(April 8, 2025 at 12:30 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Drew's stance is, seemingly, that he can't imagine the universe having existed in some other way, so, therefore it must have happened the way he thinks.Oh I don't think his position is caused by a lack of imagination, but rather an a priori bias in favour of theistic, or perhaps deistic, belief. If anything he is failing to draw a line between what he imagines to be true, and what can be objectively and reliably demonstrated to be true.
I can't say for sure since it also seems he's taken to ignoring me entirely.
His core argument is that despite something having happened, and the only causes science has ever evidenced being entirely natural, that this one requires a creator deity. When examined on why he believes this, we have the usual argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, or "what else could it be". This is of course not evidence, nor is it rational. that he claims the emergence of life as fortuitous, is not an objective truth, but rather a subjective perception, and that long odds have apparently been thwarted to achieve this is a) irrelevant, improbable and impossible are not the same (another false equivalence he's implied), and b) we have only one universe to examine, so how would one reliably measure the probability of such a universe existing?
We are of course touching on subjects best examined by theoretical physics, but all one need do is switch on any news channel, or research the level of atheism among elite scientists, to know the preponderance of scientists in that field, especially elite scientists, do not share his view about "fine tuning".
In stark contrast we get one author and one book title, and he bizarrely chose an atheist?
