The Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2012, 05:30 PM
RE: The Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God.
The fine-tuning argument is silly because it is backwards. We emerged from the universe the way the universe is. If it had been different, something else might or might not have emerged.

The FTA assumes that we are supposed to be here.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
05-04-2012, 05:35 PM
RE: The Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God.
Yes it's one of the craziest things I hear online. Nothing is fine tuned, sorry to disagree on the human body being fine tuned but unfortunately I have learned what a cluster-fock our body really is. It's completely random float around until I get to the right place types of things.

Anyway there are several things that could change that wouldn't affect us very much if any. These are long reaches for an argument that desperately fail!

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 05:38 PM
RE: The Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God.
(05-04-2012 03:35 PM)Egor Wrote:  It is much easier for nothing to exist than for something to exist for no rhyme or reason. The odds against something existing for no reason or cause, in my opinion, approaches infinity.
It seems that it is impossible for nothing to exist, at least from a quantum physics perspective.
Existence is here because the alternative is impossible.
Not even a god could create nothing from something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 05:51 PM
RE: The Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God.
Getting deep with the nothing and something.

Maybe y'all should check out:

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-T...rd_title_0


Tongue

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 05:56 PM
 
RE: The Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God.
(05-04-2012 03:40 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I actually think science has ascertained that something existing is much more likely than nothing existing. There is no observable non substance, everywhere scientists have looked something was there. Perhaps nothingness is simply a mental projection. Even death is not a nothingness everything is reappropriated and things continue. I don't have the exact information to back this up on me, but I believe nothing is something quite impossible.

I don't think science has ascertained that, because it's not a question science can answer. I mean, of course, there is no observable non-substance, and of course everywhere scientists look there is something there...I won't belabor that. One thing we do agree on, however, nothing is indeed something that is quite impossible--that's the basis of an argument for the existence of God.

Now I'm off to taekwondo, whence all good physics is applied. Shocking
Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 06:23 PM
RE: The Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God.
(05-04-2012 05:56 PM)Egor Wrote:  [Now I'm off to taekwondo, whence all good physics is applied. Shocking


That makes no sense. "Whence" means "from where". Did you mean "to which" ? Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-04-2012, 06:39 PM
RE: The Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God.
(05-04-2012 05:51 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  Getting deep with the nothing and something.

Maybe y'all should check out:

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-T...rd_title_0


Tongue


Looks interesting. I am downloading it to my kindle. Thanks for the tip.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
05-04-2012, 08:00 PM
RE: The Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God.
(05-04-2012 06:39 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(05-04-2012 05:51 PM)Clint Barnett Wrote:  Getting deep with the nothing and something.

Maybe y'all should check out:

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-T...rd_title_0


Tongue


Looks interesting. I am downloading it to my kindle. Thanks for the tip.

It's a great book. There is a video that says a lot of what he talks about, in the book.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
05-04-2012, 09:39 PM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2012 09:42 PM by Starcrash.)
RE: The Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God.
(05-04-2012 03:14 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  Is everything staying constant? I thought we were constantly in flux. Please forgive my ignorance as I am not very well educated. I thought that the moon was slowly moving out in its orbit and that the earth is slowing down. When I hear some argument that says that the balance is so tedious that if it were off slightly we wouldn't exist, I being to wonder about how they arrived at their conclusions. Especially biblical theists. If they believe the bible then they believe such things as a global flood. I think that some such thing as that would have called for a change in constants. Sometimes I think theists are too busy trying to disproved atheism that they miss the boat about their own claims.

As a theist, I don't care for the argument to try to support the claim of the existence of a creator. Especially with the adaptability that we can already observe within the known world. Why would we not be able to adapt to changes in various natural forces? Especially if they are gradual.

Gary
It sounds like you're unfamiliar with the argument . The details that are "finely tuned" are things like the force between atoms... too little and we'd never have molecules, too much and we couldn't have any of the lighter atoms like hydrogen. It has nothing to do with Earth's distance from the sun or anything like that... it's assumed that if that didn't happen here, it would just happen elsewhere by chance. But there are "constants" that are universal that could mean the impossibility of life if they were "tweaked" just a little bit.

Unlike the improbability of life arising from nonlife (a bullshit argument), this one is a cause for concern among many of the experts in the field of cosmology. This is why we have hypotheses like "the multiverse", because it does appear to require a good explanation for its improbability. I don't begrudge theists for using this argument... it is a better one than most, though it still boils down to using God to fill a current gap in scientific knowledge (the "God-did-it" argument).
(05-04-2012 03:40 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I actually think science has ascertained that something existing is much more likely than nothing existing. There is no observable non substance, everywhere scientists have looked something was there. Perhaps nothingness is simply a mental projection. Even death is not a nothingness everything is reappropriated and things continue. I don't have the exact information to back this up on me, but I believe nothing is something quite impossible.
"Nothing" isn't impossible, although it looks like someone has already cited the expert on this --- Lawrence Krauss. But he's talking about the empty space between "somethings". You're right about scientists believing that it's improbable for a universal nothing to exist, though. There are nearly infinite ways for something to exist and only one way for nothing to exist, which makes it statistically unlikely.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2012, 02:41 AM
 
RE: The Fine Tuning Argument for the existence of God.
Waste your time reading Lawernce Krauss's book. I did. The nothing he describes is not actually "nothing." It's kind of like chaos theory where the chaos isn't true chaos. But by all means draw your own conclusions.
(05-04-2012 06:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-04-2012 05:56 PM)Egor Wrote:  [Now I'm off to taekwondo, whence all good physics is applied. Shocking


That makes no sense. "Whence" means "from where". Did you mean "to which" ? Weeping

Yep, my bad. And who knows what I meant. Hobo
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: