he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
leroy said:he_who_is_nobody said:[
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.
No it does not. I am fine saying I do not know. You are making the claim to knowledge, thus you have to support that claim. Stop trying to shift your burden and just present your evidence already.
leroy said: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?.
To state it clearly, no one has shown that the variables that go into the universe as we know it can be different. As a thought experiment, those variables can be changed, but no one has presented anything to demonstrate that the actual variables that everyone talks about can be different. We have a sample size of one, thus I am not sure how anyone could show this.
leroy said: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.
No. I am not making any predictions on possible universes. All I am saying is that the only life that we see is very robust, but does not have to exist the way we see it today. One thought experiment about this is if the mass extinction did not happen 66 million years ago, than life on this planet would be vastly different today, but there would still be life. Beyond that, reaching intelligence/sentience does not seem to be something that needs to happen with life. Thus, there is no guaranty that this other possible world would have intelligence/sentience.
leroy said:3 The universe was clearly not finely tuned to host as much life as possible
Correct. I see no way around this one. Since fine-tuning is laid out as an argument for why we exist, it appears that the universe as we know it is vastly un-tuned for life. In fact, life exists in spite of it.
I pointed this out in the blog post, and you ignored it, but it appears to me that the only way to argue for this is to placing limitations on your intelligent designer's intelligence or power. Most western theists are very unwilling to do this, hence why you ignored it, yet seemed to agree with it.
leroy said:I my representing your view correctly.?
I corrected where you were wrong.
leroy said:apart from those objections do you have any other objection?
I think we are fine for now.
leroy said: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?
I made a whole blog post pointing out the flaws of the argument. If you think I do not understand it, than feel free to explain it.