Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116,971,997]

[RAMOSS]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

2 is an assumption.

the number one is (the fine tuning) is an assumption also. It's also the 'Texan Sharp shooters fallacy'.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Which of the 2 premises do you have an issue with, and why? I think Premiss 1 is airtight as those are the only three explanations as to why the universe would be "fine-tuned", unless you can think of another one...

I have the objection about 1) the universe being fine tuned to begin with and 2) It's not due to physical necessity or chance'. Prove those two assumptions.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes, because that's how insanely high the probability is for design, and how insanely low the probability is for chance.

How so?

This is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to probability You can not show that to be true, and you can not actually defend any of your calculations.. because you don't know the factors,.. or what natural' 'filters' might be put into place

 

[Angel]

^^^^
Oy!

Even arguments relying on probability have become fallacious in the New Atheist Era!
Apparently only having no argument at all, like New Atheism, is not a fallacy!

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Why should I have to do all the work for you? If you want to look into this stuff, look into it (and my claims) for yourself...

Then I'd know that you are truly interested in what I have to say instead of trolling with your "prove it" and "show me" type posts...

If you can't show how you get the probabilities and you don't know what the chances are, then why should anybody accept your argument? It's like 'pulling things out of thin air'.

 

[Angel]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

If you can't show how you get the probabilities and you don't know what the chances are, then why should anybody accept your argument? It's like 'pulling things out of thin air'.

If you have posts on Ignore, don't blame others for what you haven't read. Two links above on the probabilities.

 

[devildavid]

That falls into line once it is determined that the universe was "intelligently designed"... As to the "intelligent design" argument...

One example would be how a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10^100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Another would be how the cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe (and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion) is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10^120.

And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must also be finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

That leads me to believe that the universe was intelligently designed by a designer rather than becoming that way by pure chance.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist/

Yet there is no way to demonstrate that there is a difference between random chance and design. Plus you are using a judgement hat somehing is fine tuned to show intelligent design right after you said you first have to determine it is intelligently designed. You are employing circular reasoning. Being highly improbable is not a sign of design or fine tuning; it is only a sign of improbability. And the reason it is improbable is precisely because it came together by random chance.

 

[devildavid]

Yes, because that's how insanely high the probability is for design, and how insanely low the probability is for chance.

How so?

The probability of anything is not evidence it is designed, and could very well be evidence it is a result of chance.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yet there is no way to demonstrate that there is a difference between random chance and design. Plus you are using a judgement hat somehing is fine tuned to show intelligent design right after you said you first have to determine it is intelligently designed. You are employing circular reasoning. Being highly improbable is not a sign of design or fine tuning; it is only a sign of improbability. And the reason it is improbable is precisely because it came together by random chance.

Not only that, there are 'filters' in place, the interactions are not random. I mean, if you put hydrogen and oxygen together, what are the chances there will water be formed?

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Metaphysical necessity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity

God as a Necessary Being
https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/necessary-existence.html

God and Other Necessary Beings
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

that old bull**** look if your using god as a placeholder for all the traits you say are needed for things to exist then you can just give those trits to the universe or something that's not aware

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Oy! Internet Fallacy Mongering has become insufferable!
Let's give the mongers one more, yes? The Calling Everything a Fallacy Fallacy.
It's like a flu epidemic on the IT!

nah you ****ed that up

now if he said god could not exist because your arguments for its necessity use fallacies that would be the fallacy fallacy

but when you say god exists because of your logic and your logic contains fallacies then your arguments that god must exist because of your flawed logic are wrong even if god happens to exist any way

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

It's like a broken record...I don't even bother reading through their comments anymore...I already know their droned, nonsensical answers...

or people just have to repeat things at you because you simply don't learn

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Of very high probability.

how did you determine that?

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Which of the 2 premises do you have an issue with, and why? I think Premiss 1 is airtight as those are the only three explanations as to why the universe would be "fine-tuned", unless you can think of another one...

how did you prove it was actually tuned

fine-tune
ˈfīn ˈto͞on/Submit
verb
past tense: fine-tuned; past participle: fine-tuned
make small adjustments to (something) in order to achieve the best or a desired performance.

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Of insanely high probability...

I'm open to hearing arguments as to why "chance" is more probable than "design" though, if you're willing to offer any...

well yes your judgment of probability might be insane

 

[blarg]

The origin of intelligent life on earth requires a host of statistically improbable events which may imply that similar intelligent life elsewhere is extremely unlikely, a fact mostly ignored in discussions about contacting extraterrestrial life.

large stars would be expected to form more often in a younger universe with more gas close together and they supernova faster the more massive they are so yes younger generations stars and their planets will get richer in heavy elements as time goes by

and star forming nebula seem to give birth to many stars if they are big enough

no reason why evolution would never select for a larger brain

and mass extinctions happen and the man explains the conditions that lead to selective forces that lead to are traits

might be uncommon but it makes sense

oh if your interested in the fermi paradox i recommend
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIIOUpOge0LulClL2dHXh8TTOnCgRkLdU

 

[blarg]

That falls into line once it is determined that the universe was "intelligently designed"... As to the "intelligent design" argument...

One example would be how a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10^100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Another would be how the cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe (and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion) is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10^120.

And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must also be finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

That leads me to believe that the universe was intelligently designed by a designer rather than becoming that way by pure chance.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist/

just give the universe god like traits it existed the way it is because that's how it is

then there's all the different possible gods who might have created something different so chance is still around

and if your god can hold all those different possibilities in mind then a godless multiverse is more likely

 

[Angel]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

that old bull**** look if your using god as a placeholder for all the traits you say are needed for things to exist then you can just give those trits to the universe or something that's not aware

Ah! That old New Atheist bull****!
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, pard.

Namaste.

 

[Angel]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

nah you ****ed that up

now if he said god could not exist because your arguments for its necessity use fallacies that would be the fallacy fallacy

but when you say god exists because of your logic and your logic contains fallacies then your arguments that god must exist because of your flawed logic are wrong even if god happens to exist any way

Tell it to the Marines, blarg.

 

[Angel]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

how did you determine that?

Mathematicians determined that.

 

[Barny]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

I added to my reply...you're talking about God having a designer...I take Him at His word...He says He is the Alpha and Omega....the beginning and the end...He is the Creator, not a creation...

So let me see if I get this straight.

The earth and heavens are to complicated to have evolved, so an intelligent designer must have created them.

That intelligent designer 'God' obviously has to be more complicated than the earth and heavens as he had the ability to created them, and yet no one designed or created him, he just exists, having no beginning nor end.

I'm not saying your wrong or right but can't you see your beliefs are just as far fetched (to our mortal minds) as an atheists beliefs. There is no need for people of faith to be condescending towards atheists and vice versa.

 

[Barny]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

It's like a broken record...I don't even bother reading through their comments anymore...I already know their droned, nonsensical answers...

What's strange is a JW siding with a worshiper of 'false religion' in arguing with/against atheists. What I don't get is why believers even care. If God exists you'll get your reward in heaven or everlasting life on earth and atheists won't. Why the condescending comments back and forth. Why do you go from door to door preaching? Is it because you are trying to buy your everlasting life on earth or is it for your love of fellow man. If it's the latter why the snarky and condescending attitude towards atheists. Do unto others as you would like done unto you. If you want your beliefs respected, respect the beliefs of others including atheists and atheists vice versa. And don't say he started it first.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

I have the objection about 1) the universe being fine tuned to begin with and 2) It's not due to physical necessity or chance'. Prove those two assumptions.

Dawkins himself agrees that the universe is fine tuned. If you move any of the fundamental constants (such as gravity) even a fraction of a fraction, there would be no life on Earth. That's pretty fine tuned if you ask me...

As to Premiss 2, if you told me that Physical Necessity has a [not actual numbers, just estimating to make my point] 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being correct, that Chance has a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being correct, and Design has a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of being correct, I would say that Design is an extremely safe bet... And, if faced with these odds in any other aspect of one's life, such as "a car appearing in their driveway", one would find those odds to be insurmountable and would believe that it was put there by design.

 

[Daisy]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

or people just have to repeat things at you because you simply don't learn

I quit listening to lies a long time when I left the church I belonged to...

 

[gfm7175]

This is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to probability You can not show that to be true, and you can not actually defend any of your calculations.. because you don't know the factors,.. or what natural' 'filters' might be put into place

So, if a car appeared in your driveway that wasn't there a moment ago, how would you explain it's existence... Is the car there by physical necessity, chance, or design?