RE: Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?
March 29, 2017 at 8:53 am
(This post was last modified: March 29, 2017 at 9:10 am by SteveII.)
(March 28, 2017 at 5:40 pm)Khemikal Wrote:(March 28, 2017 at 1:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: What are you talking about? As in my example of billions of white balls and one black ball in a drawing and I not only see the black ball come down the shoot, but it does so 5 times in a row in 5 subsequent drawings, I think it very reasonable to infer that it was fixed.
How many universes have you seen, again?
In any case, "I think it's reasonable to infer that it was fixed" is not a rational inference, nor is "fixing" something that only a designer can do. Points for being consistently less than rational, I guess?
In order for my conclusion to be irrational, you would need to provide alternative reasons for landing the winning ticket despite the odds having enough zeros as the molecules in the universe (or half that, of halve that again--I don't care--it does not matter). If you say, "I don't know" then my reasoning that it was fixed is better than that. At least I have math providing good evidence that it was.
(March 28, 2017 at 8:37 pm)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:(March 28, 2017 at 8:28 am)SteveII Wrote: You can get a brief overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned...e#Examples
Regarding your question about why so fragile. Life is extremely complex in its requirements. It is not clear why we should expect the right combination of elements, heat, gravity, radiation, and self-contained planetary feedback loops to be a common occurrence.
Even if the allowable ranges of the values of constants that lead to a universe with structure (atoms, stars etc.) is very small, the fact that these constants need to have very specific values does not make it unlikely for them to have these values. You are ascribing a low probability to the universe having its specific constants without justification. It may be that certain values of constants are more likely than others. Or, what if the range of possible constants for all possible universes is quite small to begin with? It's not necessarily true that the constants can range from minus to plus infinity.
The fine-tuning argument fails on the basis that it cannot establish the purported low probability of the universe acquiring its constants. For all we know the probability could be 1.
If you think there is not 100% established mind-boggling low probability, then you do not understand the issues. Physicists and cosmologists agree that the universe is finely tuned. Martin Rees, who wrote the list above (from the wikipedia article), has impeccable credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees
In fact it is so well established that the multiverse theory was dreamed up to account for it!!
(March 29, 2017 at 2:24 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:(March 28, 2017 at 1:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: What are you talking about? As in my example of billions of white balls and one black ball in a drawing and I not only see the black ball come down the shoot, but it does so 5 times in a row in 5 subsequent drawings, I think it very reasonable to infer that it was fixed.
But you forgot to tell us which god are you promoting with your theory? It certainly can't be the god from the Bible since Bible is specific that YHVH created universe in 6 days: it not only is written as days but it is also emphasized with careful statement "the evening and the morning". So what is that feeble god (compared to YHVH) that needed 14 billion years to create as that you're promoting?
Augustine 1700 years ago did not take the Genesis account as a literal 6 days. If you think you are making a point, it is a tired-out one with no real meaning. Congrats.
