Refuting the intelligent design idea doesn’t require assuming multiple universes.
I understand that. If I’m not mistaken, however, that seems to be the prevailing view among those trying their darndest to do away with and/or distort or ignore any findings that give potentiality to a reasoned belief in a creator God.
From what I’m hearing, it sounds like you either doubt or disbelieve in the existence of a creator God. Are you on the same page as Honor? It’s chance? An astronomical chance? And we got lucky?
Or do you find some other way to explain the Fine Tuning Argument? Excluding the multiverse theory. Are you a Silly String Theory fan?
Refuting the intelligent design idea doesn’t require assuming multiple universes.
I understand that. If I’m not mistaken, however, that seems to be the prevailing view among those trying their darndest to do away with and/or distort or ignore any findings that give potentiality to a reasoned belief in a creator God.
From what I’m hearing, it sounds like you either doubt or disbelieve in the existence of a creator God. Are you on the same page as Honor? It’s chance? An astronomical chance? And we got lucky?
Or do you find some other way to explain the Fine Tuning Argument? Excluding the multiverse theory. Are you a Silly String Theory fan?
Regards,
MG
The fine tuning argument has a number of problems, outlined here:
One of the problems with it is it looks at where the arrow hit wall and assumes that it's some kind of bullseye. We only know the kind of life that developed on earth. If the parameters of the universe were different, for all we know a completely different kind of life might have emerged.
It's like a puddle of water saying to itself "this depression in the ground was made just for me - see how I fit in it exactly."
I understand that. If I’m not mistaken, however, that seems to be the prevailing view among those trying their darndest to do away with and/or distort or ignore any findings that give potentiality to a reasoned belief in a creator God.
From what I’m hearing, it sounds like you either doubt or disbelieve in the existence of a creator God. Are you on the same page as Honor? It’s chance? An astronomical chance? And we got lucky?
Or do you find some other way to explain the Fine Tuning Argument? Excluding the multiverse theory. Are you a Silly String Theory fan?
Regards,
MG
The fine tuning argument has a number of problems, outlined here:
Reverse engineering. Of course you can take the clock apart and see how all the pieces fit exactly and with great precision. But to then say that it was pure chance that brought those parts of the clock together? Or that those parts were self existent to begin with? Big Bang results in everything ‘just right’?
C’mon.
Exactly. This is the problem with fine tuning. It starts with assumptions that are based on outcomes (human evolution, the cultural evolution of modern Judeo-Christian religion) and inserts them into the intention of what came before. It's reverse engineering reality and, seeing the steps that allowed both human evolution to occur and Christianity to arise, and declares the universe must have been set in motion to achieve those results.
It demands the question of intention be addressed, else it's just a bad interpretation of what we observe about the universe being a pre-condition of our being able to observe it.
Universes that do not develop to support life don't contain life to observe this absence.
It's not that difficult to understand but it demands you move past the way things are as argument to examining why things are the way they are demanding intention.
Reverse engineering. Of course you can take the clock apart and see how all the pieces fit exactly and with great precision. But to then say that it was pure chance that brought those parts of the clock together? Or that those parts were self existent to begin with? Big Bang results in everything ‘just right’?
C’mon.
Exactly. This is the problem with fine tuning. It starts with assumptions that are based on outcomes (human evolution, the cultural evolution of modern Judeo-Christian religion) and inserts them into the intention of what came before.
It's reverse engineering reality and, seeing the steps that allowed both human evolution to occur and Christianity to arise, and declares the universe must have been set in motion to achieve those results.
It demands the question of intention be addressed, else it's just a bad interpretation of what we observe about the universe being a pre-condition of our being able to observe it.
It's not that difficult to understand but it demands you move past the way things are as argument to examining why things are the way they are demanding intention.
Flesh that out.
You seem to be putting all your eggs into one basket. You need to describe the basket and whether or not it can hold the eggs.
We live a bit outside of town. On our property is a place that we call "the pond" - it's about 1m deep at the deepest, and is surrounded by a marshy area. There are lots of cattails and other vegetation, and several logs in the water.
For the past 6 months or so, Daisy the duck has been living on the pond. Other ducks have flown in, stayed for a week or two, and moved on, but Daisy has been the permanent resident.
There are lots of bugs - aerial and aquatic - and tons of frogs with the corresponding tadpoles and spawn. Several turtles also call the pond home.
Without the water, she would have nowhere to swim and bathe. Without the rushes and logs she would have nowhere to bask, and to sleep, out of the reach of foxes and other predators. Without the tadpoles and insects she would have a poor diet, and if, in addition, there were no plants with succulent roots and shoots, she might starve.
It has been a warm sunny summer, with plenty of rain to keep the water level up.
If Daisy could talk, could she be forgiven for thinking that this paradise she inhabits was built and "fine-tuned" just for her? Perhaps by a loving creator?
Is it even remotely possible that the pond/marsh, with all of its duck-friendly features, came about by natural processes that ducks evolved to take advantage of, and that mother nature did not have ducks in mind when these processes created Daisy's ideal habitat?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Refuting the intelligent design idea doesn’t require assuming multiple universes.
I understand that. If I’m not mistaken, however, that seems to be the prevailing view among those trying their darndest to do away with and/or distort or ignore any findings that give potentiality to a reasoned belief in a creator God.
At the end of the day this is all that atheists have to fall back on in trying to explain the fact that we are here rather than not.
that's what you said. If you've changed your mind say so but don't pretend you didn't say it.
From what I’m hearing, it sounds like you either doubt or disbelieve in the existence of a creator God. Are you on the same page as Honor? It’s chance? An astronomical chance? And we got lucky?
Or do you find some other way to explain the Fine Tuning Argument? Excluding the multiverse theory. Are you a Silly String Theory fan?
What the heck does that mean? I have been expressing my opinion.
Exactly. This is the problem with fine tuning. It starts with assumptions that are based on outcomes (human evolution, the cultural evolution of modern Judeo-Christian religion) and inserts them into the intention of what came before.
It's reverse engineering reality and, seeing the steps that allowed both human evolution to occur and Christianity to arise, and declares the universe must have been set in motion to achieve those results.
It demands the question of intention be addressed, else it's just a bad interpretation of what we observe about the universe being a pre-condition of our being able to observe it.
It's not that difficult to understand but it demands you move past the way things are as argument to examining why things are the way they are demanding intention.
Flesh that out.
You seem to be putting all your eggs into one basket. You need to describe the basket and whether or not it can hold the eggs.
Regards,
MG
Really?
Intention is not required for emergent properties to occur in nature.
Your position requires intention, yet you want others to explain it for you?
I understand that. If I’m not mistaken, however, that seems to be the prevailing view among those trying their darndest to do away with and/or distort or ignore any findings that give potentiality to a reasoned belief in a creator God.
At the end of the day this is all that atheists have to fall back on in trying to explain the fact that we are here rather than not.
that's what you said. If you've changed your mind say so but don't pretend you didn't say it.
From what I’m hearing, it sounds like you either doubt or disbelieve in the existence of a creator God. Are you on the same page as Honor? It’s chance? An astronomical chance? And we got lucky?
Or do you find some other way to explain the Fine Tuning Argument? Excluding the multiverse theory. Are you a Silly String Theory fan?
What the heck does that mean? I have been expressing my opinion.
Reverse engineering. Of course you can take the clock apart and see how all the pieces fit exactly and with great precision. But to then say that it was pure chance that brought those parts of the clock together? Or that those parts were self existent to begin with? Big Bang results in everything ‘just right’?
C’mon.
Exactly. This is the problem with fine tuning. It starts with assumptions that are based on outcomes (human evolution, the cultural evolution of modern Judeo-Christian religion) and inserts them into the intention of what came before. It's reverse engineering reality and, seeing the steps that allowed both human evolution to occur and Christianity to arise, and declares the universe must have been set in motion to achieve those results.
It demands the question of intention be addressed, else it's just a bad interpretation of what we observe about the universe being a pre-condition of our being able to observe it.
Universes that do not develop to support life don't contain life to observe this absence.
It's not that difficult to understand but it demands you move past the way things are as argument to examining why things are the way they are demanding intention.
it is extremely significant that this fine-tuning approach, at least as used here, also requires some pretty serious, non-universal assumptions about supernatural events. By non-universal, I mean that of course they just so happen to correspond to the religion one grew up in.
but dude! you didn't say that. You said this
that's what you said. If you've changed your mind say so but don't pretend you didn't say it.