RE: Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?
March 30, 2017 at 9:57 am
(March 30, 2017 at 9:14 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:SteveII Wrote:No, fine tuning is not an interpretation. It is a fact, that the initial constants had to be in a mind-boggling narrow band of values for the universe to hold together, elements to form, galaxies to form, etc. See here for a another basic list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned...e#Examples
If you think this is just a fringe opinion, here is the bio of the guy who created the list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees
This has been all gone over earlier in the thread. You are wrong about how we arrive at the conclusion:
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.
What is not a fact is that the universal constants could have been different. You have only arbitrarily asserted physical necessity is not the reason for the fine-tuning of the universe, not ruled it out by any rational process. I'm sure there's a Nobel waiting for the person who can do that.
Not to mention that there's no mechanism for universe generation that would not just keep spewing them out, so there's no way to rule out chance from near infinite opportunities, either.
2. fails spectacularly.
SteveII Wrote:No, they are not good arguments because the universe is not the way it is by necessity or chance. I have mentioned both and I have yet to hear back a reason why either is more probable than design. If you think it is, make the case.
For the love of reason, you can't be this dense. You haven't given a reason why design is more probable than necessity or chance. Without that, it's 2 to one against.
First, you have obviously not read back through the posts for the past 9 pages.
Yes, the initial constants could have been different. There is nothing that makes them the way they are. That is not debated. Therefore, the universe is NOT the way it is out of necessity.
The chance that all the initial constants are measure in such quanitities that it must have been 1 part in 10^60 and other similar numbers. RR79 posted this a ways back
Quote:Max. Deviation Ratio of Electronsrotons
1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity
1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe
1:10^55
Mass Density of Universe1
1:10^59
Cosmological Constant
1:10^120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.
If you multiply just a few of these odds together (to get a combined probability), you have a number with so many zeros, there are not that many molecules in the universe. So, chance is out.
