• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

fine tuning argument

joedad said:
blastula said:
Another thing about the FTA, it implies that God is subservient to physical parameters - that his design is at the mercy of already present physical limitations. If God is the decider of all parameters, then tuning by God makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Good point. It's the same with creationists going on and on about how wonderful our bodies are and how intricately and perfectly they work. Never mind the fact that they cut and break easily, get diseased and tend to die. If I were inventing bodies I could do a lot better job of it with less than one human lifetime of experience and observation.
Click to expand...

Which is why in one human lifetime of experience and observation you built your children new bodies that work, instead of, ya know, fucking them by proxy. Because it's that easy.
 
Lion IRC said:
joedad said:
I liked the non-response that followed. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I've already answered that - citing the bible. (Potter/clay)
The designer/inventer can create a universe wherein life is deliberately intended to arise in only one small part of that universe. That doesn't negate overall fine-tuning. On the contrary, it amplifies the appearence of fine-tuning.
Click to expand...
It's hard enough to set up and control conscious life (that you care about) in one location.

Imagine if the constants made life pop up all over the fucking place?
 
Lion IRC said:
joedad said:
I liked the non-response that followed. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I've already answered that - citing the bible. (Potter/clay)
The designer/inventer can create a universe wherein life is deliberately intended to arise in only one small part of that universe. That doesn't negate overall fine-tuning. On the contrary, it amplifies the appearence of fine-tuning.
Click to expand...
It amplifies the appearance of desperation to argue for the creation of a universe for the purpose of having life, while making only one infinitesimally tiny piece of a piece of that universe fit for same, and then only after billions of years. Rather a strained argument for life, but a very good argument for the intended creation of a lifeless creation.
 
Fine-turning assumes that the "idea" of whatever the fine-tuning is aimed at occured first, presumably in the mind of some magic all-powerful being, who then cooked up an environment it could survive in, then plopped in the things he originally wanted to make.

Where's the evidence of this "idea for a type of being" being decided upon before the environment being made to suit? There is none. Whereas there is plenty of evidence of beings adapting to their pre-existing environment.
 
Lion IRC said:
joedad said:
Fine tuning claims are the same as creation or intelligent design or irreducible complexity claims, they all presuppose what they're attempting to demonstrate. They're exercises in question begging.
Click to expand...

If that were true then those who make claims to the contrary - the opponents of fine tuning - must be doing the same thing in the opposite direction.

How can you refute their supposed design presuppositions without doing some 'presupposing' of your own?

#goose_gander. #pot_kettle
Click to expand...

"I know you are, but what am I?" is not a valid counterargument.

Even if it were true in the reverse (and it's not), this is a tu quoque fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
 
Draconis said:
Fine-turning assumes that the "idea" of whatever the fine-tuning is aimed at occured first, presumably in the mind of some magic all-powerful being, who then cooked up an environment it could survive in, then plopped in the things he originally wanted to make.

Where's the evidence of this "idea for a type of being" being decided upon before the environment being made to suit? There is none. Whereas there is plenty of evidence of beings adapting to their pre-existing environment.
Click to expand...
Well reasoned.... :slowclap:

With the correction that life hasn't adapted to a pre-existing environment. Life has continually had to adapt to an ever changing environment. The environment that Earth's first life flourished in would quickly kill today's life. The first life was anaerobic so oxygen was a lethal poison for it. As oxygen was a waste product of this life, it eventually was the cause of its own extinction.

If the purpose of the fine tuner was to create conditions perfect for humans then he didn't poof it into existence. He was awfully plodding in his tuning taking several billion years to accomplish the task. What we see certainly looks more like a slow evolutionary process than it does magic poofing of a perfect environment.
 
I might also point out that anaerobic life isn't completely extinct either. But it does have to live in niches that limit the supply of oxygen. Places like a fold in my sinus cavity for which I occasionally have to get a prescription of Metronidazole to eradicate. :mad:
 
skepticalbip said:
Draconis said:
Fine-turning assumes that the "idea" of whatever the fine-tuning is aimed at occured first, presumably in the mind of some magic all-powerful being, who then cooked up an environment it could survive in, then plopped in the things he originally wanted to make.

Where's the evidence of this "idea for a type of being" being decided upon before the environment being made to suit? There is none. Whereas there is plenty of evidence of beings adapting to their pre-existing environment.
Click to expand...
Well reasoned.... :slowclap:

With the correction that life hasn't adapted to a pre-existing environment. Life has continually had to adapt to an ever changing environment. The environment that Earth's first life flourished in would quickly kill today's life. The first life was anaerobic so oxygen was a lethal poison for it. As oxygen was a waste product of this life, it eventually was the cause of its own extinction.

If the purpose of the fine tuner was to create conditions perfect for humans then he didn't poof it into existence. He was awfully plodding in his tuning taking several billion years to accomplish the task. What we see certainly looks more like a slow evolutionary process than it does magic poofing of a perfect environment.
Click to expand...
A xtian would argue that his god is a timeless being, that the billions of years we perceive would be like nothing to this god.
 
^ ^ ^
Almost certainly they would. But that doesn't mean that it makes any sense. The billions of years that was the poofing is nothing to their god and the fewer billions of years before the sun swells to make ash of Earth's surface is even less time for their god. So the entire span of life on Earth would be a blink of god's eye - the few million years of Homo Sapiens existence before we are gone would be much, much less. Doesn't seem to have been worth the effort.
 
skepticalbip said:
^ ^ ^
Almost certainly they would. But that doesn't mean that it makes any sense. The billions of years that was the poofing is nothing to their god and the fewer billions of years before the sun swells to make ash of Earth's surface is even less time for their god. So the entire span of life on Earth would be a blink of god's eye - the few million years of Homo Sapiens existence before we are gone would be much, much less. Doesn't seem to have been worth the effort.
Click to expand...

That a thought is but an infinitesimal part of my life does not mean the thought is unimportant to me.

It is that certain thoughts naturally arise from the interplay of the forces (of consciousness) that dictate we all participate in the process of learning to balance these forces, thoughts, and qualia in such a way that an eternally existing framework is created that consistently produces pleasant thoughts for all.

Or not. :cheeky:
 
Timelessness has nothing to do with it anyway. Purposeful intent vs things that can be explained because they are consistent with how the world works is the argument at hand. The sand pictures presented earlier in this thread are a textbook example of what is wrong with FTA. The sand dune is able to be explained by the unintentional operation of various forces and materials. The sand sculpture is much more parsimoniously explained by intention of a human artist.

The universe, like the sand dune, has been largely explained through appeal to natural causes. That trend shows no sign of slowing down. The universe doesn't operate like a finely tuned Swiss watch. Far from it. Objects in the universe hurtle in every direction with collisions happening many thousands of times every second. Over billions of years the frequency of such collisions has abated somewhat, but the surface of every object we've been able to observe in space as well as our own vulnerable planet is riddled with the evidence of such unintended and quite natural collisions. This is but one example of the rampant chaos that is the universe. We (as a species) are no more protected by some benevolent god from extinction via meteor impact than a Caribbean island is protected by a benevolent god from hurricanes.
 
skepticalbip said:
Draconis said:
Fine-turning assumes that the "idea" of whatever the fine-tuning is aimed at occured first, presumably in the mind of some magic all-powerful being, who then cooked up an environment it could survive in, then plopped in the things he originally wanted to make.

Where's the evidence of this "idea for a type of being" being decided upon before the environment being made to suit? There is none. Whereas there is plenty of evidence of beings adapting to their pre-existing environment.
Click to expand...

Well reasoned.... :slowclap:
Click to expand...


I don't see any reasoning here at all.

Incredulity isn't an argument.

All we have in the above post is disbelief that original ideas (thoughts) precede material inventions, creations...
 
Lion IRC said:
I don't know how you can fail to see the difference between these categories - intentional and unintentional.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can fail to see why people might think that a magical disembodied mind would be at least implausible.
 
I don't think 'mind' is synonymous with brain/meat.
 
Atheos said:
Timelessness has nothing to do with it anyway. Purposeful intent vs things that can be explained because they are consistent with how the world works is the argument at hand. The sand pictures presented earlier in this thread are a textbook example of what is wrong with FTA. The sand dune is able to be explained by the unintentional operation of various forces and materials. The sand sculpture is much more parsimoniously explained by intention of a human artist.

The universe, like the sand dune, has been largely explained through appeal to natural causes.
Click to expand...
Indeed by known experience as humans we can recognise sculptures created by other humans. We also see similar images and shapes which is also caused by natural causes (giving the appearance of intention to some). In part- whether by natural causes or intention,both methods are 'within the properties and guidelines of physical laws' giving a similar physical template to form shapes and patterns that can look similar. Likely from both opposite ends of perpectives.Its understandable why one could see creative intention in the universe or from the other perspective;see what is known as ( or rather unknown as) ; " Natural Cause". What is really ever explained in debates is the process with the formation of things and not the actual underlying cause.The reason behind it.


That trend shows no sign of slowing down. The universe doesn't operate like a finely tuned Swiss watch. Far from it. Objects in the universe hurtle in every direction with collisions happening many thousands of times every second. Over billions of years the frequency of such collisions has abated somewhat, but the surface of every object we've been able to observe in space as well as our own vulnerable planet is riddled with the evidence of such unintended and quite natural collisions. This is but one example of the rampant chaos that is the universe. We (as a species) are no more protected by some benevolent god from extinction via meteor impact than a Caribbean island is protected by a benevolent god from hurricanes.
Click to expand...

Believers are often accused with applying anthromorphism to their arguments,so perhaps the universe operating as it does,may actually be the function required for the existance of life. Great big free radicals ( if you will) colliding about producing the neccessary elements for more life.
 
Lion IRC said:
skepticalbip said:
Well reasoned.... :slowclap:
Click to expand...


I don't see any reasoning here at all.

Incredulity isn't an argument.

All we have in the above post is disbelief that original ideas (thoughts) precede material inventions, creations...
Click to expand...
We have disbelief that there were "original ideas (thoughts)" before the first life emerged. Incredulity is a reasonable response to extraordinary and unsupported claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom