Fine Tuning vs Intelligent Design vs Fine Tuning vs Intelligent Design

[none]

doesn't the Intelligent Design argument render the Fine Tuning Argument useless?
and doesn't the Fine Tuning argument render the Intelligent Design argument useless?
I am so confused...
plus isn't Fine Tuning the same as the Anthropic Principle?

 

[RandomCoolzip]

doesn't the Intelligent Design argument render the Fine Tuning Argument useless?
and doesn't the Fine Tuning argument render the Intelligent Design argument useless?
I am so confused...
plus isn't Fine Tuning the same as the Anthropic Principle?

I think the fine-tuning argument is one of the arguments for intelligent design. Intelligent design isn't an argument per se; it's a conclusion that arguments like the fine-tuning argument supposedly lead to. Fine-tuning is just another variant of the watchmaker argument.

Somebody else had better state the anthropic principle. To me it is such backward logic that I can't even state it clearly. It's like reasoning that my existence is a miracle because the odds against it were so enormous back some arbitrary amount of time in the past. Well, yeah, but every one of the other alternatives had an equally minuscule chance of happening, looked at from back then.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think the fine-tuning argument is one of the arguments for intelligent design.

By ID, i think none is referring to infinitesimal comlexity.
They're saying EITHER the universe was created such that when left to itswelf, we're an inescapable result, OR the universe is as it is, and we had a head-start in our creation with something that couldn't exist by accident.

So, basically, either this universe was made specifically for us, or we're made specifically for this universe. Why would a god do both? What would the point be of doing both?

 

[RandomCoolzip]

I think the fine-tuning argument is one of the arguments for intelligent design.

By ID, i think none is referring to infinitesimal comlexity.
They're saying EITHER the universe was created such that when left to itswelf, we're an inescapable result, OR the universe is as it is, and we had a head-start in our creation with something that couldn't exist by accident.

So, basically, either this universe was made specifically for us, or we're made specifically for this universe. Why would a god do both? What would the point be of doing both?

I think the point, for IDers, is to have as many arguments as possible, even if they are not compatible with each other. They don't actually care how far back God inserted his "wafer of creation" as long as they can argue that he did so.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think the fine-tuning argument is one of the arguments for intelligent design.

By ID, i think none is referring to infinitesimal comlexity.
They're saying EITHER the universe was created such that when left to itswelf, we're an inescapable result, OR the universe is as it is, and we had a head-start in our creation with something that couldn't exist by accident.

So, basically, either this universe was made specifically for us, or we're made specifically for this universe. Why would a god do both? What would the point be of doing both?

All these discussions run aground when someone asks, "Why would a god....". What is the point of supposing an entity with the power to create the universe, an entity unconstrained by time and space, and then using a human brain to decide there is something he wouldn't do, or even sillier, he did something dumb.

It comes down to two basic questions:
If there is such a God and he really did create the universe, how would it appear to us?
If there is no such God and the universe is a natural process of undetermined origin, how would it appear to us? Once these two questions are satisfied, the discussion is over.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All these discussions run aground when someone asks, "Why would a god....". What is the point of supposing an entity with the power to create the universe, an entity unconstrained by time and space, and then using a human brain to decide there is something he wouldn't do, or even sillier, he did something dumb.

Well, the theists' arguments always use a human brain to decide that the actions of the unconstrained being make sense to them. it's only when their sense is challenged that they drop back to the 'it's a mystery' defense.
All the theist arguments for their god appeal to human brains, so why not question the arguments by human standards?

 

[RandomCoolzip]

The discussion won't ever be over, however, because neither question is answerable. There is no way to tell the difference between an artifact of conscious design, and one that is a product of natural processes that you don't understand yet. After all, there's nothing to stop God from designing things to look like they happened "naturally" (whatever that means).

 

[Bronzeage]

All these discussions run aground when someone asks, "Why would a god....". What is the point of supposing an entity with the power to create the universe, an entity unconstrained by time and space, and then using a human brain to decide there is something he wouldn't do, or even sillier, he did something dumb.

Well, the theists' arguments always use a human brain to decide that the actions of the unconstrained being make sense to them. it's only when their sense is challenged that they drop back to the 'it's a mystery' defense.
All the theist arguments for their god appeal to human brains, so why not question the arguments by human standards?

There's nothing wrong with that as long as we concede they are arguing about humans, not God. Any inconsistency in anyone's logic cannot change the facts of the physical existence of anything.

There is really no argument when one side says, "Look at all of this, therefore there is a God," and the other says "Look at all of this, therefore, there is no God."

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's nothing wrong with that as long as we concede they are arguing about humans, not God.

Concede? That's my premise. I haven't asked a god to explain his logic since i was 12.
But plenty of people on this forum are sure they can explain god's logic, motives, goals, desires, regrets, foibles and actions.

 

[RandomCoolzip]

Concede? That's my premise. I haven't asked a god to explain his logic since i was 12.
But plenty of people on this forum are sure they can explain god's logic, motives, goals, desires, regrets, foibles and actions.

God has foibles? Perish the thought!

 

[ideologyhunter]

Actually god's miraculous creation of human life in chapter 2 of the goooood book illustrates a foible, wouldn't you say? By chapter 6, he's all done with us, except for the zookeeper & his family. He's also a god that can't predict the future.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually god's miraculous creation of human life in chapter 2 of the goooood book illustrates a foible, wouldn't you say? By chapter 6, he's all done with us, except for the zookeeper & his family. He's also a god that can't predict the future.

Or remember the past.
Mankind was destroyed, save the Zookeepers, for being 'wicked.'
Later, he realizes that mankind was created with 'wicked' inherent in the design.
Now, who was it that wrote that design? Oh. Whoops.

 

[Bronzeage]

There's nothing wrong with that as long as we concede they are arguing about humans, not God.

Concede? That's my premise. I haven't asked a god to explain his logic since i was 12.
But plenty of people on this forum are sure they can explain god's logic, motives, goals, desires, regrets, foibles and actions.

I suppose that is the good fight.

 

[Underseer]

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
--Douglas Adams