(April 14, 2025 at 12:34 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

Quote:Get over your fallacy fetish...Rees claims we live in a multiverse and just six numbers is the reason why. Its the conclusion of his book. Just type in Just Six Numbers and you get a free PDF.

How about you stop spewing fallacies and he will stop pointing them out . Again no he doesn't and the charge of using a false dichotomy remains unchallenged

Beat me to it. I always wonder at this point, whether the apologist will ever grasp they're being irrational, and asking me to join them, by taking the time to learn to think critically, and trying to to avoid using fallacious arguments. Sadly as long as one is emotionally invested in the belief, more than objectively seeking the truth, no matter what beliefs one must discard, they always keep projecting.

(April 14, 2025 at 1:15 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(April 14, 2025 at 12:30 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Get over your fallacy fetish...

Stop using irrational / fallacious arguments, and I will stop pointing them out. Physician, heal thyself...You are projecting again...

Quote:Rees claims we live in a multiverse and just six numbers is the reason why. Its the conclusion of his book. Just type in Just Six Numbers and you get a free PDF.

That would be pointless, since nothing he favours as a scientific hypothesis, nor any scientific fact, remotely evidences any deity, or anything supernatural. 
We are right back to me asking you, if you can demonstrate any objective evidence that any deity or deities exist, or are even possible? As all you're offering are plagiarised arguments, that are demonstrably fallacious / irrational. I know you find that frustrating, but you're blaming the wrong person for your frustration.

I'm still waiting for him to show a fine tuned universe that based on assumptions , incredulity , arguments from ignorance

(April 14, 2025 at 1:18 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(April 14, 2025 at 12:34 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: How about you stop spewing fallacies and he will stop pointing them out . Again no he doesn't and the charge of using a false dichotomy remains unchallenged

Beat me to it. I always wonder at this point, whether the apologist will ever grasp they're being irrational, and asking me to join them. Rather than taking the time to learn to think critically, and try to to avoid using fallacious arguments. Sadly as long as one is emotionally invested in the belief, more than objectively seeking the truth, no matter what beliefs one must discard, they always keep projecting.

Instead they must lash out at you for pointing it out then try and project their folly back at you .

(April 14, 2025 at 12:42 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 14, 2025 at 10:33 am)Sheldon Wrote: False equivalence fallacy, still. Motherboards are not the same as the universe..."only a person of low intelligence would fail to see it." Or a dishonest troll of course. 

Fallacy fetish again.

You used the same fallacy again, you're projecting again. FYI, I did not create the principles of logic, and I did not compile common logical fallacies. You might as well be arguing with the dictionary, but then you did that as well. I wonder if you are able to muster enough objectivity to understand what this all means? 

Quote:The point lost on you is whether something if it had to come out as it did, means its not fine-tuned. If something is fine-tuned like a motherboard it remains fine-tuned even if forced that way by a mold. 

The same false equivalence fallacy, it doesn't become rational if you repeat it, and I won't abandon logic for a closed mind, because pointing this out annoys you. 

Quote:This is what is called a hypothetical fallacy since its not known if the universe had to come out as it did or not. Either way we still observe a universe fine-tuned for life to exist.

No we don't, this is another false equivalence, where you are misrepresenting the scientific phrase, which as we know is a metaphor that describes entirely natural physical characteristics of the physical universe, and equating it to a term creationists use, which is an unevidenced subjective religious belief. No amount of repetition will change this fact, and FYI, I have encountered, and debated, this same fallacious argument that you're plagiarising here, hundreds of times, over decades, they have been fallacious every time, and not because I say so, as you glibly lied earlier.

 Flip on any news channel, look at any global news network online, they're not ticker taping the headline "scientific evidence for god"? or showing the thronged masses in St Peter's square, and around Mecca, and throughout the world celebrating and giving thanks, because science has at last evidenced a deity, and there's a very sound reason for this, and if you were honest with yourself, you'd know why.

Let's make it simple for him 

Man made object not like universe ......stupid comparison.... stop doing because it makes you look dumb

(April 14, 2025 at 12:46 pm)GrandizerII Wrote:

(April 13, 2025 at 4:34 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: In the book you refer to he fields the hypothetical that universe had to be as it is. He rebuts the hypothesis because it begs the question why if a universe has to be in a certain configuration, why is it the narrow configuration that causes planets, star, galaxies, molecules and ultimately life to exist. It doesn't solve the problem only pushes it back. That's why he continues to believe in multiverse theory.

The puzzle is not with why we have a universe configured for planets and stars and life and all that. The puzzle is simply with why the universe is configured a particular way, regardless of what it leads to. Even if it were established that God exists, the puzzle still remains. Why this universe rather than another?

Multiverse views provide a potential answer to this puzzle by simply suggesting that this universe is just one of many universes out there, which does away with the puzzling aspect of a seemingly arbitrary configuration of a lone universe.

@Drew_2013 Note the word I have enlarged, think carefully, and if you're able objectively and critically about what this means, and why. It's a clue as to why the "fine tuning" religious argument, is weak and poorly reasoned.

(April 14, 2025 at 12:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 14, 2025 at 12:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: For the record, I don’t block anyone. Never have, never will.

Also for the record ‘jerk’ doesn’t need to be capitalized.


Boru

I was honoring you with a capital J. You're a jerk among jerks.

No argument. I’m an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a real cast iron son of a bitch when it suits me.

Boru

(April 14, 2025 at 1:18 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: If there is more then one way the universe  the could achieved the same thing then no the universe is not fine tuned

I can't believe it is fine tuned, unless sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated that it is, but others are of course free to set a threshold for credulity far lower than this, and if they wish, to base core beliefs on irrational arguments. It is just silly to keep offering them to me though, when I have made it clear that I set the same standard for credulity for all claims, and that fallacious arguments, without even a shred of objective evidence, falls well below that standard. 

It's also silly to seek me out as an atheist, then sulk when I refuse to change my mind, and become irrational and credulous in the complete absence of any objective evidence, or to suggest a subjective religious belief, is objective evidence, or that science has ever evidenced any deity, or anything supernatural. 

Just beyond sill really...

(April 14, 2025 at 1:22 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

(April 14, 2025 at 1:18 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Beat me to it. I always wonder at this point, whether the apologist will ever grasp they're being irrational, and asking me to join them. Rather than taking the time to learn to think critically, and try to to avoid using fallacious arguments. Sadly as long as one is emotionally invested in the belief, more than objectively seeking the truth, no matter what beliefs one must discard, they always keep projecting.

Instead they must lash out at you for pointing it out then try and project their folly back at you .

The only other choice, would be to think rationally, and to discard fallacious arguments, and then of course inevitably question the belief itself. Some people get there, some never do, Drew is clearly not ready to treat the belief he was indoctrinated into with an open mind. It's hard to question core beliefs, but FWIW, I think it is worth it every time.

(April 14, 2025 at 1:43 pm)Sheldon Wrote: It's also silly to seek me out as an atheist, then sulk when I refuse to change my mind, and become irrational and credulous in the complete absence of any objective evidence, or to suggest a subjective religious belief, is objective evidence, or that science has ever evidenced any deity, or anything supernatural. 

Just beyond sill really...

Beyond silly is desperate. Drew should try selling his ideas to people he could actually help, like young-earth creationists or something.