Hey Guys: Creationists Cake [Fine Tuning]

About the fine tuning argument

They have it, and eat it.

This video Talks about how creationists assertion, that the universe is so unlikely to exist "just by chance", is a flawed assertion, and thus isn't an argument which they should use.

Just as I could argue that, since we don't know that the universe could have only had the forces we recognize, that it could be so entirely different, that life forming would be insanely fast, and that life wouldn't need to be complex, to develop intelligence.

We are only complex as life, because the universe is such a terrible incubator for it, if the universe was well suited for life, then life would be everywhere, and not need so many complex parts, to do a simple task.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creationist
• creation
• god
• evolution
• universe
• multiverse
• assumptions
• assume

[tubewatch59]

See what I mean? To the extent that some creationists try and have it both ways, it is also possible for some evolutionists (or really - naturalists) to also want to have it both ways.

I think it's inevitable that people who feel passionately about a topic, will sometimes try to have their arguments both ways.

I would think the best course in such cases is not to get too upset, but to just point out why it isn't smart to try and have things both ways. It has a bad effect on reasoning.

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

@tubewatch59 "I think it's inevitable that people who feel passionately about a topic, will sometimes try to have their arguments both ways. "

Correction

I think it's inevitable that people who feel passionately about a topic, will sometimes try to defend their belief with irrational arguments :)

Yes, this includes EVERYBODY

[tubewatch59]

@TheReasonWhyGuy

I don't see the problem with setting up some system of thought about a particular topic so that it becomes logically consistent with itself. But as that may sometimes require axioms to be setup as well, then unless it is blatantly obvious, one should come clean about the fact that axioms are being utilized. And as long as they cannot be independantly verified then the system of thought built on them becomes a belief system. (That's OK, unless people try to cover that up!)

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

@tubewatch59 This seems a little distant from the original topic, but I'll bite. :)

Everyone has a belief system, in the sense that everyone believes in certain things, and that those things are often interrelated in complex and sometimes flawed ways.

The question always comes down to, how logically sound is your belief system, and the degree of verifiability your belief system has. Also whether it could be dis-proven by new information.

[ocarinadude12]

I believe in many scientific principles. I believe that animals will adapt to their surroundings. I don't claim to know how life began but I do know for a fact that life doesn't originate from something that isn't/wasn't once living. There is no explanation for how that may have happened. I don't believe in aliens but the bible doesn't disprove them. One more "logical" point for you: Christians can afford to be wrong in their beliefs. Athiests can't.

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

@ocarinadude12 "Christians can afford to be wrong in their beliefs"

Really, so if any other religion was right, you would still be saved?

This is just another way of expressing the oversimplification of reality your perspective relies on.

"Athiests can't."

If all the finite human religions are wrong, and another one of the infinite possible religions is right, you are in the same boat then.

To understand, try watching this learning aid.

watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

[Raptor302]

Sort of like them claiming that everything that has complexity needs a designer.

I say no. They ask for an example. I tell them a snowflake. They say "But that's designed too!"

-_-

If they're going to claim that everything was designed, then there is nothing that is 'not designed' that we can compare the 'designed' stuff to, therefore their position is once again untestable speculation.

[TheReasonWhyGuy]

@albinomoose92 "Darwin himself believed in a creator"

Yes he did :)

However, saying that, is a vast oversimplification.

People don't always hold the same beliefs their entire life.

It's said that late in life, he started to doubt, and that created tension between him and his wife.

Anyway, :)

Have a good day...

[NUTCASE71733]

@albinomoose92

You are an idiot. Everyone knows Darwin beleived in god. But he became an athiest when his daughter died since she was a product of incest. If god was so kind and loving, why ake it so a child born of siblings/cousins will suffer from a poor immune system? Seems like real crappy design on his part. Genetics solved that riddle proving natural processes make it that by inbreeding you weaken the gene pool. The bible doesn't tell you that. In fact it says incest is fine.

[tubewatch59]

@TheReasonWhyGuy

Yes! That includes myself sometimes. I think it's OK to use arguments by axiomatic pronouncement - PROVIDED that one admits to doing that. For instance, on that other video, if a certain interpretation of a property of God (or a property of something else, like mathematics) seems to be logically inconsistent, then I think it's OK to define it to be logically consistent. But to do that may require axiomatic pronouncements that cannot be independantly verified...

[tubewatch59]

The other reason I can think of why it might be that this argument isn't a fruitful lijne of reasoning, is because, similar to that other idea about God (that you'd have to first know everything, before you could then decide that God doesn't exist), this idea about the multiverse, kind of requires knowledge we cannot have (or would take too long for us to get) in order to make any deductiuons based on what we do now now. It's scrubbing existing reasoning based on unknowables). That's not good.

[tubewatch59]

In a similar vein, this argument is more or less saying that one cannot claim God (or a designer) has had an influence on the universe, since before we could do that, we'd have to first go out and prove that there are not in fact an infinite (or very very large) number of other universes that each have random assortments of physical constants and conditions, such that our universe which seems special (because we're here observing it) really isn't all that special after all.

It's not helpful.

[tubewatch59]

The problem with this kind of approach, is because though it is a conceivable possibility, it is similar to the kind of approach that claims that God likely exists because even though we haven't observed God (ignoring those people who claimed they have had direct dealings with God) we can't actually claim God doesn't exist because in order to do so, we would have to know the sum total of all of the facts in the universe, in order to claim God doesn't exist. It's true, but it's not too helpful.

[HimesInu]

Holy shit, a "The cake is a lie" joke I can follow.