The one fact that ruins the fine-tuning argument

[TruthSeeker60]

Of course it is unknown. What we are discussing is not what we know but whether the fine-tuning argument is cogent - which is further evidence for the dichotomy: either the universe is fine-tuned or it isn’t…

What would give anyone the impression that it isn’t fine-tuned when most of the theory is for the likelihood that it is?

How can one determine the likelihood that the universe is fine-tuned? What is you methodology?

 

[tonyrey]

If you’ve been reading what I’ve written about applying tornadoes to your “logic”, you would see that what I’ve written has to do with dispelling your belief that because there are stringent conditions for something means that that occurrence is unlikely to happen at all. It was not talking about purpose.

Of course you weren’t talking about purpose because you identify purpose - like mind - with** the activity of brain cells** which are utterly unaware of what they are doing. Everything you think and do is purposeless because “you” are composed of nothing more than brain cells which exist** for no reason **whatsoever…

You seem to believe that although living organisms are immensely more complex than tornadoes they are just as likely to occur

Strawman!

Evasion!

How can one determine whether the universe was designed without making some appeal to ignorance like “we don’t know how purely natural forces can do this” or some appeal like “well, it seems designed?”

How can one determine whether a beautiful cathedral is designed without making some appeal to ignorance like “we don’t know how purely natural forces can do this” or some appeal like “well, it seems designed"? In your view human designers are purely natural forces!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TruthSeeker

How can one determine the likelihood that the universe is fine-tuned? What is your methodology?

How can one determine the likelihood that the universe is not fine-tuned? What is your methodology?

 

[tonyrey]

TruthSeeker

How can one determine the likelihood that the universe is fine-tuned? What is your methodology?

How can one determine the likelihood that the universe is not fine-tuned? What is your methodology?

****What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…

---

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…

As Tex said to Rex:

“You can lead that horse to water, but you can’t make him think.”

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7805350:

tonyrey;7804125:

My application of tornadoes to your

“logic” that having very stringent conditions for some occurrence makes it unlikely that that occurrence tore a hole in your argument for the existence of a god. The argument it destroyed would have only been a non-sequitur anyways.

In other words you prefer to ignore the difference between purposeless . . .]

If you’ve been reading what I’ve written about applying tornadoes to your “logic”, you would see that what I’ve written has to do with dispelling your belief that because there are stringent conditions for something means that that occurrence is unlikely to happen at all. It was not talking about purpose.

Of course you weren’t talking about purpose . . .]

Then your response of bringing up purpose was irrelevant to the point I was making.

TruthSeeker60;7805350:

tonyrey;7804125:

You seem to believe that although living organisms are immensely more complex than tornadoes they are just as likely to occur . . .]

Strawman!

Evasion!

It is not evading the point to point out that the point being made is a strawman, or misrepresentation of the other person.

What you said above is at best a terrible misinterpretation of me and at worst a dishonest attack on me by intentionally misrepresenting me. I’ve noticed that you do that a lot. If you grossly misrepresent me again, I’ll no longer give you the benefit of the doubt, but rather report you to the mods to let them decide.

TruthSeeker60;7805350:

How can one determine whether the universe was designed without making some appeal to ignorance like “we don’t know how purely natural forces can do this” or some appeal like “well, it seems designed?”

How can one determine whether a beautiful cathedral is designed without making some appeal to ignorance like “we don’t know how purely natural forces can do this” or some appeal like “well, it seems designed"? In your view human designers are purely natural forces!

Evidence! What evidence do you have that the universe was consciously designed without making some appeal to ignorance like “we don’t know how purely natural forces can do this” or some appeal like “well, it seems designed?”

We have verified examples of buildings such as catherdrals which have been demonstrated to be designed by evidence. For example, if I wanted to know if the dormitory that I’m in was consciously designed, I can request to see the documentation for the building including the planned designs, which identify the designer.

Now stop evading the question!

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7805354:

How can one determine the likelihood that the universe is fine-tuned? What is your methodology?

How can one determine the likelihood that the universe is not fine-tuned? What is your methodology?

I’m not the one claiming to know whether or not the universe is fine-tuned by a conscious entity. Rather, theists are saying that the universe is fine-tuned by a conscious entity, and I think that they have not provided any justification for this claim. The burden of proof always rests on those who make the claim, not on those who are skeptical.

So, lest you try to evade the question yet again, I’ll ask it yet again:

How can one determine the likelihood that the universe is fine-tuned? What is your methodology?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I’m not the one claiming to know whether or not the universe is fine-tuned by a conscious entity. Rather, theists are saying that the universe is fine-tuned by a conscious entity, and I think that they have not provided any justification for this claim. The burden of proof always rests on those who make the claim, not on those who are skeptical.

So, lest you try to evade the question yet again, I’ll ask it yet again:

How can one determine the likelihood that the universe is fine-tuned? What is your methodology?

Theists are simply proferring a possible reason why the Universe has ideal qualities as to permit complex, high order life. You’re superimposing your perceptions of their motivations and are distorting the question and the explanation to suit your ideological bias. You request for a “methodology” appears to be an exercise of petitio principii. You’re pressuming a methodology is required for an explanation of the question.

 

[tonyrey]

My application of tornadoes to your “logic” that having very stringent conditions for some occurrence makes it unlikely that that occurrence tore a hole in your argument for the existence of a god. The argument it destroyed would have only been a non-sequitur anyways.

In other words you prefer to ignore the difference between purposeless . . .]
If you’ve been reading what I’ve written about applying tornadoes to your “logic”, you would see that what I’ve written has to do with dispelling your belief that because there are stringent conditions for something means that that occurrence is unlikely to happen at all. It was not talking about purpose…Of course you weren’t talking about purpose.You seem to believe that although living organisms are immensely more complex than tornadoes they are just as likely to occur for no reason or purpose whatsoever. If so you are assuming immense complexity is as insignificant as simplicity - which is a logical corollary of your assumption that nothing is designed and everything is insignificant. This amounts to believing not only that fortuitous events are capable of producing anything whatsoever but they have actually done so!
. . .]Then your response of bringing up purpose was irrelevant to the point I was making.

It is only irrelevant as far as you - and **all those who reject purpose **- are concerned…

It is not evading the point to point out that the point being made is a strawman, or misrepresentation of the other person.

It is an evasion when the claim is false!

What you said above is at best a terrible misinterpretation of me and at worst a dishonest attack on me by intentionally misrepresenting me. I’ve noticed that you do that a lot. If you grossly misrepresent me again, I’ll no longer give you the benefit of the doubt, but rather report you to the mods to let them decide.

I shall do precisely the same if you continue in the same vein…

How can one determine whether a beautiful cathedral is designed without making some appeal to ignorance like “we don’t know how purely natural forces can do this” or some appeal like “well, it seems designed"? In your view human designers are purely natural forces!

Evidence! What evidence do you have that the universe was consciously designed without making some appeal to ignorance like “we don’t know how purely natural forces can do this” or some appeal like “well, it seems designed?”

I notice that you don’t use the same argument about human design being the result of natural forces…

We have verified examples of buildings such as cathedrals which have been demonstrated to be designed by evidence. For example, if I wanted to know if the dormitory that I’m in was consciously designed, I can request to see the documentation for the building including the planned designs, which identify the designer.

Can you see, taste, smell, hear or touch the mind of the designer? Where is your evidence?

Now stop evading the question!

Precisely. Answer all the questions I have asked you - on this and other threads.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TruthSeeker

**Now stop evading the question! **

Where your evidence that the universe was not intelligently designed but just came willy-nilly into existence with all the properties necessary to eventually create a being capable of intelligent design?

 

[tonyrey]

TruthSeeker

**Now stop evading the question! **

Where your evidence that the universe was not intelligently designed but just came willy-nilly into existence with all the properties necessary to eventually create a being capable of intelligent design?

It reminds me of those magnificent words:

“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” :takeoff:

 

[Al_Moritz]

…we don’t know what other kinds of life are possible, even if the universe were entirely different. We have no idea if a change in a universal constant would prevent any kind of life developing anywhere in the universe.

Thoughts?

The objection does not diminish the power of the fine-tuning argument at all. Section 1.3.3. in my article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

shows why. In order to fully understand my counter to the objection there, it may be necessary that you read the preceding sections as well, which discuss things that come up in that section.