything. This is exactly where you are failing. Now stop listing facts that we agree with and start demonstrating tht those facts are meaningful for what you are trying to prove.

this is the definition of FT

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.[1][2][3][4] The possible explanations for fine-tuning are discussed among philosophers, scientists, theologians, and proponents and detractors of creationism. The fine-tuned Universe observation is closely related to, but is not exactly synonymous with, the anthropic principle, which is often used as an explanation of the observation.

So what am I missing if this statements don't imply FT

You are missing the demonstration that any of those observations you keep listing are "within a very narrow range" and if "only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to" lead to the development of life. Heck, I would be fine if you could demonstrate that those initial conditions you keep pointing to could be different. Until you are able to make those demonstrations, listing those observations is moot. If only you would read my post, you would already know this.

We know that the force of attraction depends on the force of gravity (the stronger the force of gravity the stronger the attraction)

we know that if gravity is too strong, and the space too small, all matter would be attracted in a small point creating a black whole.

we knw that the universe was small in the past (when it was just a few seconds old)

we know that stars, planets, molecules etc. can not exist inside a black hole

we know that life as we know it, can not exist if stars, planets, molecules don't exist

what else am I missing?

A demonstration that any of those could be different, that those difference amount to anything differences that we would observe today, and out of those differences, what we observe is the best they can be.

I have been asking this same question for months now, yet you keep wanting to retread this topic even after admitting that you cannot demonstrate this.

 

[leroy]

[If that's the case, then your claims for FT, God, etc, are equally spurious.

You've ignored everything else I've said, and focused only on the BB comment.

Just to recap the points you've ignored:

1) If neither a deity or chance is the cause, then what caused FT?

2) The fact that it's called the "Fine-Tuned (for Life)" argument means that that is the purpose of the universe.

What other purpose is argued for by this argument? None!

Quote any source you care to use where the FT argument implies/states that it's not the only purpose of the universe.

3) The most parsimonious explanation is the best explanation - other criteria don't change this fact.

4) Here are further reasons why the FTA fails.

Are you going to address any of these or will you continue to ignore them in the hope that they'll go away?

Kindest regards,

James

well because I honestly don't understand why is any of those points is relevant. even if I don't answer of even if my answer happen to be wrong or fallacious, it is still a fact that the multiverse explanation, leads to the fact that you are almost certainly a BB, so ether drop the multiverse hypothesis or admit that you are a BB................Which of these 2 options do you prefer.


well once again I will fall in to your red hearings and answer your questions, even though we both know that none of the questions is relevant.

1) If neither a deity or chance is the cause, then what caused FT?

some would argue for physical necessity

comical natural selection (http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection_(fecund_universes) inflation are explanations and potencial solutions that have been discussed in the literature

other would argue that the FT of the universe is "illusory"

.............but none of us is defending any of those explanations, so why are they relevant?

2) The fact that it's called the "Fine-Tuned (for Life)" argument means that that is the purpose of the universe.

What other purpose is argued for by this argument? None!

maybe it has other purposes, maybe it doesn't, why is relevant?............I can grant that we don't need millions of stars and galaxies to support life, 1 solar system with 1 planet is enough to support life.


the question ...why god created so many stars and galaxies if he only needs 1 to support life can be left as an open question,
maybe other Aliens need all these galaxies and stars

maybe we will need them in the future

maybe God is simply an artist that did it because they look nice

or maybe he was just making fun of atheist and the multiverse hypothesis, a universe with 1 star and 1 planet would be relatively easy explain compared to our universe with millions of stars and galaxies.

but once again, why is this relevant.?

3) The most parsimonious explanation is the best explanation - other criteria don't change this fact.

well for example, I would argue that a parsimonious explanation that has been falsified is worst that an unparsimonius explanation that has not been falsified. ...............And I bet that even your atheist friends would agree with me on this point.

but as I said earlier, the BB is the most parsimonius explanation of all, so by your logic you most conclude that you are a BB.

4) Here are further reasons why the FTA fails.

after you admit that you are a BB, solve the BBP or drop the multiverse hypothesis, we could discuss any of the points argued in the article, besides there is nothing in the article that suggests (let alone prove) that the multiverse hypothesis is better than design,......so why is this relevant.

Are you going to address any of these or will you continue to ignore them in the hope that they'll go away?

well our conversation started with you saying /implying that the multiverse hypothesis is a better explanation for FT than design. You are suppose to prove that claim,..... Why wouldn't I ignore anything that is unrelated to that statement?......................as I said before it doesn't matter how I answer to those questions, it doesn't matter if you prove me wrong in any of those questions, none of that helps to prove your point.

 

[leroy]

No it does not. In order for that, you would need to demonstrate that the initial conditions of our universe could be different, and that we exist in the the best of those difference conditions. I can list off the facts of the rocks I have sitting on my desk all day long, yet nothing about that would show that they are fine-tuned for anything. This is exactly where you are failing. Now stop listing facts that we agree with and start demonstrating tht those facts are meaningful for what you are trying to prove.

REEEEEEEEEEEED carefully.....

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.[1][2][3][4] The possible explanations for fine-tuning are discussed among philosophers, scientists, theologians, and proponents and detractors of creationism. The fine-tuned Universe observation is closely related to, but is not exactly synonymous with, the anthropic principle, which is often used as an explanation of the observation.

no where in the definition of FT does it say nor implies that things cant be FT if they "could have not been different." ..........wether if things could have been different or not is irrelevant, something can be FT regardless if it could have been different or not. "could have been different" is not part of the definition of FT.

you have no idea what FT is, and I bet that you haven't even read the definition that you yourself quoted like 20 times in the past.

leroy wrote:
First you said that CF are necessary fallacious

hwn

They are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional

.

well then prove it............no where in your source does it say, (let alone prove) that CF are necessarily fallacious. ...........in fact the exact opposite is true, the article is mainly on all the practical applications that CF have in different areas like science, philosophy, economics, marketing etc.

counterfactual conditional (abbreviated CF), is a conditional containing an if-clause which is contrary to fact. The term counterfactual was coined by Nelson Goodman in 1947,[1] extending Roderick Chisholm's (1946) notion of a "contrary-to-fact conditional".[2] The study of counterfactual speculation has increasingly engaged the interest of scholars in a wide range of domains such as philosophy,[3] psychology,[4] cognitive psychology,[5] history,[6] political science,[7] economics,[8] social psychology,[9] law,[10] organizational theory,[11] marketing,[12] and epidemiology.[13

leroy

But sometimes you seem to grant statements that are based on CF.

hwn

No I have not. You listing off the initial conditions of our universe and me agreeing with them is not me agreeing with counterfactuals That is me just agreeing with observed facts

yes you did....

some of this statements (those in red) are based on CF and you already accepted them

We know that the force of attraction depends on the force of gravity (the stronger the force of gravity the stronger the attraction)

we know that if gravity is too strong, and the space too small, all matter would be attracted in a small point creating a black whole.

we know that the universe was small in the past (when it was just a few seconds old)

we know that stars, planets, molecules etc. can not exist inside a black hole

we know that life as we know it, can not exist if stars, planets, molecules don't exist

the problem is that you have no idea what a CF is, reed your own sources the wiki article explains everything you need to know about CF.


I really don't have nothing else to add.

you say that this source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional proves that Counter factuals are necessarily fallacious, I say that it doesn't, any observer is free to look at the source and decide who is correct.




you say that Fine Tuning as defined here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe) implies that things cant be FT if they could have not been different, I disagree, any observer can reed the definition and decide if FT implies that things could have been different.


I find it funny, because even the definition itself, implies that FT is a property of the universe that we can observe. the definition grants that the universe is FT.

The fine-tuned Universe observation is closely related to, but is not exactly synonymous with, the anthropic principle, which is often used as an explanation of the observation.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

[If that's the case, then your claims for FT, God, etc, are equally spurious.

You've ignored everything else I've said, and focused only on the BB comment.

Just to recap the points you've ignored:

1) If neither a deity or chance is the cause, then what caused FT?

2) The fact that it's called the "Fine-Tuned (for Life)" argument means that that is the purpose of the universe.

What other purpose is argued for by this argument? None!

Quote any source you care to use where the FT argument implies/states that it's not the only purpose of the universe.

3) The most parsimonious explanation is the best explanation - other criteria don't change this fact.

4) Here are further reasons why the FTA fails.

Are you going to address any of these or will you continue to ignore them in the hope that they'll go away?

Kindest regards,

James

well because I honestly don't understand why is any of those points is relevant.

They are relevant to the validity of the FTA, which is what this thread is about.

even if I don't answer of even if my answer happen to be wrong or fallacious, it is still a fact that the multiverse explanation, leads to the fact that you are almost certainly a BB, so ether drop the multiverse hypothesis or admit that you are a BB................Which of these 2 options do you prefer.

You keep turning everything into an either/or - it's not a choice between these two.

As I keep explaining to you, our universe can be one of the many in which BBs don't exist. If you want to claim that BBs exist in our universe or I'm a BB, it's for you to provide evidence.

well once again I will fall in to your red hearings and answer your questions, even though we both know that none of the questions is relevant.

As I've said, they're relevant to the FTA, which is what this thread is about.

1) If neither a deity or chance is the cause, then what caused FT?

some would argue for physical necessity

comical natural selection (http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection_(fecund_universes) inflation are explanations and potencial solutions that have been discussed in the literature

other would argue that the FT of the universe is "illusory"

.............but none of us is defending any of those explanations, so why are they relevant?

If no-one is defending any of these - a deity, chance, physical necessity, or illusion - why are we all discussing this topic?

2) The fact that it's called the "Fine-Tuned (for Life)" argument means that that is the purpose of the universe.

What other purpose is argued for by this argument? None!

maybe it has other purposes, maybe it doesn't, why is relevant?

Because you attempted to shift the burden-of-proof by demanding that I show that the FTA doesn't say otherwise, and I asked you to show that the FTA says there are other purposes than being fine-tuned for Life.

You now indicate that you can't show that it does state that it has other purposes than being fine-tuned for Life.

It doesn't have any other stated purpose than being fine-tuned for Life.

............I can grant that we don't need millions of stars and galaxies to support life, 1 solar system with 1 planet is enough to support life.

the question ...why god created so many stars and galaxies if he only needs 1 to support life can be left as an open question,
maybe other Aliens need all these galaxies and stars

maybe we will need them in the future

maybe God is simply an artist that did it because they look nice

or maybe he was just making fun of atheist and the multiverse hypothesis, a universe with 1 star and 1 planet would be relatively easy explain compared to our universe with millions of stars and galaxies.

Naturalistic explanations are simpler because we don't have to explain deities as well as the universe.

And you've confirmed that you are arguing for something - the Christian God.

You have several problems:

1) You first have to show that deities of any description can exist;
2) Having accomplished the above, you then have to show that your deity/deities exist to the exclusion of all others;
3) Having accomplished both of the above, you then have to show that said deity/deities have anything to do with the physical universe.

but once again, why is this relevant.?

Again, because the topic is about the FTA, and the questions are relevant to it.

3) The most parsimonious explanation is the best explanation - other criteria don't change this fact.

well for example, I would argue that a parsimonious explanation that has been falsified is worst that an unparsimonius explanation that has not been falsified. ...............And I bet that even your atheist friends would agree with me on this point.

but as I said earlier, the BB is the most parsimonius explanation of all, so by your logic you most conclude that you are a BB.

And so must you be, which renders your claims as spurious as mine.

4) Here are further reasons why the FTA fails.

after you admit that you are a BB, solve the BBP or drop the multiverse hypothesis, we could discuss any of the points argued in the article, besides there is nothing in the article that suggests (let alone prove) that the multiverse hypothesis is better than design,......so why is this relevant.

You mean you refuse to discuss the topic at hand - the FTA - unless I choose between a false dichotomy.

The article is not discussing the multiverse - it's about the subject of this topic: why the FTA is a bad theistic argument.

That's why it's relevant.

Are you going to address any of these or will you continue to ignore them in the hope that they'll go away?

well our conversation started with you saying /implying that the multiverse hypothesis is a better explanation for FT than design. You are suppose to prove that claim,..... Why wouldn't I ignore anything that is unrelated to that statement?......................as I said before it doesn't matter how I answer to those questions, it doesn't matter if you prove me wrong in any of those questions, none of that helps to prove your point.

The multiverse, like all naturalistic explanations, is a better explanation than any supernatural one - as I've explained before.

The fact that all you can do is raise a paradox, which also renders your claims to FT being due to God null and void, does not get you anywhere.

Your being wrong renders your explanation for FT - God - null and void.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

leroy[/url]"]we ve been here before...................Why don't you simply write a small conclusion and I will write mine and end with this conversation, none of us has anything new to add.

Oh well.

No it does not. In order for that, you would need to demonstrate that the initial conditions of our universe could be different, and that we exist in the the best of those difference conditions. I can list off the facts of the rocks I have sitting on my desk all day long, yet nothing about that would show that they are fine-tuned for anything. This is exactly where you are failing. Now stop listing facts that we agree with and start demonstrating tht those facts are meaningful for what you are trying to prove.

REEEEEEEEEEEED carefully.....

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.[1][2][3][4] The possible explanations for fine-tuning are discussed among philosophers, scientists, theologians, and proponents and detractors of creationism. The fine-tuned Universe observation is closely related to, but is not exactly synonymous with, the anthropic principle, which is often used as an explanation of the observation.

no where in the definition of FT does it say nor implies that things cant be FT if they "could have not been different." ..........wether if things could have been different or not is irrelevant, something can be FT regardless if it could have been different or not. "could have been different" is not part of the definition of FT.

:facepalm:

As I already said, and you ignored,

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]You are missing the demonstration that any of those observations you keep listing are "within a very narrow range" and if "only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to" lead to the development of life. Heck, I would be fine if you could demonstrate that those initial conditions you keep pointing to could be different. Until you are able to make those demonstrations, listing those observations is moot. If only you would read my post, you would already know this.

If things are in a "very narrow range" and it says if things were "only slightly different", than it is implying that things could have been different. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

you have no idea what FT is, and I bet that you haven't even read the definition that you yourself quoted like 20 times in the past.

:lol:

leroy wrote:
First you said that CF are necessary fallacious

hwn

They are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional

.

well then prove it............no where in your source does it say, (let alone prove) that CF are necessarily fallacious. ...........in fact the exact opposite is true, the article is mainly on all the practical applications that CF have in different areas like science, philosophy, economics, marketing etc.

counterfactual conditional (abbreviated CF), is a conditional containing an if-clause which is contrary to fact. The term counterfactual was coined by Nelson Goodman in 1947,[1] extending Roderick Chisholm's (1946) notion of a "contrary-to-fact conditional".[2] The study of counterfactual speculation has increasingly engaged the interest of scholars in a wide range of domains such as philosophy,[3] psychology,[4] cognitive psychology,[5] history,[6] political science,[7] economics,[8] social psychology,[9] law,[10] organizational theory,[11] marketing,[12] and epidemiology.[13

I already have. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy

But sometimes you seem to grant statements that are based on CF.

hwn

No I have not. You listing off the initial conditions of our universe and me agreeing with them is not me agreeing with counterfactuals That is me just agreeing with observed facts

yes you did....

some of this statements (those in red) are based on CF and you already accepted them

We know that the force of attraction depends on the force of gravity (the stronger the force of gravity the stronger the attraction)

we know that if gravity is too strong, and the space too small, all matter would be attracted in a small point creating a black whole.

we know that the universe was small in the past (when it was just a few seconds old)

we know that stars, planets, molecules etc. can not exist inside a black hole

we know that life as we know it, can not exist if stars, planets, molecules don't exist

the problem is that you have no idea what a CF is, reed your own sources the wiki article explains everything you need to know about CF.

:facepalm:

What you highlighted in red is not a counterfactual. Yet you accused me of not know anything about counterfactuals, even though you had never heard that term before his conversation started. This is just sad.

I really don't have nothing else to add.

To bad that will not stop you from mindlessly responding to me.

you say that this source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional proves that Counter factuals are necessarily fallacious, I say that it doesn't, any observer is free to look at the source and decide who is correct.

It does. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

you say that Fine Tuning as defined here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe) implies that things cant be FT if they could have not been different, I disagree, any observer can reed the definition and decide if FT implies that things could have been different.

It does. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

I find it funny, because even the definition itself, implies that FT is a property of the universe that we can observe. the definition grants that the universe is FT.

The fine-tuned Universe observation is closely related to, but is not exactly synonymous with, the anthropic principle, which is often used as an explanation of the observation.

:docpalm:

That is not part of the definition. The definition is everything that appears before the four citations. How pathetic can one get?

 

[leroy]

HWN

I already have. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

Well, I guess my only alternative is to help hackenslash with his new project where he tries corrects atheist.

Some atheistic arguments, or responses, are in fact stupid and silly. I have no compunction agreeing to that. I'm an atheist yet it is entirely obvious to me that some atheists are atheists for bad reasons, or have no, or bad answers to some theistic arguments. In becoming an atheist, one does not magically transform into some sort of flawless logic-computer that only make correct arguments.

This.

In fact, these days, I spend far more effort in correcting these bad arguments than I do arguing with theists.

so hackenslash, can you please reed this source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional) and explain to HWN that no where in the source does it say that (ley alone prove) that counterfactuals are necessarily fallacious?

And please Hackenslash, can you please reed this definition of fine tuned and explain to HWN that atleast according to that definition something could be FT even if it could have not been any different?

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood

hwn

If things are in a "very narrow range" and it says if things were "only slightly different", than it is implying that things could have been different. Again, work on your reading comprehension

wrong, for example, as long as you grant that there are "possible worlds" where the force of gravity is slightly different, causing a universe without stars, it could be said that gravity is FT for the existence of stars.

please read your own source about counterfactuals, and reed the paragraphs about possible world semantics, honestly please do it and understand it,, because I have a feeling that you will reply with a straw man.


keep in mind
you already agreed that calculators are fine tuned.........well pretend that this calculator was created by a robot that was programed to create calculators and could have not done anything different but that calculator................would you say that this calculator is not FT?


the answer is NO, because "could have been different" is not a necessary atribute for something that is FT. wether if a calculator is FT or not, is independent to wether if it could have been different or not...............

or to put it this way, calculators would be FT even if determinism where true, and the brain of the calculator designers are deterministic, in such a way that it would be impossible to have something different form that calculator

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

hwn

If things are in a "very narrow range" and it says if things were "only slightly different", than it is implying that things could have been different. Again, work on your reading comprehension

wrong, for example, as long as you grant that there are "possible worlds" where the force of gravity is slightly different, causing a universe without stars, it could be said that gravity is FT for the existence of stars.

[emphasis added

:lol:

So I am wrong even though you agree that one first needs to grant that if things were different things would be different? This is just two rich.

:lol:

Just for the record, I do not grant that. You have not shown any reason why one should grant that. If I granted that, that would mean that I would already agree that things could be different; which would be going against the whole point of my objection.

please read your own source about counterfactuals, and reed the paragraphs about possible world semantics, honestly please do it and understand it,, because I have a feeling that you will reply with a straw man.

I have read it. It supports what I say. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

keep in mind
you already agreed that calculators are fine tuned.........well pretend that this calculator was created by a robot that was programed to create calculators and could have not done anything different but that calculator................would you say that this calculator is not FT?

Not the point of my argument, and I love how you use a counterfactual as an example. The matter that ended up making that calculator could have ended up making anything, calculator or not. Again, you need to demonstrate that our universe could have been different, otherwise, your enumerating of the initial conditions is moot. The reason we know the calculator is fine-tuned is because we can compare it to things that are not fine-tuned.

the answer is NO, because "could have been different" is not a necessary atribute for something that is FT. wether if a calculator is FT or not, is independent to wether if it could have been different or not...............

Wrong, as I explained above.

 

[leroy]

You keep turning everything into an either/or - it's not a choice between these two

As I keep explaining to you, our universe can be one of the many in which BBs don't exist. If you want to claim that BBs exist in our universe or I'm a BB, it's for you to provide evidence..

Yes according to multiverse hypothesis, our universe could be a universe where observers are not BB. ......but our universe could also be a BB, both scenarios predict to have the same observations and the same evidence, but given that the later is more probably true (in a multiverse scenario) you are suppose to conclude that you are a BB and that your observations of a FT universe with low entropy are just part of your imagination.

so yes, you do have only 2 options
1 drop the multiverse hyp[othesis

2 Conclude that you are a BB

As I've said, they're relevant to the FTA, which is what this thread is about.

Again, you made the claim that the multiverse hypothesis is a better explanation than design.....and I claimed the opposite,....agree?

any question that is not related to that claim and that particular point is just a red hearing, so please stop asking question that are not related to that.


you are suppose to prove that multiverse is better than design, I am suppose to prove that design is better than multiverse, as simple as that....



so far my only assumption is that a falsified hypothesis is better than a hypothesis that has not been falsified, even it the later is les parsimonious. Given that the BB falsifies the multiverse

The multiverse, like all naturalistic explanations, is a better explanation than any supernatural one - as I've explained before.

well that is your philosophical assumption, and you haven't done anything to prove it, so why should I grant it?


I would argue that in some scenarios a supernatural hypothesis is better than a natural hypothesis.

, for example, I would argue that a supernatural hypothesis is better than a naturalistic hypothesis that has been falsified. and I am pretty sure most of your atheist friends. Would agree with me with this point.


If you are rejecting supernatural hypothesis by default, then what is the point for asking for evidence for such supernatural hypothesis? if you are not even open to the possibility of supernatural explanations, then what is the point of debating with a theist?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Supernaturalistic explanations are still-born.

Naturalistic explanations are the only game in town.

Given the above, how can a supernaturalistic explanation be better than a falsified naturalistic one? At least the latter was valid until falsified - the former, in contrast, is invalid from the start.

I, along with others here, are attempting to show you that you haven't a leg to stand on as a theist.

Your unwillingness to discuss questions directly relating to the topic - the FTA - is evidence of your inability to address them.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

Supernaturalistic explanations are still-born.

Naturalistic explanations are the only game in town.

Given the above, how can a supernaturalistic explanation be better than a falsified naturalistic one? At least the latter was valid until falsified - the former, in contrast, is invalid from the start.

I, along with others here, are attempting to show you that you haven't a leg to stand on as a theist.

Your unwillingness to discuss questions directly relating to the topic - the FTA - is evidence of your inability to address them.

Kindest regards,

James

Well if you reject supernatural explanations by default, then what is the point of having a conversation related to the evidence for God or any other supernatural entity? .......

besides that philosophical assumption carries a huge burden prove that you are not willing to carry, if you what to reject supernatural by default, you most prove that it is impossible for supernatural events to ocurre.........


just for the record, what exactly do you mean by supernatural?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Anything that isn't naturalistic in origin is, by definition, supernaturalistic. Clearly deities of any description, along with "miracles", fall into this category.

It's not for me to prove that supernatural events can't occur - it's for the one claiming they're possible to prove they're possible.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

Anything that isn't naturalistic in origin is, by definition, supernaturalistic. Clearly deities of any description, along with "miracles", fall into this category.

It's not for me to prove that supernatural events can't occur - it's for the one claiming they're possible to prove they're possible.

Kindest regards,

James

well this is just philosophy, but I would argue that everything should be assumed to be possible until proven otherwise, the guy who claims that it Is impossible for Aliens to exist, is the one who carries the burden. ...............and if I where to bet, I would say that you use this logic in other areas and topics, you are making an arbitrarily exception with God and supernatural agents.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Anything that isn't naturalistic in origin is, by definition, supernaturalistic. Clearly deities of any description, along with "miracles", fall into this category.

It's not for me to prove that supernatural events can't occur - it's for the one claiming they're possible to prove they're possible.

Kindest regards,

James

well this is just philosophy, but I would argue that everything should be assumed to be possible until proven otherwise, the guy who claims that it Is impossible for Aliens to exist, is the one who carries the burden. ...............and if I where to bet, I would say that you use this logic in other areas and topics, you are making an arbitrarily exception with God and supernatural agents.

There are things which are logically and/or physically impossible.

Therefore saying that "everything should be assumed to be possible until proven otherwise" is simply wrong.

Kindest regards,

James