(April 7, 2025 at 11:37 am)Sheldon Wrote:

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

Any hole any size, any shape right? Where does the fine tuning come in? Find something more clever and original to plagiarize.

Quote:Any hole any size, any shape right? Where does the fine tuning come in? Find something more clever and original to plagiarize.

Water will fit into any hole it's poured into . Life, if it forms, will fit whatever universe it develops in. There is no fine-tuning and what he said is perfectly clever and doesn't need to be original to be true. It's also not plagiarism as he never stated it was his idea. Frankly the only seems to have no original ideas is you who simply repeats well worn arguments we have heard a million times.

(April 7, 2025 at 12:00 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 7, 2025 at 11:37 am)Sheldon Wrote: 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.

Any hole any size, any shape right? 

Yes, the water has the necessary properties so it doesn't matter, obviously. In this analogy the universe we currently observe has the necessary properties that enable organic life to emerge, and once it emerged it has evolved to survive in, or rather on, at least one planet in that universe. No fine tuning needed or evidenced, and no deity demonstrated as even possible. 

Quote:Where does the fine tuning come in? 

It doesn't, that's rather the point. It's an unevidenced assumption creationist use, in their fallacious arguments, to try and justify their belief in an unevidenced deity, using inexplicable magic. How this is more plausible than as yet unknown natural phenomena is never forthcoming obviously, since we know the latter are possible, unlike the unevidenced deity of course. A point you seem a little too keen to ignore.

(April 7, 2025 at 11:28 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

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 

Its not an assumption, life on earth is the only life we know of. The issue isn't just life, there is fine-tuning involved from the moment the universe came into existence such as the fact there was more matter than anti-matter. The cosmological constant is fine tuned so the universe neither collapses on itself or expands into thin matter. Gravity (in just the right strength) causes stars to exist which then through nuclear synthesis cause the ingredients to make planets and the type of matter life depends on. The existence of dark matter is still relatively new, yet we know sooner discover it then find out its necessary to keep galaxies from flying apart. 

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

Bull. We only know of one planet that has life (we know of many more where life didn't adapt). Apparently it didn't even adapt on Mars which was quite earth like early on. 

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

A scientist dude. Why should I pay heed to your opinion? 

Quote:4. It's still circular reasoning

No amount of circular reasoning caused a universe suitable for life to exist.

@Drew_2013

Quote:Bull. We only know of one planet that has life (we know of many more where life didn't adapt). Apparently it didn't even adapt on Mars which was quite earth like early on. 

Mars ‘died’ when it lost its magnetosphere after about 1.5 billion years (this is coincidentally roughly about the same time life arose on Earth). It’s rather silly to claim that this is somehow an argument for special creation or fine tuning - Mars never had a chance.

It’s kind of like saying that the horse you bet on is magical, because all of the other horses died at the starting gate.

Boru

(April 7, 2025 at 11:57 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

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

You have presented no evidence the ideas expressed are scientifically evidenced, and we already know they are not, as there is no such consensus among scientists with the necessary expertise in the related fields of scientific study. And of course, if this man remains an atheist, this rather contradicts your assumptions fine tuning evidences a deity. You see happy to ignore such flaws in your spiel. 

Quote: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? 

Claims see, the subjective opinions of a scientist, are not accepted scientific ideas, hence the appeal to authority. 

Quote: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]

I now what the term means thanks, it is not broadly accepted among elite scientists in the necessary fields of study that the universe is "fine tuned", or that this phenomenon is evidence of a creator or a deity. Do you imagine this objection will go away if you simply keep repeating your original claims? That scientists use the term "fine tuned" to describe this phenomenon, does not mean it is fine tuned, let alone by a creator, or a deity. You seem to have lathered yourself up, but forgotten to turn on the shower. I accept that the carbon based organic life we observe, would be impossible if the parameters of certain characteristics of the physical universe were shifting an infinitesimally small amount, this does not represent scientific evidence it was fine tuned, even if that term has become a popular metaphor among scientists to describe that phenomenon.  

Quote:

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 

That is not how scientific ideas are validated. 

Quote: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?

Ah, so can't explain why you assume fine tuning is evidence of a creator deity, thought so, and all you have is yet another straw man fallacy, as I made no such claim. 

Quote:

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.

So no then, you can't, again that was my suspicion, but i like to keep an open mind, even after all these years of hubristic hyperbolic claims from religious apologists keep failing to offer a shred of objective evidence any deity exists, or is possible.

Quote:Its not an assumption, life on earth is the only life we know of. The issue isn't just life, there is fine-tuning involved from the moment the universe came into existence such as the fact there was more matter than anti-matter. The cosmological constant is fine tuned so the universe neither collapses on itself or expands into thin matter. Gravity (in just the right strength) causes stars to exist which then through nuclear synthesis cause the ingredients to make planets and the type of matter life depends on. The existence of dark matter is still relatively new, yet we know sooner discover it then find out its necessary to keep galaxies from flying apart. 

Your whole argument rests on the assumption the universe must be in it's current configuration to have life that the physics we currently have could be the only ones etc etc etc ........Assumptions.. Assumptions.. Assumptions . All you can say is this universe resulted in physics and life like us. That doesn't get you to fine tuning let alone god.

Quote:Bull. We only know of one planet that has life (we know of many more where life didn't adapt). Apparently it didn't even adapt on Mars which was quite earth like early on. 

Nope it's not bull in the slightest we only know of one planet currently that has life that's proof live adapted well to earth and not elsewhere and nothing else

Quote:A scientist dude. Why should I pay heed to your opinion? 

That doesn't make his opinion gospel. You free to ignore me if you want it doesn't change my point 

Quote:No amount of circular reasoning caused a universe suitable for life to exist.

But circular your reasoning remains

I ain't gettin' any younger and still waiting for the proof we keep being promised.

Drew, one question that I'm not sure has been addressed. Do you believe that your creator/god also created an afterlife? Some type of conscious alternate existence?

(April 7, 2025 at 12:29 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(April 7, 2025 at 11:57 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: 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) 

You have presented no evidence the ideas expressed are scientifically evidenced, and we already know they are not, as there is no such consensus among scientists with the necessary expertise in the related fields of scientific study. And of course, if this man remains an atheist, this rather contradicts your assumptions fine tuning evidences a deity. You see happy to ignore such flaws in your spiel. 

Quote: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? 

Claims see, the subjective opinions of a scientist, are not accepted scientific ideas, hence the appeal to authority. 

Quote: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]

I now what the term means thanks, it is not broadly accepted among elite scientists in the necessary fields of study that the universe is "fine tuned", or that this phenomenon is evidence of a creator or a deity. Do you imagine this objection will go away if you simply keep repeating your original claims? That scientists use the term "fine tuned" to describe this phenomenon, does not mean it is fine tuned, let alone by a creator, or a deity. You seem to have lathered yourself up, but forgotten to turn on the shower. I accept that the carbon based organic life we observe, would be impossible if the parameters of certain characteristics of the physical universe were shifting an infinitesimally small amount, this does not represent scientific evidence it was fine tuned, even if that term has become a popular metaphor among scientists to describe that phenomenon.  

Quote: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 

I meant sufficient for it to be an accepted scientific idea that the universe has been fine tuned, and there demonstrably is not, as there is no such consensus, the opinions of a few scientists is not is not how scientific ideas are validated. The term fine tuned means something scientifically, just not what you are assuming. 

Quote: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?

Ah, so can't explain why you assume fine tuning is evidence of a creator deity, thought so, and all you have is yet another straw man fallacy, as I made no such claim. 

Quote: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.

So no then, you can't demonstrate a shred of objective evidence any deity exists or is possible, again that was my suspicion, but I like to keep an open mind, even after all these years of watching hubristic hyperbolic claims from religious apologists failing to offer a shred of objective evidence any deity exists, or is possible.