Posts: 790
Threads: 32
Joined: July 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: The not-so-fine tuning argument.
March 6, 2016 at 2:38 pm
(March 2, 2016 at 9:22 am)Jehanne Wrote: I was watching a Closer to Truth (Season 5, Episode 2 or so) show yesterday and the late Professor Victor Stenger was interviewed, and "Wow, I am such a dummy!" He gave an argument against the so-called fine-tuning argument that reminded me of the widespread stupidity of the 70s and 80s with regards to hardly ever wearing seat-belts in a car, an argument that I have never heard before. Basically, Dr. Stenger said (a poor paraphrase, I admit), "If God exists, then God could have created the constants of nature to be whatever God wanted them to be; God could have created humans to live in outer space or anywhere." Dr. Stenger's point is that the whole fine-tuning argument that William Craig and others advance is just stupid; God, if he/she/it exists, did not need to "fine-tune" anything! To say that fine-tuning exists is really an argument for atheism, not theism, in that it recognizes, even implicitly, that physical law is supreme and not magic or miracles or the supernatural. We can easily imagine scores of dead, lifeless Universes just as modern astronomy has observed scores of lifeless, dead planets all throughout our Galaxy to explain the so-called fine-tuning of our Universe. This is quite a hopeless and confused response by Stenger and it's sad to see him misinforming his acolytes.
While there are legitimate critiques of FT, this one fails because the FT argument doesn't say that God HAS to fine tune anything.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: The not-so-fine tuning argument.
March 6, 2016 at 2:42 pm
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2016 at 2:42 pm by Alex K.)
I think his point is not that God has to fine tune anything according to the usual argument or vice versa, but rather that a universe "on the edge of livability" that just barely works out (to use my own words) is something you would expect if there is no designer. The argument in this direction simply has to be as plausible as the one that fine tuning is a sign for a creator, and you're done dismantling the latter.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 790
Threads: 32
Joined: July 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: The not-so-fine tuning argument.
March 6, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Sounds like it was the point "God, if he/she/it exists, did not need to "fine-tune" anything!"
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: The not-so-fine tuning argument.
March 6, 2016 at 4:04 pm
(March 6, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Sounds like it was the point "God, if he/she/it exists, did not need to "fine-tune" anything!"
The fine-tuning argument is worthless as an argument for theism; William Craig should stop using it.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: The not-so-fine tuning argument.
March 6, 2016 at 4:17 pm
(March 6, 2016 at 4:04 pm)Jehanne Wrote: (March 6, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Sounds like it was the point "God, if he/she/it exists, did not need to "fine-tune" anything!"
The fine-tuning argument is worthless as an argument for theism; William Craig should stop using it.
Heh. Hehe. Hahahahahahaaahhahahaha
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 29806
Threads: 116
Joined: February 22, 2011
Reputation:
159
RE: The not-so-fine tuning argument.
March 6, 2016 at 4:37 pm
Oh gnoes! The cat came back!
Posts: 1164
Threads: 7
Joined: January 1, 2014
Reputation:
23
RE: The not-so-fine tuning argument.
March 6, 2016 at 4:59 pm
If the universe is taken to be a successful design then the intention of God was to create lots of vacuum with a few widely scattered helium generators.
In this context life looks much more like a negligible contamination.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The not-so-fine tuning argument.
March 6, 2016 at 5:08 pm
(March 6, 2016 at 4:04 pm)Jehanne Wrote: (March 6, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Sounds like it was the point "God, if he/she/it exists, did not need to "fine-tune" anything!"
The fine-tuning argument is worthless as an argument for theism; William Craig should stop using it.
It's good enough for the 'tards he's trying to impress. Then again...what isn't?
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: The not-so-fine tuning argument.
March 6, 2016 at 5:53 pm
(March 6, 2016 at 4:59 pm)JuliaL Wrote: If the universe is taken to be a successful design then the intention of God was to create lots of vacuum with a few widely scattered helium generators.
In this context life looks much more like a negligible contamination.
Penicillin'll probably clear it up.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 20476
Threads: 447
Joined: June 16, 2014
Reputation:
111
RE: The not-so-fine tuning argument.
March 6, 2016 at 7:23 pm
(This post was last modified: March 6, 2016 at 7:24 pm by ignoramus.)
Yes, God created the universe 13.7 billion years ago but only came back 2000 years ago to tell us to stop fucking his goats! Why do you think he only spoke to those in the middle east exclusively?
The rest of the world was already on the right track.
God never cared about intervening in our affairs, it's just that he loves goats.
What's so hard to understand?
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
|
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
