(April 7, 2025 at 9:38 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 4:49 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Oh, and how do you know this? 

Circular reasoning fallacy, you are begging the question. Please demonstrate objectively verifiable evidence that the universe is "fine tuned", otherwise I have to remain dubious. The fact we lack a complete explanation for the origins of the universe past the point of the big bang, does not in any way evidence your claim it was created, or required creating. 
And before you posit a deity, you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence a deity exists or is even possible. The claim a deity did it, also has no explanatory powers whatsoever.

I don't believe the universe has been finely tuned, but even if it had, this is not in and of itself evidence for any deity, why would it be?

Read Martin Rees 'Just Six Numbers'. Highly respected scientist and an atheist. He thoroughly details the fine-tuning of the universe and it leads him to claim we live in a multiverse. Its not circular reasoning, scientists could just as well have discovered a wide range of properties and constants could have produced life...but they didn't.

So rather than address my criticisms honestly, you resort to a vague appeal to authority fallacy. I have zero interest in one persons subjective opinion, and that is not how scientific ideas are validated. And you must know that there is nothing like a broad consensus among elite scientists that the universe was "fine tuned". You also ignored my question - even if we had sufficient, and sufficiently compelling scientific evidence the universe was "fine tuned", why would you assume a deity did this? 

1. Can you demonstrate any objective evidence a deity exists, or is even possible? 

That is the first hurdle, and until you do so, all arguments that make unevidenced assumptions about any deity, are by definition circular and begging the question.

(April 7, 2025 at 9:46 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 4:37 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, we already know they are possible beyond any reasonable doubt. You are the one adding inexplicable magic, from a deity you can demonstrate no objective evidence is even possible. And you are still, using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy by suggesting there is any truth to the claim the universe required a creator, because we can't offer an alternative explanation. Atheism is not a claim, it is disbelieving a claim, and it therefore has no burden of proof.

You've been reading to much atheist material. 

Too not to (sic) much, and this is utterly irrelevant to the criticisms of your arguments and claims. 

Quote:If I disbelieve the Holocaust took place, I don't have to defend that claim? 

So firstly that's not a claim, and secondly I never said it required no defence, whatever this means, I said it carried no burden of proof. This is also a false equivalence fallacy, since we have overwhelming objective evidence that the Holocaust occurred, and none that any deity exists, or is even possible. As you must know, as you keep evading and ignoring my question asking if you can demonstrate any. 

Quote:If I claim the USA didn't land on the moon I don't have to defend or support that claim?

Straw man fallacy, since I made no such assertion, and of course a false equivalence fallacy, as this is again a claim, and atheism is not. 

Quote: Your atheism leads you to believe total nonsense. 

That's disconcerting, though one wonders how you think you know what I believe, until you ask and I tell you, but then you believe in inexplicable magic, so perhaps this sort of nonsensical assumption is not that surprising. FYI, I could be expressing bat shit crazy ideas, directly derived from my lack of belief in any deity or deities, and it would not in any way evidence any deity. 

Quote:If you claimed the Holocaust didn't occur wouldn't you have to offer some alternative explanation for the millions of dead bodies? 

Yes, but have made no such claim, nor is atheism a claim that no deity exists, I can only suggest you consult a dictionary, and ask atheists what they believe,  rather than making absurd assumptions in fruitless attempts to reverse your burden of proof. 

Quote:If you don't want to persuade anyone you're correct then you don't need to offer any evidence.

Indeed not, but since I have not claimed no deity exists, I can't imagine what you are claiming i am incorrect about? Disbelief is not a claim, atheism is not a claim, so what are you implying I am incorrect about? 

Quote:If anything is magical, its the idea that mindless forces without plan or intent would cause a universe with a myriad of properties, laws of physics that cause intelligent beings to exist.

Straw man fallacy, since I made no such claim, and since you are asserting a deity created everything with supernatural powers you cannot explain, and that have no explanatory powers, then this is by definition an appeal to magic. Again I can only suggest you look up the definition of the word, and the meaning of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and of a false dichotomy fallacy. 

One more time, I don't need an alternative to your claim a deity created the universe, in order to withhold belief from it, and it is fallacious and therefore irrational, to argue that your claim might be true, because there is no alternative explanation. 

I cannot base belief on subjective assertions, and fallacious arguments. Though of course others may choose to do so if they wish.

Quote:Read Martin Rees 'Just Six Numbers'. Highly respected scientist and an atheist. He thoroughly details the fine-tuning of the universe and it leads him to claim we live in a multiverse. Its not circular reasoning, scientists could just as well have discovered a wide range of properties and constants could have produced life...but they didn't.

1.You assume there are not is not a wide range based on the assumption all life will be like us 

2. There is no evidence of a fine tuned universe only very adaptable life 

3. Argument from authority he's just some dude with an opinion 

4. It's still circular reasoning

By the way, we are still mostly in the 'Think about the stars' phase here. I look forward to if and when we get to;

Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts
(CMB) Fluctuations
Galactic Collisions

(April 7, 2025 at 10:07 am)arewethereyet Wrote:

(April 7, 2025 at 10:05 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: You mean hokum. Multiverse increases entities to infinity and beyond, Occam would turn over in his grave. A corollary to Occam's razor is to offer explanations that are too simple. Like the notion the universe popped into existence, uncaused out of nothing.


Multiverse is a plausible explanation for how we find ourselves in a universe with the exacting characteristics to cause life to exist. However minus direct evidence of other universes, the fact we don't know how this one came about its an hypothesis at best.  


Its not an assumption and it does need an explanation and it is connected to multiverse.


That's really sweet. 



Nonsense...name one scientist who thinks that.

That's a very tall drink of water and that's why even non-religious people think our existence was intentionally caused. Including a lot of scientists.


According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Quote:The number of people who believe in a thing is not proof of anything other than that a certain number of people believe in something.  The fact that they are scientists means nothing without the appropriate testing and the ability to recreate the same results time and again.

 You beat me to it, his argument is both an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and an appeal to authority fallacy. FWIW atheism rises sharply among scientists in the US, and among elite bodies of scientists, like the National Academy of Science atheism and agnosticism is almost universal, perhaps they haven't heard of fine tuning? 

Larson and Witham's 1998 survey found that 93% of NAS members are agnostics or atheists, with only 7% believing in a personal God. This is hard to reconcile with Drew's claims that fine tuning is a) supported by sufficient scientific evidence to lend it some credence, and b) that were it so, it would evidence a creator deity.

(April 7, 2025 at 10:16 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 7, 2025 at 3:43 am)zebo-the-fat Wrote: If the universe is "fine tuned" for life, why does 99.99... % of it kill us (too hot, too cold, no atmosphere, toxic atmosphere, radiation etc.)

If only one civilization occurs in every galaxy that billions of civilizations. Yet on planet earth all those conditions for life occurred.

The hole comes first, then the water fills it exactly, this does not suggest that the hole was designed or created for the water, but rather that the water has properties that the hold allows to make it fit. You are putting your wheezy clapped out old pony behind your cart. this is common error in reasoning among creationists.

Quote:If I disbelieve the Holocaust took place, I don't have to defend that claim? 

If I claim the USA didn't land on the moon I don't have to defend or support that claim?

The evidence for both of these events is overwhelming this doesn't apply to claims about god 

Quote:If you claimed the Holocaust didn't occur wouldn't you have to offer some alternative explanation for the millions of dead bodies? 

Nope but again there is concreate explanation this is again not equivalent to claims about god 

Quote:If you don't want to persuade anyone you're correct then you don't need to offer any evidence.

I don't care about  persuading anyone that's solely what your trying to do and you are failing 

Quote:If anything is magical, its the idea that mindless forces without plan or intent would cause a universe with a myriad of properties, laws of physics that cause intelligent beings to exist.

1. Strawman no one made that claim 

2. Argument for incredulity

(April 7, 2025 at 11:10 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(April 7, 2025 at 9:38 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Read Martin Rees 'Just Six Numbers'. Highly respected scientist and an atheist. He thoroughly details the fine-tuning of the universe and it leads him to claim we live in a multiverse. Its not circular reasoning, scientists could just as well have discovered a wide range of properties and constants could have produced life...but they didn't.

So rather than address my criticisms honestly, you resort to a vague appeal to authority fallacy. I have zero interest in one persons subjective opinion, and that is not how scientific ideas are validated. And you must know that there is nothing like a broad consensus among elite scientists that the universe was "fine tuned". You also ignored my question - even if we had sufficient, and sufficiently compelling scientific evidence the universe was "fine tuned", why would you assume a deity did this? 

No, I pointed you to a book (one of many) written by an atheist scientist that points to the fine-tuning of the universe (using well established scientific facts) and claims as a result he concludes we live in a multiverse. He rejects the idea a universe with the properties for life could occur given one shot. Debaters are supposed to cite authorities to support their point of view. Who should I quote Alfred E. Nueman? 

Fine-tuned universe

The fine-tuned universe is the hypothesis that, because "life as we know it" could not exist if the constants of nature – such as the electron charge, the gravitational constant and others – had been even slightly different, the universe must be tuned specifically for life.[1][2][3][4] In practice, this hypothesis is formulated in terms of dimensionless physical constants.[5]

History
In 1913, chemist Lawrence Joseph Henderson wrote The Fitness of the Environment, one of the first books to explore fine tuning in the universe. Henderson discusses the importance of water and the environment to living things, pointing out that life as it exists on Earth depends entirely on Earth's very specific environmental conditions, especially the prevalence and properties of water.[6]
In 1961, physicist Robert H. Dicke argued that certain forces in physics, such as gravity and electromagnetism, must be perfectly fine-tuned for life to exist in the universe.[7][8] Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned universe in his 1983 book The Intelligent Universe,[9] writing, "The list of anthropic properties, apparent accidents of a non-biological nature without which carbon-based and hence human life could not exist, is large and impressive".[10]

Quote:You also ignored my question - even if we had sufficient, and sufficiently compelling scientific evidence the universe was "fine tuned", why would you assume a deity did this?

There is sufficient evidence...there is evidence powerful enough it leads several atheist scientists to stake their reputation and conclude we live in a multiverse as a naturalistic explanation for how the universe wound up with just so constants and laws of physics to cause and allow intelligent beings to exist. Why should I assume we owe our existence to mindless natural forces that didn't give a rats ass if the universe existed, if planets existed, solar systems, galaxies, dark matter, gravity, laws of physics. In short all manner of things necessary for the existence of humans, but wholly unnecessary for natural forces to exist. Secondly what natural forces are we talking about? The natural forces, spacetime, laws of physics we know of is what came into existence 13.8 billion years ago. Those natural forces didn't cause the universe, they didn't yet exist at the time of the big bang.

Lastly we're justified to assume the existence of the universe was either caused intentionally or was caused unintentionally by mindless natural forces. That's what you assume isn't it?

Quote:1. Can you demonstrate any objective evidence a deity exists, or is even possible? 

We mere humans have caused the virtual universe to exist using the theistic method of design, planning, programming and engineering. It may only be a matter of time before we can populate the virtual universe with virtual people who experience their reality just as we do. Its not only possible, we may soon be god's of our own virtual worlds.

It never ceases to intrigue me how desperately some Christians need to convert nonbelievers to their faith. I ascribe it to the idea that if they can convert an atheist, their beliefs must be true.

If I'm right about that, it follows that the stronger the evangelism, the deeper the insecurity.

Putting forth a wall of text that just repeats your previous already dealt with points is not impressive Mr. Drow