(April 7, 2025 at 4:05 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

Quote:Sheldon 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.

There is a consensus the universe is fine-tuned for life. 

Among creationists maybe, but certainly not among scientists. The term remains a metaphor used to describe the astonishingly narrow parameters of certain characteristics of the universe, and that if they altered even a vanishingly small amount, then the carbon life we know of, could not have emerged. So what? The universe is almost entirely hostile to life, you don't seem to be reading anything into that, could your bias be more obvious. 

Quote:The people making those observations are the people who, if anyone should know. 

You have cited only one person, and even your example does not believe a deity exists, so that's a bit of comedy gold right there. And as I evidenced earlier, atheism rises sharply among scientists, and is almost universal among elite scientists, like The National Academy of Science, where 93% are atheists and agnostics. Are you saying they are not best placed to know if the scientific evidence indicates the universe was fine tuned by a creator deity? Seriously you ought to have the integrity to admit at least to yourself, when your arguments are so absurd they are comedic. 

Quote:My spiel, as you call it, is the reason I and many people including scientists and non-religious people subscribe to the claim our universe was intentionally caused.

I know, but tit remains a subjective religious belief, unsupported by any objective,  empirical or scientific evidence. 

Quote:Atheism makes a counter claim 

No it doesn't, that's a lie. 
Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Quote: we live in a universe...amenable  to  scientific  research  and  the  laws  of  logic

And none of that scientific evidence supports a creator deity, and you have repeatedly violated principles of logic in your arguments. 

Quote:Explain why natural forces that didn't intend humans to exist would cause a universe with laws of physics that force stars to make the ingredients needed for planets and humans to exist? 

I never made this claim, as you have been told, so it's not just a straw man fallacy now, it is pure mendacity to assign it to me. There is also no evidence natural phenomena have intent, but it is an objective fact they are causal. 

Quote:There is no explanation...just happenstance. 

Another straw man fallacy, the mendacity continues apace. 

Quote:Even the most hard core atheist has to admit its at least very fortuitous that mechanistic forces serendipitously caused the conditions for life to occur.

That just looks like subjective bias to me, since I have no other universes to compare this one to, I can't say this one is "fortuitous". However heads coming up instead of tails in a coin toss can be perceived as fortuitous, this does not suggest intent or design behind the result. 

Quote:Sheldon 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:I realize to atheists fine-tuning is just another observation they have to wish away. 

Another lie. 

Quote:Suppose scientists made their measurements and observations and realized a whole slew of wide ranging possibilities would cause life to exist? You'd be screaming it from the rooftops.

An irrelevant straw man, that does not in anyway address anything I said there, quelle surprise. You can sulk all you want, but there is no scientific evidence that the universe is literally fine tuned, it is a metaphor used to describe a particular phenomenon. You just seem desperate to leap on this metaphor, as creationists always do, and misrepresent science. 

Quote:Exactly what you'd expect of forces that didn't intend our existence. You'd expect life to be something forces that didn't intend to cause life could do without trying. Yet knowing  the ingredients for life but we still can't get it started.

That last paragraph is pure gibberish? 
It seems you are never going to honestly address what was actually posted, but are intent on rehashing the same mendacious straw men.

(April 6, 2025 at 10:22 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 5, 2025 at 8:27 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:  I think you have.  You've just chosen to ignore them because it's uncomfortable.

I'm not uncomfortable; unlike most atheists I don't deny there is evidence our existence is the result of natural forces. There is more in favor of design and plan. Any time you want to give it your best shot let me know.

I wasn't going to interact with you in this thread, Drew, but are you sure most atheists deny there is evidence our existence is the result of natural forces? That seems to be the implication of not doing that while most atheists do. Doesn't really sound right.

Maybe you meant that most atheists deny evidence that our existence is NOT the result of natural forces but you do not deny that there is evidence that our existence IS the result of natural forces?

(April 7, 2025 at 12:55 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: This just gets worse and worse.  Stamping your foot and screeching "'cause I said so" is nearly as convincing.  

Let me go light a candle for all the infallible sciency dudes and dudettes out there.

Maybe burn some sage too while drinking a bleach cocktail while shining a light up my butt.

Creationists love to pretend the scientific evidence is on their side, but is a laughable lie of course. FWIW atheism is higher in the field of elite biologists. In the NAS 95% percent of biologists identify as atheist and agnostic. 

Anyway lets recap.

1. Fine tuning is a metaphor, it does not and was never meant to mean the universe is literally fine tuned. 
2. Drew has cited only one person, he claims supports his views, despite admitting he is an atheist, oops. 
3. He has failed to offer a single quote or citation beyond a single book title. 
4. He has not cited any peer reviewed work from this single atheistic source. 
5. When asked why he assumes a finely tuned universe must require a creator deity, all he managed was to repeat the claim, and offer an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. 
6. He doesn't seem to know what the dictionary definition of atheism is. 
7. He can't demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity exists, or that a deity is even possible.

(April 6, 2025 at 11:50 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 6, 2025 at 11:32 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Check your pseudo science at the door. Universes don't evolve like organisms.

Sure they do.

On the ‘fine tuning’ thingy, have you considered that it could simply be a happy accident? Suppose the universe evolved to support life incidentally. Out of a billion skillion universes, at least one was bound to reach a point where life-as-we-know-it could thrive. It’s a logical leap to presume that it was intentional. 

Boru

And it's a logical leap to presume that the physical constants of our universe could be different. The fine tuning argument presumes they could all have any value and that their values are unrelated to each other to come up sith astronomical odds, but we have no way to know any of that. It's just a thought experiments with a lot of 'ifs' in it. Since when are thought experiments evidence instead of analogy?

Fine-tuning, or as I like to call it, evolution. It's a thing. Google it.

(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.)

Maybe it should be modified to 'the universe is barely fine-tuned for life'.

(April 7, 2025 at 5:46 pm)Mister Agenda 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.)

Maybe it should be modified to 'the universe is barely fine-tuned for life'.

Or how about... life has been fine tuned by evolution, to exist in one titchy tiny part of the universe that we know of.

This stuff makes me so glad that I was raised by a man of science. And, that I had an understanding of a lot of it. The Catholic church didn't manage to undo what I had been taught...in fact, our science teachers - even the brothers - were excellent and didn't throw in the Bible like it was a textbook.

(April 7, 2025 at 11:33 am)Sheldon Wrote:

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.

And I'm pretty sure the '51% of scientists believe in God' should be '51% of American (the most religious developed nation) scientists believe in God'.

"A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public. Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. 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. By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view."

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/200...er%20power.

(April 7, 2025 at 4:15 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 7, 2025 at 12:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: @Drew_2013


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

It was in response to the claim life adapts to the environment. If it did the changing atmosphere of Mars shouldn't have mattered. At the point the only planet we can say life adapted to is earth. Its seems scientists are very upbeat about the prospect of finding life. They know the ingredients for life are abundant thanks to fortuitous laws of physics.

Actually, this planet is quite hostile to life. 99% of species that have ever existed on this planet are now extinct