The Ownership of Science

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Then please explain why, the vast majority of physicists (72%) from all over the world are atheists. What do you know, that these people who have dedicated their lives to study, actually work in the appropriate fields of science, and actually understand it, do not know?

And even the vast majority of the rest of them, are deists, not theists.

The fact the parameters of the universe are very specific, and if changed, the universe would not have brought forth and sustains life, does not offer a shred of evidence that it was designed that way.

How many other universes have you been able to compare our universe to? Please describe, without unsupported assertions, what an un-designed universe would look like.

We’re not on the same page here. The point is whether you have a problem with anyone using scientific facts to arrive at some unproven conclusion.

---

Using fine-tuning as an argument for God is circular - you have to presume that the Universe was intended to support life as we know it. You therefore make God both the premise and the conclusion. Doesn’t work.

Boru

Works perfectly but you don’t have to like it and that’s fine. Same as saying “an infinite multiverse” which I don’t like but I’m not criticizing those scientists who support this view based on their work on other scientific areas such as string theory or quantum mechanics.

Logically it doesn’t work at all, let alone ‘perfectly’. If your premise assumes the conclusion, you’ve committed a fatal fallacy in basic logic. It’s nothing to do with me not liking it. Try it without God in the argument, and it STILL doesn’t work. Something like this:

-My car was specifically designed to transport ducks.

-I transport ducks in my car.

-Therefore, my car was specifically designed to transport ducks.

A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy, regardless of the subject of the argument.

Boru