RE: Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?
March 31, 2017 at 9:24 am
(March 31, 2017 at 9:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:SteveII Wrote:Regarding the probability, I understand your point that if we do not know the range, we cannot assign probability. However, why isn't the range of possible values unlimited? What factor(s) could constrain the constants of the universe before the universe? Or are you saying that one constant could be a restraint on another before the universe existed? Why?
Physicists posit a multiverse for the expressed reason to overcome the odds of getting the constants we have? Are you saying they are wrong?
I'm saying you're misrepresenting them. That isn't why a multiverse was posited, it had nothing to do with explaining fine tuning, it was a possible explanation of observations, and there's more than one multiverse hypothesis, including one to explain quantum physics.
'We don't know' are the words you should be paying attention to. We don't know why the values are the way they are, what the ranges could be, if they could only have the values they have, or if they are completely random. You can't base a claim that the values aren't chance or necessity on 'We don't know'. It means 'we don't know'. 'We don't know, therefore we can eliminate chance and necessity' isn't even wrong, just nonsensical.
QM and string theory and m theory do not prop up fine tuning, and even if it did, which it does not, again, neither Steve or Roadrunner or Neo, or MK or Atlas for that matter, theists of all religions are still stuck with "which one" because they all still claim their pet deity fills in the gap. Science if running away from the idea that a god is necessary in any case.
They spend so much time trying to retrofit science after the fact because that comforting lie is more important to protect than a inconvenient reality.