Fine tuning rebut

[Andrew66]

Sternwallow wrote

If you throw a vase on the floor, you probably wanted it to smash, but if it slipped out of your hand and smashed, that was probably not intentional. Someone coming on the scene after you leave has no reasonable way to guess whether the breakage was on purpose or not. This is why we cannot consider outcomes as goals of their causes, especially if those causes are not likely to have been conscious..

Ahh, but what if you found a Rolex watch on the surface of Mars? Someone coming on the scene after you would reasonably deduce the watch was purposively made and not occuring randomly by chance.
Are not human beings even more complex than Rolex watches?

I think the best rebut of the fine tuning argument is the multiverse theory.

[Davin]

I miss Sternwallow.

Andrew66 wrote

Ahh, but what if you found a Rolex watch on the surface of Mars? Someone coming on the scene after you would reasonably deduce the watch was purposively made and not occuring randomly by chance.

Where are all these watches? The watchmaker argument is one of the more annoying arguments, it boils down to a false equivalency which is a lesser known fallacy, but still a fallacy.

Andrew66 wrote

Are not human beings even more complex than Rolex watches?

Watches are not alive... unless you want to propose that watches are in fact alive, in which case you really need to ask your parents about the birds and the bees and fucking.

Andrew66 wrote

I think the best rebut of the fine tuning argument is the multiverse theory.

I think the best rebut of the fine tuning argument is that there's no evidential support for it.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Rolex watches on Mars? Are they in the Opportunity photographs? Wow.

[psychodiva]

oh good grief!! same shit different day- same fucking theist crap

[Davin]

psychodiva wrote

oh good grief!! same shit different day- same fucking theist crap

It looks like Andrew66 has gotten hold of an extremely old "1001 Tired Old Theist Arguments That Have Already Been Destroyed Millions of Times" book, and acts like he'll be able to convince anyone. Which shitty argument will he trot out next? I'm bursting with anticipation.

[psychodiva]

oh please don't- that would be messy

[Smellyoldgit]

This always happens when we get "The Argument from Full of Shit"

[slush33]

Those that think the universe fine-tuned miss the obvious: the universe doesn't fit us--we fit the universe.

It's as if a puddle settled into a hole in the ground. The puddle said, "My, this hole fits me perfectly. God must have made it just for me."

[ghoulslime]

Davin wrote

I miss Sternwallow.

Watches are not alive... unless you want to propose that watches are in fact alive, in which case you really need to ask your parents about the birds and the bees and fucking.

I miss Sternwallow, too.

By the way, Andrew66 obviously doesn't need to learn fucking from his mother, she has taught him everything she knows.

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 obviously isn't Jewish, you have to be a complete prick to write such nonsense.

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

For all that we currently know of life, that is, our kind of life, three requirements are carbon, liquid water and energy.
.

All 3 elements are fine tuned to permit life, and therefore evidence of a creator.

Specially the existence of carbon is amazing.

http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/blog/200 ... verse.html

The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Here is an excerpt:

The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.

Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on

how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 000000000000000000,
but instead:

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: "the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form."

[Davin]

Godlovesyou wrote

All 3 elements are fine tuned to permit life, and therefore evidence of a creator.

There's a few problems with your statement here:

1. There is no evidence of any kind, anywhere at all, that those elements were fine tuned.
2. There is a shit load of premises missing between fine tuned elements, and there being a creator.
3. There is no reliable evidence that there is a creator.

Godlovesyou wrote

http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/blog/200 ... verse.html

Hrm, some site oriented towards religion takes scientists statements out of context... that's never happened before...

Also, the link is broken.

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

Hrm, some site oriented towards religion takes scientists statements out of context....

In what sense was the statement taken out of context ?

That carbon, and therefore life exists, IS actually a amazing fact :

http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning

The forces cooperate in such a way as to create a coincidental match up of energy levels, which enables the production of carbon from the fusing of three helium atoms. For three helium atoms to collide and create carbon is very unlikely, however, because under normal circumstances, the energies would not match up perfectly, and the three helium atoms would come apart before they had time to fuse into carbon. It takes a little extra time to deal with the energy mismatch. But, if there is a statistically unusual match of the energies, then the process is much faster. The slightest change to either the strong or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels, resulting in greatly reduced production of carbon and an ultimately uninhabitable universe. In the 1950s, Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation: Read Karl Giberson's Science and the Sacred entry The Road Less Traveled for more on the fine-tuning of the physical constants.

"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." 5

Hoyle did not mean to argue in favor of divine intervention as an answer. The scientific explanation of carbon’s development was readily accessible, although this explanation offers no insight into why the fundamental forces cooperated to produce the unusual energy match up. Hoyle’s remark should be understood as an acknowledgement of how startling it is that the universe has the exact properties that enable the existence of life.

[dogpet]

Woo doesn't work - but if it did you'd get your arse raped.

[Davin]

Godlovesyou wrote

In what sense was the statement taken out of context ?

Are you really that stupid?