(April 7, 2025 at 9:38 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:So rather than address my criticisms honestly, you resort to a vague appeal to authority fallacy. I have zero interest in one persons subjective opinion, and that is not how scientific ideas are validated. And you must know that there is nothing like a broad consensus among elite scientists that the universe was "fine tuned". You also ignored my question - even if we had sufficient, and sufficiently compelling scientific evidence the universe was "fine tuned", why would you assume a deity did this?(April 6, 2025 at 4:49 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Oh, and how do you know this?
Circular reasoning fallacy, you are begging the question. Please demonstrate objectively verifiable evidence that the universe is "fine tuned", otherwise I have to remain dubious. The fact we lack a complete explanation for the origins of the universe past the point of the big bang, does not in any way evidence your claim it was created, or required creating.
And before you posit a deity, you would need to demonstrate sufficient objective evidence a deity exists or is even possible. The claim a deity did it, also has no explanatory powers whatsoever.
I don't believe the universe has been finely tuned, but even if it had, this is not in and of itself evidence for any deity, why would it be?
Read Martin Rees 'Just Six Numbers'. Highly respected scientist and an atheist. He thoroughly details the fine-tuning of the universe and it leads him to claim we live in a multiverse. Its not circular reasoning, scientists could just as well have discovered a wide range of properties and constants could have produced life...but they didn't.
1. Can you demonstrate any objective evidence a deity exists, or is even possible?
That is the first hurdle, and until you do so, all arguments that make unevidenced assumptions about any deity, are by definition circular and begging the question.