(March 8, 2016 at 2:27 am)Alex K Wrote: @Jehanne
But isn't the point of those advancing the fine tuning argument precisely that they can say a priori that (simply speaking) only one of those outcomes is compatible with life, e.g. that life = 100 times heads? Then it is irrelevant that all possibilities add up to a probability of 1. I'm not saying I buy the ft argument, just that the lotto fallacy alone doesn't appear to be sufficient to refute it unless you also argue that all outcomes are compatible with some form of observer
And my response to their "only one of those outcomes is compatible with life" is how the fuck can you know that!?!
I tend to think of it like a "results chart", following a dice-roll. You roll a few 100-sided dice and see what numbers you get, then you consult the chart to see what the outcomes are from those results-- some of the chart-results aren't compatible with life, some are. Some may produce results we cannot imagine but which produce life-forms we also cannot imagine. Who knows? I don't. They don't.
The assumption that is required to even start their argument is that this is the only way it could be, the same anthropocentric bullshit they've been peddling since they said the earth was flat, made-for-us, and that the entire rest of the universe revolved around it.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
