RE: Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?
March 28, 2017 at 9:55 am
(This post was last modified: March 28, 2017 at 10:06 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(March 28, 2017 at 8:35 am)SteveII Wrote: No, more like:It's also a disjunct syllogism, the -least- reliable form of valid argument, even if the premises -are- sound, that doesn't conclude "god". I'm not sure why you think it's all that useful, even if you think it's true. Would you also accept this valid argument?
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.
Before you jump on any of these, remember that the argument is an inductive argument: in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
The fine tuning of the universe is due to either design, chance, or neccessity.
The fine tuning of the universe is not due to design or chance.
Therefore the fine tuning of the universe is due to necessity.
I'm just trying to gauge your level of confidence in the form of the syllogism.
Quote:In your example, you said between 1 and -1 to permit life. What are all the possible values that would not permit life? Let's get real examples (from the video transcript)I think I'm seeing a pattern. You make assertions regarding probabilities and possible values and, when those assertions are dismantled fundamentally...regardless of values or probabilities, you ask someone to show you the math that -you- never did. You linked the math....over and over again. Check your own links for the lambda value. We know that there's a life permitting range (we don't know that it could have been at any of those ranges, ofc, our value may be the only possible value, but it hardly matters to the subject of our discussion). We know that the bottom end of that range would be more "life permitting". We know...that we...are not at the bottom end of that range.
Multiply those very small number by the other probabilities of life permitting ranges give the overall possible ranges of any give constant and you have a number so small that there are so many zeroes in it that there are not enough molecules in the universe to cover the odds.
If you trust the argument above, and you refer to the constants you linked...then gods a shitty tuner...constrained by physical law. \
What's the problem? Do you want the argument you offered and the links you provided as demonstration to be true or not?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
