9:31 this xtian delusional sheep claims to have once been an atheist. How does he define atheism then, b/c I'd be willing to put down a consider amount of money down, in a bet that he never was an "atheist" in the sense that actual atheists use the word
The Placebo Effect is the power to believe in the outcome, and thus effect the outcome in a favorable posture aligned with the imagined thought what the outcome should be. Saint Jerome, translated a verse in the Bible, "I shall please to" meaning God does what He takes pleasure in doing and if nothing can stop the thought from coming true, then it must come true. I shall please to in Latin is "Placebo" And the Placebo Effect is where the person gets well because they believe they will.
The question is, does the desire to believe in God , an actual part of the very fabric that constitutes intelligence and then has a direct causation in what the world is really about ? Given all the dead heats in such debates, it comes down to the Placebo Effect. We read into it, what we presume that which we ought to, because we are not aliens in the world, but a part of it and can make some basic assumptions that we have a right to expect to carry weight , because we have authority .
love hitchens but i dont think his answer to the fine tuning argument is convincing, he would be better off arguing that if anything was cosmologically different we wouldnt be having this debate and life wouldnt exist, so its simply chance theres something instead of nothing and the tuning of the universe was just chance (a big one granted but why need a prime mover, a deists god, and how in the hell if there could be proved to be a prime mover it evoled into a theistic god).
LOL "Christianity is falsifiable" and in his world, that means that all one has to do is produce the corpse of Jesus Christ, who never existed, and that will make Christianity false.
I really don't like echoing what everyone else is saying, but the fine tuning argument is rubbish: "look how close to failure, collapse, and annihilation the universe is! This is a sign of intelligence!" Are they serious? If this is a sign of intelligence, what would a sign of unintelligence be? It's simply the anthropic principle re-packaged.
the fine tuning argument is BS; When Einstein said "Did God have a choice in creating the universe?" this is what he was arguing; is it possible for the universe to exist with different constants at all? It is unknown what the answer is, and creationists assert their belief with no evidence about this.
And you can check it out for yourself: 1 Kings 7:23
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [p] to measure around it."
...my point is that pi is derived from the ratios inherent in circles (I believe it's the ratio of circumference to diameter), not the other way around.
And if you're looking to disprove the Bible, there are better ways.
That was the intention. To show why I think someone saying, "The constants in the universe are finely tuned" seems silly to me cos I could turn around and say the same thing about pi.
On the other hand, I don't mind pi in the bible being a little off.
I agree Dizzzaniel. Just because a thought is comforting doesn't make it true. The other big one is 'science doesn't answer where the universe came - the bible tells us God created the universe'. Okay then... well, where did this supreme all-knowing force (which can create solar systems and read human thought etc) come from? Saying God did it all answers nothing and in fact, just creates more questions. How can a free thinking rationale person believe in Adam n Eve, Noah's Arc etc [sigh]
"I didn't read you're book" and "I'm not a scientist" "The human body is sooo complicated" Sounds like a uneducated, lazy, misguided, and rude fool that only accepts that the answers to life's mysteries are found in the bible. Christianity mindset = I'm right and you're wrong no matter what.
I agree with your comment 100%. This guys has not considered at all that evolution can lead to complex life through natural selection over millions of years. Unfortunately, this fool represents a significant portion of the population....[sigh]...
@losghost Well, he has a PhD from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. (I was not able to find out what his doctorate is in.) I could probably guess, though (as could you).
@writersblock26 What truly amazes me is that a man that has gone through such a level of education, regardless of what it is, would apply such flawed logic to an argument.
0:00 - 0:36 he said the universe revolves! this is called Geocentrism lol what a moron. whats wrong w/ the questioner, Alzheimer's/dementia? i find it truly fascinating, massively uneducated ppl (like those who ask questions like this) actually think this ishow scientists believe the cosmos began: "it just happened". L Krauss is the scientist that Hitchens mentions, degenerates who agree w/ this retard should watch Krauss's AAI '09 presentation. It crushes the idea of the cosmos "just happening"
Here's an easy answer to the fine tuning argument: scientist Victor Stanger did various mathematical models with the 5 "cosmological constants" set to increasing magnitudes of themselves (from -5 to +5) and found that almost always, matter could still exist in those universes, even those without some of the constants, like the weak nuclear force. So, it isn't necessary that the universe is like it is at all. Matter could still exist in another kind of universe. Fine tuning doesn't hold water.
Fine tuning argument is such an arrogant one. On a universal scale our existence is barely visible. Fine tuning basically says that everything is the way it is because we are here. People want to feel as though they are special hence the ideas that the sun revolves around us and all stars are pointing towards us. Even if it is in the argument for a "creator", that is deism not Christianity and other institutionalized religion.
@omensign How are the use of universal probabilities, as demonstrated by scientific notation arguments from ignorance? It is instead, heavily driven by what we know, based on observation, reinforced by theorem.
An argument from ignorance about the precisely tuned forces and constants of the universe seems to be the only alternative to the ATHEIST, following his/her rejection of Causal transcendence. This worldview simply cannot account for it, except to say "we do not know."
@Keatrocity X is so amazingly awe inspiring, I can't possibly imagine how else it could exist without Y.
Not only is y entirely unjustified, but X is based on presumptions or attributes of existence that need not be made. There is nothing necessitated by existence, to imply a creator and no attempt is made to logically argue that it is. It is simply a baseless assertion, without explanation and based entirely on ignorance.
After reading that, I couldn't fight the feeling I had just inhailed a balloon of luke-warm stale air. "unjustified, presumptions, baseless assertions" are semantically vapid and gramatically misplaced.
The Teleological argument demonstrates exactly this: Since the liklihood for the myriad of constants and forces that work in concert to produce a life condusive universe are not only immensily unlikely but a hairs breath from starkly impossible that it is more logically ...(cont)
@Keatrocity It was your first statement to me, you insulted me and dismissed me. You have also ignored every single point and rebuttal I've made, simply dismissing it out of hand and without explanation. You seem to think that a 'debate' consist of mindless repeating yourself as you ignore everything that your opponent offers a rebuttal too.
@Keatrocity an atheist needs nothing other then the simple fact that there is no simple logical reason to believe in gods, no more then there are to believe in fairies, leprechauns, or unicorns. We can use the exact same pleading nonsensical and illogical bullshit, for any of them.
@omensign cogent to infer DESIGN then it would be to assume it had all occured through a blind, RANDOM cascade of chaos. Period.
As far as what an atheist "needs" Id go a step further and say you may very well need your godless hypothesis to be correct. The alternative should solicit you into a general re evaluation of your life and to sit up, pay attention, and stop trying to pawn off slack jawed jargon as argumentation. Whew..
@Keatrocity Not only is it a false dichotomy; presupposing only two possibilities when the actual possibilities are unknown and therefore countless it is also an apparent and obvious contradiction. If god were not designed then it would be to assume god had occurred through a blind, random, cascade of chaos.
Essentially kea, 'random' is meaningless. Your argument is a type of rejection from personal incredulity, where you emotionally don't like 'random' and offer no explanation.
@omensign It is an absolutely true dichotomy. Dichotomies exist for things where the whole can be sum of only two parts; hot cold, up down, good evil. Most things are combinations of the parts but a thrid cannot be added. Such is the case for the assembly of the universe, either the 1^80 improbability is acieved through Design, Intention, and Guidence or it is not. Its not that i "dont like random" anything occuring without the intention or guidence of a sentient intelligence is random.
@omensign Hot and cold do not exist? Next time your shivering or sweating due to a degree condition make sure to tell yourself your suffering a delusion. You'd be better to argue that cold is merely the absence of heat and evil the absence of good, but all are verbal expressions of qualities subsisting in a shared reality. You have yet to offer even a third possibility, disrupting the dichotomy. So, again, omen, either the fine tuned forces and constants are resultant from Design or they (cont)
@omensign In what way do they not exist? They exist as qualities of ice or fire, to be general. They exist as much as the term means them to, denoting conditions of reality. I can be mad but anger doesn't exist independent of its effect on other things is the closest you can get to defending your statements.
Darkness exists as a void term denoting the absence of light but still exists as a condition. Dark is a quality of lightless space. Which begs the question did the lightless (cont)
@Keatrocity nothing the universe is expanding into as we speak possess the quality of 'dark'? The answer to that would suffice your question as well. I think dark be a contingent reality to space having the potential to be altered by light, nothingness or absolute void does not meet that requirement.
@Keatrocity are entirely un-guided. Im interested at what might a third option be in this dichotomy, let alone your assertion in an infinite possibility list being completely unfounded.
@Keatrocity Kea, me again. There is actually no such thing as a 'godless' hypothesis. There is nothing I need to suppose in order to point out that there is no reason to believe. You're so blinded by your zeal to lash out at the non-believer, that you desperately fall into a trap of projecting a strawman in order to dismiss me. Even if a god exists, if no information exists to know that it exists, it would still be pointless to claim to believe.
@omensign Its Keat. Are you saying naturalism makes no positive assertions? If I lashed know that my intention and altough passionate, is non-abrasive. Naturalism makes the positive assertion that the physical reality is the ONLY reality and that the universe need no transcendent cause, ergo godless admitting that it is a pejorative term. Its a cop-out to affirm a position soley based on skepticism given that absolutely nothing of reality is immune to doubt. I can dismiss you without a strawman.
Methodological naturalism is not philosophical naturalism, again you're too wrapped up in the rhetoric of religious apologia and you're projecting a polemical animosity without concern for your position or even bothering to ask the other person.
@omensign Its not necessary wait for my permission to offer key, and very necessary justifications for your argument I.e. the difference between Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Please cease senseless caricaturing of my debate style, frankly, its all very evasive.
I'd like to add, I think it's actually worse than an argument from ignorance. It's by definition, a fallacious argument. It implicitly suggests that God could only have created life in a universe that looks like our own. But surely even if planets had never formed, God could have created life that existed happily in space- he IS God. The very argument itself contradicts the definition of God.
@omensign yes, it basically assumes that the earth is the only planet in the cosmos and again its another deist argument rather than an argument for xtianity
It sounds like the dark side of intelligent design - evolution hasn't perfected us in 5 billion years so an intelligent designer did a poor job and this proves intelligent design?
Dawkins writes about our inability to readily grasp the time scale of (for instance) evolution. This "fine tuning" seems evidentiary of that.
Having faith in something doesn't make it true. If it did, Islam would be as (actually it is) irrefutable as Christianity.
the fine tuning argument is "the universe was made to fit us perfectly" (in essence)
the fine tuning argument is 100% (ish) true(ish). WE wouldnt. things still would. posssibly different beings. the argument assumes that the universe (which existed before us) was made around us. which is false since WE are the ones "tuned" by nature to fit the universe.
while a lot of statements involving the fine tuning argument are true, there are many lies of omissions in it which end up making it obsolete.
The fine tuning argument is moot. Out of chaos comes order. Out of order comes chaos. Life arose because it could. It is here and the probability of something happening that has happened is 1:1.
If the creator's preferences for universes had been even the slightest different, our universe would not be here. How do you explain such fine tuning? Who fine-tuned the creator?
Perhaps all other non-universes are also in existence alongside this one? After all, they would not occupy or possess any time or space. This seems to be supported in quantum theory.
The fine tuning argument doesn't seem very impressive when the people arguing for it and against it have no expertise in that specific field. I'd *love* to see a debate between a theist and atheist scientist on this.
That can be solved beautifully by the anthropic principle, so it's really not necessary to debate it at all. If the universe were slightly different we wouldn't be here to talk about it. It's kind of a waste of time talking about what could have happened, when we know what actually did happen. And also, the assumption that the universe is "tuned" for existence at all is a meaningless statement, it can't be proven nor disproven, but the probability of it is very low.
While I know what you are saying and I do agree with you almost completely there is some information still worth discussing. U of O (pandering to my home) was involved in the physics paper: "A universe without weak interactions" that suggests life is quite possible without the weak force. Now while I am a layman I would love to hear physicists debate over the other 3 forces and how crucial they are to life and what other kinds of life could be postulated to exist under different settings.
None of the 4 religious guys make any sense what so ever, ever.
3xxiled 6 months ago
9:31 this xtian delusional sheep claims to have once been an atheist. How does he define atheism then, b/c I'd be willing to put down a consider amount of money down, in a bet that he never was an "atheist" in the sense that actual atheists use the word
slovakmath 6 months ago
Thank you for posting this, hopokuk.
writersblock26 6 months ago
aw man the first question in this part of the video is the priceless, most common idiotic question.
Konstiin 7 months ago
The Placebo Effect is the power to believe in the outcome, and thus effect the outcome in a favorable posture aligned with the imagined thought what the outcome should be. Saint Jerome, translated a verse in the Bible, "I shall please to" meaning God does what He takes pleasure in doing and if nothing can stop the thought from coming true, then it must come true. I shall please to in Latin is "Placebo" And the Placebo Effect is where the person gets well because they believe they will.
CarmineFragione 9 months ago
The question is, does the desire to believe in God , an actual part of the very fabric that constitutes intelligence and then has a direct causation in what the world is really about ? Given all the dead heats in such debates, it comes down to the Placebo Effect. We read into it, what we presume that which we ought to, because we are not aliens in the world, but a part of it and can make some basic assumptions that we have a right to expect to carry weight , because we have authority .
CarmineFragione 9 months ago
Hitch is like, 'Fuck the optimism, I call it pessimism."
Zimnyification 10 months ago
2:18
Hitchens goes "Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah."
Encapsulates the frustration I have when I debate the religious.
TheDanielWooi 10 months ago
the day hitchens becomes a theist is the day I will shit bibles.
xn117 1 year ago 2
love hitchens but i dont think his answer to the fine tuning argument is convincing, he would be better off arguing that if anything was cosmologically different we wouldnt be having this debate and life wouldnt exist, so its simply chance theres something instead of nothing and the tuning of the universe was just chance (a big one granted but why need a prime mover, a deists god, and how in the hell if there could be proved to be a prime mover it evoled into a theistic god).
HBCjunke 1 year ago
Comment removed
HBCjunke 1 year ago
Seriously this toolbox at the end needs to can it.
McLarenF1God 1 year ago
at the end of the day, the fine tuning argument only works for the deist position.
it still doesn't move one from the deist position to a theist one.
bethnor 1 year ago
Hey moderator, maybe you're running behind because you took so much time throwing your own opinion in when you should have been moderating.
brandonayers 1 year ago 7
william lame craig i has an old and proved stupid argument thats why hitchens does not adrees him
johnnyd101 1 year ago
i love it christians got owned
thescorpionking2020 1 year ago
What kind of moral being would want its children calling themselves servants.
Martial024 1 year ago
Comment removed
zandaz3 1 year ago
test
CmrAdama 1 year ago
test
CmrAdama 1 year ago
Strobel has nothing, his claimed evidence is not evidence (I've read your books) - you've been outdone here plain and simple.
wdf2222 1 year ago
LOL "Christianity is falsifiable" and in his world, that means that all one has to do is produce the corpse of Jesus Christ, who never existed, and that will make Christianity false.
RedDollShoes 1 year ago
I hate the southern christian accents in the audience
iloveJesus420 1 year ago
have none of them heard of the anthropic principle?
Richy15251 1 year ago
I really don't like echoing what everyone else is saying, but the fine tuning argument is rubbish: "look how close to failure, collapse, and annihilation the universe is! This is a sign of intelligence!" Are they serious? If this is a sign of intelligence, what would a sign of unintelligence be? It's simply the anthropic principle re-packaged.
ivanmikhailov 1 year ago
the fine tuning argument is BS; When Einstein said "Did God have a choice in creating the universe?" this is what he was arguing; is it possible for the universe to exist with different constants at all? It is unknown what the answer is, and creationists assert their belief with no evidence about this.
rainbowofhazes 1 year ago
If pi was even slightly off we wouldn't have circles!
Vamavid 2 years ago
And the bible has is FAR off! The bible says pi = 3
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
LOL.
Vamavid 2 years ago
;D
And you can check it out for yourself: 1 Kings 7:23
"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [p] to measure around it."
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
But I'm prepared to let this one slide. I wasn't too far off and a bronze-age goat herder wouldn't need to notice the extra 1.4159 cubits.
I was just pointing out the whole "finely tuned constants" business is just nonsensical.
Vamavid 2 years ago
...you don't know much about math do you.
lumiere707 2 years ago
Your point being?
Vamavid 2 years ago
Comment removed
Vamavid 2 years ago
...my point is that pi is derived from the ratios inherent in circles (I believe it's the ratio of circumference to diameter), not the other way around.
And if you're looking to disprove the Bible, there are better ways.
lumiere707 2 years ago
You should read what I actually wrote, bro.
Vamavid 2 years ago
I did. and Its a stupid analogy.
Bro...?
lumiere707 2 years ago
That was the intention. To show why I think someone saying, "The constants in the universe are finely tuned" seems silly to me cos I could turn around and say the same thing about pi.
On the other hand, I don't mind pi in the bible being a little off.
Vamavid 2 years ago
They always talk about the hope religion brings people... nobody doubts that religion brings people hope. its a stupid point
Dizzzaniel 2 years ago
I agree Dizzzaniel. Just because a thought is comforting doesn't make it true. The other big one is 'science doesn't answer where the universe came - the bible tells us God created the universe'. Okay then... well, where did this supreme all-knowing force (which can create solar systems and read human thought etc) come from? Saying God did it all answers nothing and in fact, just creates more questions. How can a free thinking rationale person believe in Adam n Eve, Noah's Arc etc [sigh]
CmrAdama 2 years ago
Hitchens should of raised some of the nonsensical elements of Christianity, e.g.:
1 'God gave his only son': God can create the universe but can't create another. What a sacrifice (doesnt the son end up in a better place - heaven?)
2. The bible set out the history of the world yet leaves out the long reign of dinorsaurs
3. 'our morals are from bible' (we clearly pick and choose from it- even Jesus had no problem with slavery)
why do some not critically analyze their belief system?
CmrAdama 2 years ago 4
Can I express my frustration for theists that say "I used to be an atheist".
As if this somehow makes their new found belief in god valid.
Just because you used to be an atheist and now believe in god doesn't mean there is a god.
tat20001 2 years ago 5
"I didn't read you're book" and "I'm not a scientist" "The human body is sooo complicated" Sounds like a uneducated, lazy, misguided, and rude fool that only accepts that the answers to life's mysteries are found in the bible. Christianity mindset = I'm right and you're wrong no matter what.
madarab405 2 years ago 5
I agree with your comment 100%. This guys has not considered at all that evolution can lead to complex life through natural selection over millions of years. Unfortunately, this fool represents a significant portion of the population....[sigh]...
CmrAdama 2 years ago 2
who is that guy at the very end of a table?? he sounds so stupid and narrow minded...he is DEFINATELY a man of 1 book...and the wrong book at that!
Nitka04 2 years ago 7
Not sure, Ted Dunsen or Ted Dunsten
hopokuk 2 years ago
I believe his name is Jim or James Denison
BurtGummer28 2 years ago
@Nitka04 There are 2 ends on a rectangular table.
mooogles 1 year ago
@Nitka04
Jim Dennison
belodeau 1 year ago
@Nitka04 His name is Dr. Jim Denison.
writersblock26 6 months ago
@writersblock26 Doctor of what? Theology? I wonder if I could get a doctorate in theology from the church of the great spaghetti monster.
losghost 6 months ago
@losghost Well, he has a PhD from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. (I was not able to find out what his doctorate is in.) I could probably guess, though (as could you).
writersblock26 6 months ago
@writersblock26 What truly amazes me is that a man that has gone through such a level of education, regardless of what it is, would apply such flawed logic to an argument.
losghost 6 months ago
0:00 - 0:36 he said the universe revolves! this is called Geocentrism lol what a moron. whats wrong w/ the questioner, Alzheimer's/dementia? i find it truly fascinating, massively uneducated ppl (like those who ask questions like this) actually think this ishow scientists believe the cosmos began: "it just happened". L Krauss is the scientist that Hitchens mentions, degenerates who agree w/ this retard should watch Krauss's AAI '09 presentation. It crushes the idea of the cosmos "just happening"
slovakmath 6 months ago
Here's an easy answer to the fine tuning argument: scientist Victor Stanger did various mathematical models with the 5 "cosmological constants" set to increasing magnitudes of themselves (from -5 to +5) and found that almost always, matter could still exist in those universes, even those without some of the constants, like the weak nuclear force. So, it isn't necessary that the universe is like it is at all. Matter could still exist in another kind of universe. Fine tuning doesn't hold water.
cyranothe2nd 2 years ago
That's was retarded.
observer75 2 years ago
Fine tuning argument is such an arrogant one. On a universal scale our existence is barely visible. Fine tuning basically says that everything is the way it is because we are here. People want to feel as though they are special hence the ideas that the sun revolves around us and all stars are pointing towards us. Even if it is in the argument for a "creator", that is deism not Christianity and other institutionalized religion.
Animeabe 2 years ago 2
What a terrible assesment.
observer75 2 years ago
I can recommend Dawkins's interview with Stephen Weinberg - they discuss in brief the so called fine tuning of some of the constants in the cosmos.
TheCorrigan 2 years ago 3
I can't believe the religious folk are actually putting forth the fine tuning argument, which is the equivalent of an argument from ignorance.
omensign 2 years ago 17
@omensign How are the use of universal probabilities, as demonstrated by scientific notation arguments from ignorance? It is instead, heavily driven by what we know, based on observation, reinforced by theorem.
An argument from ignorance about the precisely tuned forces and constants of the universe seems to be the only alternative to the ATHEIST, following his/her rejection of Causal transcendence. This worldview simply cannot account for it, except to say "we do not know."
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity X is so amazingly awe inspiring, I can't possibly imagine how else it could exist without Y.
Not only is y entirely unjustified, but X is based on presumptions or attributes of existence that need not be made. There is nothing necessitated by existence, to imply a creator and no attempt is made to logically argue that it is. It is simply a baseless assertion, without explanation and based entirely on ignorance.
omensign 1 year ago
@omensign
After reading that, I couldn't fight the feeling I had just inhailed a balloon of luke-warm stale air. "unjustified, presumptions, baseless assertions" are semantically vapid and gramatically misplaced.
The Teleological argument demonstrates exactly this: Since the liklihood for the myriad of constants and forces that work in concert to produce a life condusive universe are not only immensily unlikely but a hairs breath from starkly impossible that it is more logically ...(cont)
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity And if you tell yourself that enough times, maybe one day it'll be true. Queue standard religious apologetic response:
1. Ask a question.
2. Ignore the answer.
3. Insult the person you asked.
4. Dismiss them.
omensign 1 year ago
@omensign I did exactly none of that.
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity It was your first statement to me, you insulted me and dismissed me. You have also ignored every single point and rebuttal I've made, simply dismissing it out of hand and without explanation. You seem to think that a 'debate' consist of mindless repeating yourself as you ignore everything that your opponent offers a rebuttal too.
omensign 1 year ago
@omensign You on the other hand just engaged in an ad hominem assertion. NOW you are subject to dismissal.
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity LMAO.. After reading that, I couldn't fight the feeling I had just inhailed a balloon of luke-warm stale air.
omensign 1 year ago
@Keatrocity an atheist needs nothing other then the simple fact that there is no simple logical reason to believe in gods, no more then there are to believe in fairies, leprechauns, or unicorns. We can use the exact same pleading nonsensical and illogical bullshit, for any of them.
omensign 1 year ago
@omensign cogent to infer DESIGN then it would be to assume it had all occured through a blind, RANDOM cascade of chaos. Period.
As far as what an atheist "needs" Id go a step further and say you may very well need your godless hypothesis to be correct. The alternative should solicit you into a general re evaluation of your life and to sit up, pay attention, and stop trying to pawn off slack jawed jargon as argumentation. Whew..
gotta go to confession...
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity Not only is it a false dichotomy; presupposing only two possibilities when the actual possibilities are unknown and therefore countless it is also an apparent and obvious contradiction. If god were not designed then it would be to assume god had occurred through a blind, random, cascade of chaos.
Essentially kea, 'random' is meaningless. Your argument is a type of rejection from personal incredulity, where you emotionally don't like 'random' and offer no explanation.
omensign 1 year ago
@omensign It is an absolutely true dichotomy. Dichotomies exist for things where the whole can be sum of only two parts; hot cold, up down, good evil. Most things are combinations of the parts but a thrid cannot be added. Such is the case for the assembly of the universe, either the 1^80 improbability is acieved through Design, Intention, and Guidence or it is not. Its not that i "dont like random" anything occuring without the intention or guidence of a sentient intelligence is random.
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity A dichotomy requires that it be the only two possibilities, its not. There are an infinite number of other possibilities.
There is also no such thing as 'hot' and 'cold', temperature is nothing more then a scale of degrees. The same with light and dark.
"good and evil" is meaningless, subjective magical nonsense.
omensign 1 year ago
@omensign Hot and cold do not exist? Next time your shivering or sweating due to a degree condition make sure to tell yourself your suffering a delusion. You'd be better to argue that cold is merely the absence of heat and evil the absence of good, but all are verbal expressions of qualities subsisting in a shared reality. You have yet to offer even a third possibility, disrupting the dichotomy. So, again, omen, either the fine tuned forces and constants are resultant from Design or they (cont)
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity no, hot and cold do not exist.
Do you think 'darkness' is a thing when light is not present?
omensign 1 year ago
@omensign In what way do they not exist? They exist as qualities of ice or fire, to be general. They exist as much as the term means them to, denoting conditions of reality. I can be mad but anger doesn't exist independent of its effect on other things is the closest you can get to defending your statements.
Darkness exists as a void term denoting the absence of light but still exists as a condition. Dark is a quality of lightless space. Which begs the question did the lightless (cont)
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity nothing the universe is expanding into as we speak possess the quality of 'dark'? The answer to that would suffice your question as well. I think dark be a contingent reality to space having the potential to be altered by light, nothingness or absolute void does not meet that requirement.
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity are entirely un-guided. Im interested at what might a third option be in this dichotomy, let alone your assertion in an infinite possibility list being completely unfounded.
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity Kea, me again. There is actually no such thing as a 'godless' hypothesis. There is nothing I need to suppose in order to point out that there is no reason to believe. You're so blinded by your zeal to lash out at the non-believer, that you desperately fall into a trap of projecting a strawman in order to dismiss me. Even if a god exists, if no information exists to know that it exists, it would still be pointless to claim to believe.
omensign 1 year ago
@omensign Its Keat. Are you saying naturalism makes no positive assertions? If I lashed know that my intention and altough passionate, is non-abrasive. Naturalism makes the positive assertion that the physical reality is the ONLY reality and that the universe need no transcendent cause, ergo godless admitting that it is a pejorative term. Its a cop-out to affirm a position soley based on skepticism given that absolutely nothing of reality is immune to doubt. I can dismiss you without a strawman.
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@Keatrocity Strawman.
Methodological naturalism is not philosophical naturalism, again you're too wrapped up in the rhetoric of religious apologia and you're projecting a polemical animosity without concern for your position or even bothering to ask the other person.
omensign 1 year ago
@omensign Its not necessary wait for my permission to offer key, and very necessary justifications for your argument I.e. the difference between Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Please cease senseless caricaturing of my debate style, frankly, its all very evasive.
Keatrocity 1 year ago
@omensign
I'd like to add, I think it's actually worse than an argument from ignorance. It's by definition, a fallacious argument. It implicitly suggests that God could only have created life in a universe that looks like our own. But surely even if planets had never formed, God could have created life that existed happily in space- he IS God. The very argument itself contradicts the definition of God.
matthewjhaywood 1 year ago
@omensign yes, it basically assumes that the earth is the only planet in the cosmos and again its another deist argument rather than an argument for xtianity
MamaMario13 10 months ago
lee stroble is not an atheist and never was an atheist
fattkattz55 2 years ago 5
First I've heard of the "fine tuning" argument.
It sounds like the dark side of intelligent design - evolution hasn't perfected us in 5 billion years so an intelligent designer did a poor job and this proves intelligent design?
Dawkins writes about our inability to readily grasp the time scale of (for instance) evolution. This "fine tuning" seems evidentiary of that.
Having faith in something doesn't make it true. If it did, Islam would be as (actually it is) irrefutable as Christianity.
MrsPhineasT 2 years ago 6
the fine tuning argument is "the universe was made to fit us perfectly" (in essence)
the fine tuning argument is 100% (ish) true(ish). WE wouldnt. things still would. posssibly different beings. the argument assumes that the universe (which existed before us) was made around us. which is false since WE are the ones "tuned" by nature to fit the universe.
while a lot of statements involving the fine tuning argument are true, there are many lies of omissions in it which end up making it obsolete.
TheGreatOldOnes 2 years ago 4
The fine tuning argument is moot. Out of chaos comes order. Out of order comes chaos. Life arose because it could. It is here and the probability of something happening that has happened is 1:1.
Onodera1980 2 years ago 3
Out of chaos comes nothing, that is the Law of Entropy. Total chaos is heat death, game over, the universe ends.
MarkProffitt 2 years ago
Who's the twat on the far right of the screen?
GordonMorrice 2 years ago 6
Jim Denison
Dhalsim06 2 years ago
wheres Dawkins when you need him; Hitchens is great at the moral side not scientific
waz89 2 years ago 17
If the creator's preferences for universes had been even the slightest different, our universe would not be here. How do you explain such fine tuning? Who fine-tuned the creator?
Scientialist 2 years ago 4
I assume you argue against a creator. I agree.
Perhaps all other non-universes are also in existence alongside this one? After all, they would not occupy or possess any time or space. This seems to be supported in quantum theory.
natmanprime 2 years ago
The fine tuning argument doesn't seem very impressive when the people arguing for it and against it have no expertise in that specific field. I'd *love* to see a debate between a theist and atheist scientist on this.
Dark1777 2 years ago 7
That can be solved beautifully by the anthropic principle, so it's really not necessary to debate it at all. If the universe were slightly different we wouldn't be here to talk about it. It's kind of a waste of time talking about what could have happened, when we know what actually did happen. And also, the assumption that the universe is "tuned" for existence at all is a meaningless statement, it can't be proven nor disproven, but the probability of it is very low.
KamasutraButterfly 2 years ago 3
While I know what you are saying and I do agree with you almost completely there is some information still worth discussing. U of O (pandering to my home) was involved in the physics paper: "A universe without weak interactions" that suggests life is quite possible without the weak force. Now while I am a layman I would love to hear physicists debate over the other 3 forces and how crucial they are to life and what other kinds of life could be postulated to exist under different settings.
Dark1777 2 years ago