(March 30, 2017 at 8:30 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 8:18 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument.  If you want to contend the reasons of the argument, fine..... however, you cannot just label it "god of the gaps", and accurately reflect the position.

Nope sorry, it is still a gap argument.

See if you can spot the pattern.

"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore God exists"
"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore Allah exists"
"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore Yahweh exists"
"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore Hindu God Brahma exists"
"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore hurricanes prove Poseidon's existence"
"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore lightening existing makes Thor real".

Your problem is you ignore people with other god of the gaps guesses believe both in the past and present of all religions as passionately as you do about yours. You are still stuck with the same problem they do, "which one".

It is still a naked assertion and a presumption just like all the rest. You like what you believe and that is where you lose all objectivity. You are not going where the evidence leads, you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole after the fact to make science suit your pet belief. Neutral science does not favor one pet deity claim over others. It is why a plane will fly both in Iran and in America. It is why a flu vaccine will work in Japan and China and Mexico. 

You like every other religion are all stuck in the same boat, get in line, take a number.

I think the problem is, that you are operating on a false assumption about what it is I believe about the argument.  If you are saying, that the argument from fine tuning doesn't point to a specific God or gods.  I agree!  It doesn't point to anything other than a cause, that is capable of making choices, and possibly a sufficiency to actualize those choices.  

I find your "spot the pattern" line, that you seem to be so fond of lately to be quite funny, because it only shows that you don't understand what is being said or why. Perhaps you should either ask questions, or address the reasoning, rather than making yourself look ignorant.

(March 30, 2017 at 9:14 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:No, fine tuning is not an interpretation. It is a fact, that the initial constants had to be in a mind-boggling narrow band of values for the universe to hold together, elements to form, galaxies to form, etc. See here for a another basic list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned...e#Examples

If you think this is just a fringe opinion, here is the bio of the guy who created the list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

---

This has been all gone over earlier in the thread. You are wrong about how we arrive at the conclusion: 

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

What is not a fact is that the universal constants could have been different. You have only arbitrarily asserted physical necessity is not the reason for the fine-tuning of the universe, not ruled it out by any rational process. I'm sure there's a Nobel waiting for the person who can do that.

Not to mention that there's no mechanism for universe generation that would not just keep spewing them out, so there's no way to rule out chance from near infinite opportunities, either.

2. fails spectacularly.

---

SteveII Wrote:No, they are not good arguments because the universe is not the way it is by necessity or chance. I have mentioned both and I have yet to hear back a reason why either is more probable than design.  If you think it is, make the case.

For the love of reason, you can't be this dense. You haven't given a reason why design is more probable than necessity or chance. Without that, it's 2 to one against.

First, you have obviously not read back through the posts for the past 9 pages. 

Yes, the initial constants could have been different. There is nothing that makes them the way they are. That is not debated. Therefore, the universe is NOT the way it is out of necessity.

The chance that all the initial constants are measure in such quanitities that it must have been 1 part in 10^60 and other similar numbers. RR79 posted this a ways back

Quote:Max. Deviation Ratio of Electronsrotons
1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity
1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe
1:10^55
Mass Density of Universe1
1:10^59
Cosmological Constant
1:10^120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

If you multiply just a few of these odds together (to get a combined probability), you have a number with so many zeros, there are not that many molecules in the universe. So, chance is out.

(March 30, 2017 at 9:51 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 8:30 am)Brian37 Wrote: Nope sorry, it is still a gap argument.

See if you can spot the pattern.

"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore God exists"
"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore Allah exists"
"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore Yahweh exists"
"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore Hindu God Brahma exists"
"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore hurricanes prove Poseidon's existence"
"Disagreement with the inference does not make it a gaps argument=Therefore lightening existing makes Thor real".

Your problem is you ignore people with other god of the gaps guesses believe both in the past and present of all religions as passionately as you do about yours. You are still stuck with the same problem they do, "which one".

It is still a naked assertion and a presumption just like all the rest. You like what you believe and that is where you lose all objectivity. You are not going where the evidence leads, you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole after the fact to make science suit your pet belief. Neutral science does not favor one pet deity claim over others. It is why a plane will fly both in Iran and in America. It is why a flu vaccine will work in Japan and China and Mexico. 

You like every other religion are all stuck in the same boat, get in line, take a number.

I think the problem is, that you are operating on a false assumption about what it is I believe about the argument.  If you are saying, that the argument from fine tuning doesn't point to a specific God or gods.  I agree!  It doesn't point to anything other than a cause, that is capable of making choices, and possibly a sufficiency to actualize those choices.  

I find your "spot the pattern" line, that you seem to be so fond of lately to be quite funny, because it only shows that you don't understand what is being said or why. Perhaps you should either ask questions, or address the reasoning, rather than making yourself look ignorant.

Glad you agree that "fine tuning" does not prove a particular specific god claim. GREAT, you are almost there.

Now, what I am about to ask you, you need to ask yourself and be intellectually brave. I am not about to ask you what you believe.

I am asking you to ask yourself now, before you answer me, take your time, be willing to look in the mirror.

Ask yourself WHY you feel the need for a god, WHY you feel the need for a forever? What do you think would suddenly change if you figured out there was no god and we are finite and there is no forever? Do you think you would instantly go up in flames? If you don't think Allah or Pele would punish you what would make you think any god, much less yours, is really there to threaten or bribe you?

Before you answer, the question is not WHAT, but WHY you feel the need to believe? Think about it before you respond. Why are you not concerned with all the other god/deity claims you rightfully reject? Why don't you feel threatened by their god/s? Why would life after you die feel any different than it did 5 million years ago before you were born?

Again, WHY, is the issue, not WHAT but WHY do you feel it would be so horrible to know this is it?

(March 30, 2017 at 9:57 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 9:14 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: What is not a fact is that the universal constants could have been different. You have only arbitrarily asserted physical necessity is not the reason for the fine-tuning of the universe, not ruled it out by any rational process. I'm sure there's a Nobel waiting for the person who can do that.

Not to mention that there's no mechanism for universe generation that would not just keep spewing them out, so there's no way to rule out chance from near infinite opportunities, either.

2. fails spectacularly.

---

For the love of reason, you can't be this dense. You haven't given a reason why design is more probable than necessity or chance. Without that, it's 2 to one against.

First, you have obviously not read back through the posts for the past 9 pages. 

Yes, the initial constants could have been different. There is nothing that makes them the way they are. That is not debated. Therefore, the universe is NOT the way it is out of necessity.

I think this also brings up an interesting question from a teleological perspective.  Are the laws of physics emergent (properties of matter itself) or are they governed by something greater and existing before the matter of the universe was formed?  To put it another way; does the material conform to the laws of physics, or is physics based on the material?

(March 30, 2017 at 10:14 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 9:57 am)SteveII Wrote: First, you have obviously not read back through the posts for the past 9 pages. 

Yes, the initial constants could have been different. There is nothing that makes them the way they are. That is not debated. Therefore, the universe is NOT the way it is out of necessity.

I think this also brings up an interesting question from a teleological perspective.  Are the laws of physics emergent (properties of matter itself) or are they governed by something greater and existing before the matter of the universe was formed?  To put it another way; does the material conform to the laws of physics, or is physics based on the material?

The "laws" are descriptive, not proscriptive.

(March 30, 2017 at 10:14 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 9:57 am)SteveII Wrote: First, you have obviously not read back through the posts for the past 9 pages. 

Yes, the initial constants could have been different. There is nothing that makes them the way they are. That is not debated. Therefore, the universe is NOT the way it is out of necessity.

I think this also brings up an interesting question from a teleological perspective.  Are the laws of physics emergent (properties of matter itself) or are they governed by something greater and existing before the matter of the universe was formed?  To put it another way; does the material conform to the laws of physics, or is physics based on the material?

The problem with an all powerful God is that if infinite regress. If God is already infinitely complex, then he would need his own creator even more complex, and that creator would need one more complex. Keep that in mind because you already agreed with me that "fine tuning" does not point to one god claim over another. If you accept that Allah or Bramha do not exist and do not fill in the gap as a starting point, why would yours be immune to the same problem?

If you want to claim that God didn't need a prime mover, why would the universe itself need one? Seems less of a problem without a God than it would be with one. 

The universe does not need a cognition to start it anymore than Poseidon is needed to explain the start of a hurricane.

(March 30, 2017 at 10:11 am)Brian37 Wrote:

---

(March 30, 2017 at 9:51 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think the problem is, that you are operating on a false assumption about what it is I believe about the argument.  If you are saying, that the argument from fine tuning doesn't point to a specific God or gods.  I agree!  It doesn't point to anything other than a cause, that is capable of making choices, and possibly a sufficiency to actualize those choices.  

I find your "spot the pattern" line, that you seem to be so fond of lately to be quite funny, because it only shows that you don't understand what is being said or why. Perhaps you should either ask questions, or address the reasoning, rather than making yourself look ignorant.

---

Glad you agree that "fine tuning" does not prove a particular specific god claim. GREAT, you are almost there.

Now, what I am about to ask you, you need to ask yourself and be intellectually brave. I am not about to ask you what you believe.

I am asking you to ask yourself now, before you answer me, take your time, be willing to look in the mirror.

Ask yourself WHY you feel the need for a god, WHY you feel the need for a forever? What do you think would suddenly change if you figured out there was no god and we are finite and there is no forever? Do you think you would instantly go up in flames? If you don't think Allah or Pele would punish you what would make you think any god, much less yours, is really there to threaten or bribe you?

Before you answer, the question is not WHAT, but WHY you feel the need to believe? Think about it before you respond. Why are you not concerned with all the other god/deity claims you rightfully reject? Why don't you feel threatened by their god/s? Why would life after you die feel any different than it did 5 million years ago before you were born?

Again, WHY, is the issue, not WHAT but WHY do you feel it would be so horrible to know this is it?

A bit of a change of topic.

But, you mention "feelings" quite a few times there, and I wouldn't answer your "why" question like that. Your questions seem loaded with assumptions, that do not reflect me.

(March 30, 2017 at 10:39 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 10:11 am)Brian37 Wrote:

---

---

Glad you agree that "fine tuning" does not prove a particular specific god claim. GREAT, you are almost there.

Now, what I am about to ask you, you need to ask yourself and be intellectually brave. I am not about to ask you what you believe.

I am asking you to ask yourself now, before you answer me, take your time, be willing to look in the mirror.

Ask yourself WHY you feel the need for a god, WHY you feel the need for a forever? What do you think would suddenly change if you figured out there was no god and we are finite and there is no forever? Do you think you would instantly go up in flames? If you don't think Allah or Pele would punish you what would make you think any god, much less yours, is really there to threaten or bribe you?

Before you answer, the question is not WHAT, but WHY you feel the need to believe? Think about it before you respond. Why are you not concerned with all the other god/deity claims you rightfully reject? Why don't you feel threatened by their god/s? Why would life after you die feel any different than it did 5 million years ago before you were born?

Again, WHY, is the issue, not WHAT but WHY do you feel it would be so horrible to know this is it?

A bit of a change of topic.

But, you mention "feelings" quite a few times there, and I wouldn't answer your "why" question like that.  Your questions seem loaded with assumptions, that do not reflect me.

Nice doge, but don't feel bad, most believers never try to tackle that question.

AGAIN, you refuse to answer the why to yourself because you are afraid that will destroy your illusion. 

You already agreed that the "fine tuning" does not point to a specific deity/god/s/God.

I agree, it does not.

So again, why do you feel the need to plop any god claim into the gap? It seems to me you already rightfully reject all other claims besides the one you feel you need. Funny how you don't feel the need to believe all the ones you rightfully reject. I am being very fair to you because my question is the same regardless of religion.

Why do you feel the need to select the one you did? Not what, but why? Why do you not worry about being punished by Allah, or Yahweh or Pele? Why are you not afraid of your pre life? You didn't exist 5 million years ago.

Do you think anything horrible will happen to you if you suddenly figure out this is it?

(March 30, 2017 at 10:32 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 10:14 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think this also brings up an interesting question from a teleological perspective.  Are the laws of physics emergent (properties of matter itself) or are they governed by something greater and existing before the matter of the universe was formed?  To put it another way; does the material conform to the laws of physics, or is physics based on the material?

The problem with an all powerful God is that if infinite regress. If God is already infinitely complex, then he would need his own creator even more complex, and that creator would need one more complex.

That is nonsensical from the start - I think that you should re-think it.

Quote:Keep that in mind because you already agreed with me that "fine tuning" does not point to one god claim over another. If you accept that Allah or Bramha do not exist and do not fill in the gap as a starting point, why would yours be immune to the same problem?

If you want to claim that God didn't need a prime mover, why would the universe itself need one? Seems less of a problem without a God than it would be with one. 

The universe does not need a cognition to start it anymore than Poseidon is needed to explain the start of a hurricane.

I think you are mixing a number of different arguments, because you are not making sense.  Perhaps you can clarify, or should deal with one thing at a time first.

(March 30, 2017 at 11:09 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 10:32 am)Brian37 Wrote: The problem with an all powerful God is that if infinite regress. If God is already infinitely complex, then he would need his own creator even more complex, and that creator would need one more complex.

That is nonsensical from the start - I think that you should re-think it.

Quote:Keep that in mind because you already agreed with me that "fine tuning" does not point to one god claim over another. If you accept that Allah or Bramha do not exist and do not fill in the gap as a starting point, why would yours be immune to the same problem?

If you want to claim that God didn't need a prime mover, why would the universe itself need one? Seems less of a problem without a God than it would be with one. 

The universe does not need a cognition to start it anymore than Poseidon is needed to explain the start of a hurricane.

I think you are mixing a number of different arguments, because you are not making sense.  Perhaps you can clarify, or should deal with one thing at a time first.

Your inability to follow my argument is your baggage. 

WHY is a very valid question, your refusal to answer it is the problem. I am not mixing anything. You are the one who not only swallowed one particular book of myth, on top of that you swallowed pseudo science after the fact because you have to swallow more lies to prop up the original one you fell for. And you still insist on clinging to this after agreeing with me that "fine tuning" doesn't point to anyone's claim. 

Now again, WHY is it you swallow your own book, swallow pseudo science after the fact to prop up the original lie, but rightfully would not buy it if someone with another holy writing and another god claim argued the same thing? Why are you so scared of being wrong? Do you honestly think there is a cosmic Big Brother watching your every move willing to squash you like a bug if you dissent? If you do, I feel sorry for you.