The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

[thenexttodie]

..... 

I no longer respond to youtube videos on any forum.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Being consistent with observation(s) does not require being falsifiable - one can still come up with an explanation that's consistent with observations. String theory is a case in point - it's called a theory, not an hypothesis, even though we can't prove it's true. Other explanations may or may noThis is simply not the case.

The properties of the universe have not been "fine-tuned" - life is just the result of the properties of our universe.

Dragan Glas, I appreciate your ability to argue.

Did the terms "fine tuned" or fine tuning" originate from a creationist or was it from a secular scientist? It seems to me it was the latter.

No, it's a theistic argument - a variation of the argument from design and/or the teleological argument.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Nesslig20]

..... 

I no longer respond to youtube videos on any forum.

Nor did I ask you to respond. Ignore me all you like.

 

[thenexttodie]

No, it's a theistic argument - a variation of the argument from design and/or the teleological argument.

Kindest regards,

James

I am talking about the origin of just the phrase, not the argument. Because you seem to have a problem with me using the phase "fine tuning" even though it something even secular scientists have been trying to explain for the last 50 years. It's a commonly used term.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No, it's a theistic argument - a variation of the argument from design and/or the teleological argument.

Kindest regards,

James

I am talking about the origin of just the phrase, not the argument. Because you seem to have a problem with me using the phase "fine tuning" even though it something even secular scientists have been trying to explain for the last 50 years. It's a commonly used term.

Although the term existed in unrelated usage before the argument that bears its name, its use in regards to the argument is theistic. To my knowledge, scientists weren't using this term prior to the argument.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

Does anyone have any evidence for any claim made here in this thread?

 

[Nesslig20]

Does anyone have any evidence for any claim made here in this thread?

Well I did, but you didn't want to respond.

 

[thenexttodie]

Well I did, but you didn't want to respond.

I'll read it again and tell you what I think.

 

[thenexttodie]

My criticism of the fine tuning argument, when someone (Almost Atheist) put this forward.

Watch the video on youtube. Title of video is
"Atheist physicists proves God. Anthropic Principle fails

"

So basically the fine tuning argument.
It's funny since I send you a video "Intelligent Design: Crash course philosophy"

that addresses this argument before you presented it to me.
You could say that the argument was addressed before it was presented, however the video I send you talked about the
teleological argument in general aka argument from design.
Which includes "Paley's watchmaker analogy" and the argument from fine tuning, which goes like this:

The universe and it's properties (i.e. physical constants) are the only way that allows life to exists. If any these properties would be slightly different then the universe would be unable to support life. The odds of these properties occurring by random change is so remote that the most reasonable explanation is that the universe was finely tuned by God with the purpose of sustaining life.

There are many objections to the fine tuning argument I will list some important ones that make this argument one of the worst argument you could use to justify your belief in a deity.

I guess I have to start by pointing out that the fine tuning of the universe not only about the existence of life. It is about the existence of matter and the existence of the entire universe. Regardless of life.

In other words, it is not only about the existence of life but also the existence of basic elements, and how long they could exist(if at all) and the life span of the entire universe. It's not just about whether life can exist, more rather whether or not anything could exist at all.

Any scientist involved in studies which requires one to evaluate this can affirm this is true. It is a fact that these fine tuned properties exist.

I am surprised that you do not know this and I doubt I will find anything else worth comment in the rest of your post.

 

[Nesslig20]

I guess I have to start by pointing out that the fine tuning of the universe not only about the existence of life. It is about the existence of matter and the existence of the entire universe. Regardless of life.

Well I have looked up several sources on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
http://www.philosophytalk.org/community/blog/john-perry/2015/04/fine-tuning-argument-god

Even the ones arguing in its favor.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-fine-tuning-argument
http://www.discovery.org/a/91
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life/
http://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life

All of them says that the constants of the universe is fine tuned for life. I guess you should let those people give the memo.

In other words, it is not only about the existence of life but also the existence of basic elements, and how long they could exist(if at all) and the life span of the entire universe. It's not just about whether life can exist, more rather whether or not anything could exist at all.

That is not an argument of fine-tuning I am familiar with, but stil if so then your argument becomes circular.
If anything exists at all, it is fine tuned for its own existence, because it exists.

Any scientist involved in studies which requires one to evaluate this can affirm this is true. It is a fact that these fine tuned properties exist.

Fallacy: Argument by assertion
And blatantly false.
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html

I am surprised that you do not know this and I doubt I will find anything else worth comment in the rest of your post.

It isn't surprising since EVERY source on the fine tuning argument specifies the argument is that the fine tuning is for the purpose of life.
But still, all my points (with the exception of #6) would still be applicable to your version of the fine tuning argument. Plus of course the point that it is circular.

 

[thenexttodie]

I guess I have to start by pointing out that the fine tuning of the universe not only about the existence of life. It is about the existence of matter and the existence of the entire universe. Regardless of life.

Well I have looked up several sources on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
http://www.philosophytalk.org/community/blog/john-perry/2015/04/fine-tuning-argument-god

Even the ones arguing in its favor.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-fine-tuning-argument
http://www.discovery.org/a/91
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life/
http://creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life

All of them says that the constants of the universe is fine tuned for life. I guess you should let those people give the memo.

The very first link a clicked on describes the argument exactly as I have presented it in this thread. This was no surprise to me.

Nesslig, let's try this another way...Here's a question for you

When even secular scientists say that the universe is fine tuned, why is it, do you think, they say that? They don't claim to know from where or how life began. They have a hard enough time even defining what life is.

You seem to be greatly underestimating how important these constants are.

In other words, it is not only about the existence of life but also the existence of basic elements, and how long they could exist(if at all) and the life span of the entire universe. It's not just about whether life can exist, more rather whether or not anything could exist at all.

That is not an argument of fine-tuning I am familiar with,

Maybe you should read your own links before posting them

but stil if so then your argument becomes circular.
If anything exists at all, it is fine tuned for its own existence, because it exists.

This is your own problem. I am a creationist.

Any scientist involved in studies which requires one to evaluate this can affirm.. It is a fact that these fine tuned properties exist.

Fallacy: Argument by assertion
And blatantly false.
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html

Nothing in this article refutes what I said. The title itself is misleading. Did you actually read this?

 

[Nesslig20]

The very first link a clicked on describes the argument exactly as I have presented it in this thread. This was no surprise to me.

The very first link I put forward said this:
"The fine-tuned Universe 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."

Again, it is about life. Sure, it isn't ONLY about life. Never said it was. Without stars, planets, etc you wouldn't have life. I know that. What I said was that life is the core of the argument. I have never come across a fine tuning argument that never mentions life.

But even if it didn't conclude that and a universe identical to us but with no life would still be finely tuned by a designer, my points against the argument (with the exception of #6) would still be valid.

Nesslig, let's try this another way...Here's a question for you
When even secular scientists say that the universe is fine tuned, why is it, do you think, they say that?

What scientists do when talking about "fine-tuning" they are talking about the constants and things would be different if they were different. If I gave you a hand of cards for a game, the game may play out a certain way and if you had a slightly different hand of cards, the game will play out ver differently. That hand of cards is "fine tuned" for the way the game will play out, but not necessarily fine tuned as in you where given those cards on purpose or by a fine turner. It is an observation on hindsight and describing it as "fine-tuning" is a misnomer. And many scientists have criticized the conclusions that are drawn from this observation, especially the one you are stating here.

They don't claim to know from where or how life began. They have a hard enough time even defining what life is.
You seem to be greatly underestimating how important these constants are.

I'm fully aware of the constants, that is the argument after all. What I am criticizing is the conclusion of the argument. Again read my first post where I list 6 points against the argument. Number 6 you can skip, since you think fine-tuning argument would still work on a universe that wasn't capable of supporting life.

Also scientists have a pretty solid definition of life. The definition of life are still debated when it comes to how we would recognize alien life, that might be different from our earth life (which is another point against the fine tuning argument), but with this context, anything that is considered as 'life' has the following traits.

1. Made of at least on Cell, the basic unit of life, which consists of macro carbon based molecules; phospholipids comprising the outer membrane of the cell, proteins that do catalytic processes among other things, Carbohydrates are used to store or make energy among other things, and Nucleic acids which is used as the inheritable material that determines the characteristics of an organism.
2. Metabolic, meaning able to use energy to convert chemicals into cellular components (anabolism) and breaking down organic molecules to produce energy (catabolism).
3. Homeostatic, or able to maintain an internally balanced environment.
- And is able to -
4. Grow, maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism.
5. Response to external stimuli
6. Reproduces, where the descendants inherits its genetic material from its parents.
7. And finally, it Evolves, the ability to change over time in order to adapt to its environment.
Yes, evolution is such a fundamental aspect of life that it is in the definition.

but stil if so then your argument becomes circular.
If anything exists at all, it is fine tuned for its own existence, because it exists.

This is your own problem. I am a creationist.

Actually, that is your problem since you are the one using a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.

Any scientist involved in studies which requires one to evaluate this can affirm.. It is a fact that these fine tuned properties exist.

Fallacy: Argument by assertion
And blatantly false.
https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html

Nothing in this article refutes what I said. The title itself is misleading. Did you actually read this?

Yes, I read it and it wasn't meant to debunk the fine tuning argument, it was meant to debunk your assertion that ANY scientists involved in studies can affirm the fine tuned properties. Well here is a physicist that disagrees with you, thus not any scientist can do what you claimed.

 

[thenexttodie]

The very first link I put forward said this:
"The fine-tuned Universe 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."

Again, it is about life. Sure, it isn't ONLY about life. Never said it was. Without stars, planets, etc you wouldn't have life. I know that. What I said was that life is the core of the argument. I have never come across a fine tuning argument that never mentions life.

Ok. Fine.

But even if it didn't conclude that and a universe identical to us but with no life would still be finely tuned by a designer, my points against the argument (with the exception of #6) would still be valid.

I am not sure why you think any of these points you have given could possibly be of interest to me or even any scientist who is opposed to multiverse theories.

 

[Nesslig20]

The very first link I put forward said this:
"The fine-tuned Universe 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."

Again, it is about life. Sure, it isn't ONLY about life. Never said it was. Without stars, planets, etc you wouldn't have life. I know that. What I said was that life is the core of the argument. I have never come across a fine tuning argument that never mentions life.

Ok. Fine.

But even if it didn't conclude that and a universe identical to us but with no life would still be finely tuned by a designer, my points against the argument (with the exception of #6) would still be valid.

I am not sure why you think any of these points you have given could possibly be of interest to me or even any scientist who is opposed to multiverse theories.

I never said my points would be of interest to you, I said they were valid points which I demonstrated. You not being interested due to having a bias against views that differs from you, isn't my fault. And I also never said, not even during any of my points, anything about multiverse theories.

 

[leroy]

First, when employing this argument, the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life

that is not the argument, we are aware of the fact that there are other life permitting universes, the argument is that life prohibiting universes are fare more likely than life permitting universes.......but there could be more than just 1 life permitting universe.

. No justification for this is ever given, beyond the fact that if the fine-tuning were different, then things would be different; an example of a counterfactual conditional. Simply because things would be different does not mean that life or a universe could not exist. They may not be as we see them today, but that alone does not mean that the possibility for life and a universe are dependent on the fine-tuning of the universe as we know it. This is an unjustified claim built into the argument that should be challenged. Beyond that

that is a misrepresentation of the argument, the problem is that most possible universes would not even have matter, (let alone stars, planets, molecules etc.)

for example if gravity would have been slightly stronger, then whole universe would have collapsed in to a black hole,

it is safe to assume that no life can exist in a black whole, no humans, nor aliens, nor androids.

feel free to prove the oposite.

, the theist also has not shown that the fine-tuning of our universe could be anything different. It could just as easily be that all possible universes have the same fine-tuning

in this case the academic opinion is in our side, most experts agree that the universe could have been life prohibiting

the reason is that all the variables constants and quantities are independent form each other, and the tendency is to find more of this variables and quantities as time passes and scientific knowledge increases.

for example the force of gravity and the inicial entropy of the universe are independent form each other, .....it is not like a low entropy or nearly cero would necessary produce a force of gravity that is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 weaker than electromagnetism.

entropy and gravity are independent form each other, the value of one does not determine the value of the other.


.
 

Second, this argument does not take into account evolution. Built into this argument is the assumption that we (either humans or all life on this planet) perfectly fit. The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun, the Moon is just large enough to keep our axis stable, Jupiter is just large enough and far enough away to keep us safe from space junk, etc… However, what the theist usually fails to account for in this picture is the 14 billion years of history the universe has gone through, 4.543 billion years of our planet’s own history, and  ~4 billion years of life history on this planet. Most of the life history we see is shaped by selection and a lot of dumb luck thrown in for good measure. Essentially, it is asinine to say this planet/universe is fine-tuned for us. If anything, we are finely-tuned by the environment.

this objection concern the fine tuning of our solar system not the fine tuning of the constants variables and quantities..........so the argument is irrelevant.


most possible universes do not even have matter, so forget about evolution and adaptation.
 

Third and by far the largest problem for this argument. As of the writing of this post, we currently know of one planet in our solar system that supports life. That life is supported mainly on its surface, and (except for Tardigrades), species can only survive in certain environments. There are seven other planets in our solar system (plus a few hundred moons) that do not support life (as far as we know now). There are a few possible other places in our solar system that might have life (i.e. Mars and a few moons around Jupiter or Saturn). Thus, out of several celestial bodies in our solar system, there are less than ten of them that could support life. Besides this, there is empty space between those celestial bodies wherein life cannot exist. Basically, whenever a theist tries to use the Fine-Tuning Argument, they are essentially saying; “Look at this earth size planet. It has one microorganism on it. Thus, the planet must be finely-tuned for the microorganism.” Any engineer would look at that system and conclude that it was poorly tuned if its purpose was for sustaining that microorganism. If this universe was fine-tuned for anything, it was fine-tuned for creating black holes and not life

this argument is based on a straw man,

No one is arguing that the universe was designed to host as much as possible, the argument is that the universe has the atributes to host life at least in 1 planet. this requires a high degree of fine tuning. and requires an explanation
 

 
Another objection that Abrahamic Apologists could try is “The Fall” caused this. One problem I would have with this objection is that it could account for the planet earth, but why all the other celestial bodies and the rest of the universe? Why create such a universe that would be affected by two hairless apes on a rock orbiting a nondescript star?

that is an independent question, the who question and the why questions are independent,

maybe there are other creatures in the universe that need all this stuff that seems useless for us

maybe we will use all this stuff in the future

maybe God is just like an artist and created this stuff because they look nice

or maybe God is just making fun of atheist, since a big universe is even more likely than a small universe.....maybe God simply decided to create a big universe to make atheism even more ridicule.


the best naturalistic explanation for the fine tuning of the universe is this (I challenge you to find a better explanation)

we live in a small universe with just 1 planet and 1 star, you are an individual with Mental illness who lives in a hospital hallucinating stuff your are imagining that you live in a big universe and imagining that you are reading this sentence.

given that small universes with observers are vastly more probable than big universes with observers, and given that mental illness is also probable, this scenario is the more probable scenario (if you what to reject design)

after all you already believe that 2000 years ago many individuals imagined having conversations with Jesus after he was dead, so if this is possible, then it would also be possible for an individual to imagine himself living in a big universe, even though he lives in a small one.




things are very simple,

if you win the lottery 100 times in a row, the obvious answer would be design (someone is manipulating the lottery in your favor) it doesn't matter if you can not answer the why, where, when how etc. questions. design would be the best hypothesis.

if you what to reject design for whatever reason, the best hypothesis would be that you have Mental illness and you are imagining yourself winning the lottery 100 times in a row. ......this hypothesis would be better than a chance hypothesis.

the thing is that wining the lottery 100 times in a row is vastly more probable than having a life permitting universe, even if this universe only has a life permitting






 

There appears to be nothing redeemable about this argument. In fact, this argument could be far better used to show that there is not a single omniscient and omnipotent deity that cares about life (let alone humans) for the simple fact that this universe is not finely-tuned for us. Given just one of those two attributes (omniscient or omnipotent), a human fine-tuner could produce a universe far more hospitable for life.

yes and the Egyptians could have created tombs in a more efficient way, but for whatever reason they decided to create this big and complex pyramids where only 1% of its volume can be used to burry dead bodies, the rest of the pyramid is useless for the purpose of burring dead bodies.

Maye Egyptians had a motive that we do not understand

Maybe they created pyramids because they look nice

but the fact that the pyramids seem to be unnecessarily big and complex does not, in any way invalidate the design hypothesis, making an arbitrary exception with God and the universe would be special pleading.


besides if God would have created a simple universe with just 1 star and 1 planet , atheist would be arguing, if God is so Grate, why didn't he created millions of stars and planets?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

First, when employing this argument, the theist is making the underlying assumption that the fine-tuning we see in the universe is the only possible way the universe could exist that would permit life

that is not the argument, we are aware of the fact that there are other life permitting universes, the argument is that life prohibiting universes are fare more likely than life permitting universes.......but there could be more than just 1 life permitting universe.

How do you know what is more likely? What allows you to state this? When was it shown what a life permitting universe looks like? When did you show that the conditions of the universe as we know them could be different?

No justification for this is ever given, beyond the fact that if the fine-tuning were different, then things would be different; an example of a counterfactual conditional. Simply because things would be different does not mean that life or a universe could not exist. They may not be as we see them today, but that alone does not mean that the possibility for life and a universe are dependent on the fine-tuning of the universe as we know it. This is an unjustified claim built into the argument that should be challenged. Beyond that

that is a misrepresentation of the argument, the problem is that most possible universes would not even have matter, (let alone stars, planets, molecules etc.)

Again, how do you know this? This is just another baseless assertion.

for example if gravity would have been slightly stronger, then whole universe would have collapsed in to a black hole,

it is safe to assume that no life can exist in a black whole, no humans, nor aliens, nor androids.

feel free to prove the oposite.

Citation please.

the theist also has not shown that the fine-tuning of our universe could be anything different. It could just as easily be that all possible universes have the same fine-tuning

in this case the academic opinion is in our side, most experts agree that the universe could have been life prohibiting

the reason is that all the variables constants and quantities are independent form each other, and the tendency is to find more of this variables and quantities as time passes and scientific knowledge increases.

for example the force of gravity and the inicial entropy of the universe are independent form each other, .....it is not like a low entropy or nearly cero would necessary produce a force of gravity that is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 weaker than electromagnetism.

entropy and gravity are independent form each other, the value of one does not determine the value of the other.

And none of this goes to show that the conditions could be different. Do you not understand what I am saying? I am asking why should be believe that the conditions could be different from what we see? Without first showing this, all the probabilities of things being different are meaningless.

Second, this argument does not take into account evolution. Built into this argument is the assumption that we (either humans or all life on this planet) perfectly fit. The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun, the Moon is just large enough to keep our axis stable, Jupiter is just large enough and far enough away to keep us safe from space junk, etc… However, what the theist usually fails to account for in this picture is the 14 billion years of history the universe has gone through, 4.543 billion years of our planet’s own history, and ~4 billion years of life history on this planet. Most of the life history we see is shaped by selection and a lot of dumb luck thrown in for good measure. Essentially, it is asinine to say this planet/universe is fine-tuned for us. If anything, we are finely-tuned by the environment.

this objection concern the fine tuning of our solar system not the fine tuning of the constants variables and quantities..........so the argument is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant if you want to claim that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned for us. Remember, you are arguing that the universe as we know it exists for us, while ignoring the vast majority of the time the universe as we know it has not harbored us. That seems vary relevant to me.

most possible universes do not even have matter, so forget about evolution and adaptation.

Once again, citation needed.

Third and by far the largest problem for this argument. As of the writing of this post, we currently know of one planet in our solar system that supports life. That life is supported mainly on its surface, and (except for Tardigrades), species can only survive in certain environments. There are seven other planets in our solar system (plus a few hundred moons) that do not support life (as far as we know now). There are a few possible other places in our solar system that might have life (i.e. Mars and a few moons around Jupiter or Saturn). Thus, out of several celestial bodies in our solar system, there are less than ten of them that could support life. Besides this, there is empty space between those celestial bodies wherein life cannot exist. Basically, whenever a theist tries to use the Fine-Tuning Argument, they are essentially saying; “Look at this earth size planet. It has one microorganism on it. Thus, the planet must be finely-tuned for the microorganism.” Any engineer would look at that system and conclude that it was poorly tuned if its purpose was for sustaining that microorganism. If this universe was fine-tuned for anything, it was fine-tuned for creating black holes and not life

this argument is based on a straw man,

No one is arguing that the universe was designed to host as much as possible, the argument is that the universe has the atributes to host life at least in 1 planet. this requires a high degree of fine tuning. and requires an explanation

:lol:

Again, you are arguing that the universe as we know it was fined tuned for life, yet the vast majority of it is hostel to life as we know it. Think about that for a second and tell me it makes any sense? Especially, when you are proposing an infinitely powerful and knowledge creator behind it. It appears you are going down the rout that your designer is not all-powerful and/or all-knowing. Which goes to explain why you left those objections I had out of your response.

Another objection that Abrahamic Apologists could try is “The Fall” caused this. One problem I would have with this objection is that it could account for the planet earth, but why all the other celestial bodies and the rest of the universe? Why create such a universe that would be affected by two hairless apes on a rock orbiting a nondescript star?

that is an independent question, the who question and the why questions are independent,

maybe there are other creatures in the universe that need all this stuff that seems useless for us

maybe we will use all this stuff in the future

maybe God is just like an artist and created this stuff because they look nice

or maybe God is just making fun of atheist, since a big universe is even more likely than a small universe.....maybe God simply decided to create a big universe to make atheism even more ridicule.

Thus, your deity could do anything it wanted, thus explaining everything that we see no matter what. Glad to see you admit to this. However, that also means that your deity explains nothing at the same time.

the best naturalistic explanation for the fine tuning of the universe is this (I challenge you to find a better explanation)

we live in a small universe with just 1 planet and 1 star, you are an individual with Mental illness who lives in a hospital hallucinating stuff your are imagining that you live in a big universe and imagining that you are reading this sentence.

given that small universes with observers are vastly more probable than big universes with observers, and given that mental illness is also probable, this scenario is the more probable scenario (if you what to reject design)

after all you already believe that 2000 years ago many individuals imagined having conversations with Jesus after he was dead, so if this is possible, then it would also be possible for an individual to imagine himself living in a big universe, even though he lives in a small one.

Once again, dandan leroy runs down a solipsistic road. Honestly, the fact that you keep having to run down this road while making arguments should tell you just how bad your arguments are. I also love how he assumes what I think about Jesus. One wonders if dandan leroy got his mind reading powers from the same place Sye Ten did.

things are very simple,

if you win the lottery 100 times in a row, the obvious answer would be design (someone is manipulating the lottery in your favor) it doesn't matter if you can not answer the why, where, when how etc. questions. design would be the best hypothesis.

if you what to reject design for whatever reason, the best hypothesis would be that you have Mental illness and you are imagining yourself winning the lottery 100 times in a row. ......this hypothesis would be better than a chance hypothesis

You have not shown that the universe as we know it could have came about differently, thus your lottery analogy fails. Beyond that, you have not shown that there is design in this universe, thus there is no reason to assume design in the first place. Once again, your constant need to resort to solipsism should tell you everything you need to know about your arguments.

the thing is that wining the lottery 100 times in a row is vastly more probable than having a life permitting universe, even if this universe only has a life permitting

You do not know this, nor could you know this. However, it would be fun to see what kind of citation you find for this.

There appears to be nothing redeemable about this argument. In fact, this argument could be far better used to show that there is not a single omniscient and omnipotent deity that cares about life (let alone humans) for the simple fact that this universe is not finely-tuned for us. Given just one of those two attributes (omniscient or omnipotent), a human fine-tuner could produce a universe far more hospitable for life.

yes and the Egyptians could have created tombs in a more efficient way, but for whatever reason they decided to create this big and complex pyramids where only 1% of its volume can be used to burry dead bodies, the rest of the pyramid is useless for the purpose of burring dead bodies.

Maye Egyptians had a motive that we do not understand

Maybe they created pyramids because they look nice

but the fact that the pyramids seem to be unnecessarily big and complex does not, in any way invalidate the design hypothesis, making an arbitrary exception with God and the universe would be special pleading.

Thus, you are arguing that your deity is not an efficient or effective designer. If that is the case, than how could we tell it is doing any designing at all? We know humans were behind artifacts mainly because they are dealing with the limitations of the material they are using and their own imagination. It appears you are unwittingly putting both of those on your deity, meaning it it cannot be all-knowing or all-powerful. Which also explains why you left those objections out of your response to my post.

besides if God would have created a simple universe with just 1 star and 1 planet , atheist would be arguing, if God is so Grate, why didn't he created millions of stars and planets?

It is amazing how fond you are of counterfactuals and believing that you can read minds. That might explain why you provided no citations for your claims. I hope you kept your receipt for your mind reading classes.

 

[leroy]

[
Again, how do you know this? This is just another baseless assertion. [

ok what if I provide all the citations you asked for? would that make any difference? would you therefore conclude that the fine tuning argument is a good argument?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

[
Again, how do you know this? This is just another baseless assertion. [

ok what if I provide all the citations you asked for? would that make any difference? would you therefore conclude that the fine tuning argument is a good argument?

It is amazing how you will whine instead of meeting your burden of proof. However, my comment above is in reference to you asserting that "most possible universes would not even have matter, (let alone stars, planets, molecules etc.)". Since we have exactly a sample size of One Universe, it would be surprising if you could support what you said here with any actual evidence.

Furthermore, I abide by the motto I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Thus, if you met your burden of proof, I would have to accept what you say.

 

[surreptitious57]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCKqj-2JXZg


Decrease the strength of gravity and planets would never form

Increase the strength of gravity and stars would collapse to form black holes

Vary the strength of the electromagnetic force and atoms would become unstable

Vary the strength of the strong nuclear force and the nuclei of atoms would become unstable


The universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is fine tuned for the universe [ albeit only infinitesimally so ]

00.43 per cent of Earths total volume [ not just surface area ] is compatible with human life

99.99 per cent of the observable universe is incompatible with human life

 

[leroy]

[
It is amazing how you will whine instead of meeting your burden of proof. However, my comment above is in reference to you asserting that "most possible universes would not even have matter, (let alone stars, planets, molecules etc.)". Since we have exactly a sample size of One Universe, it would be surprising if you could support what you said here with any actual evidence.

Furthermore, I abide by the motto I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Thus, if you met your burden of proof, I would have to accept what you say.

I am willing to accept the burden, just to be clear my view is that an intelligent designer is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, I am not arguing that it Is the only possible explanation.

rejecting my view implies that you have a better explanation.

//////////////////////

I am planning to make a more less long reply, so before investing my time I what to clarify some points, that way I wont reply based on a misunderstanding of your view.


////////////////

So to be clear. I was able to identify 3 objections,

1 The universe could have not have life prohibiting variables .....the force of gravity could have not been any different, the low entropy of the universe was necessary and inevitable etc............for example if I throw a dice and get a 6 I could have gotten any other number form 1 to 5 .........you view is that the universe is not analogous to the dice......is this your view?.


2 Life could have adapted in a wide variety of possible universes....life permitting universes are relatively highly probable ....if we take evolution in to account.

3 The universe was clearly not finely tuned to host as much life as possible


I my representing your view correctly.?

apart from those objections do you have any other objection?

and finally, do you understand the argument? can I make a reply based on the assumption that you understand the argument? or should I explain the argument before?