nagirrac wrote: » Although atheists dispute this argument, there is more evidence (albeit subjective) for a creative intelligence than for any currently proposed alternative. .
nagirrac wrote: » What we know from science is that the universe is very finely tuned, otherwise we could not exist. If we accept the big bang theory as the start of our physical universe as we observe it, there are really only two logical possibilities, either 1) a conscious intelligence designed it as such, or 2) ours is one of an infinite number of universes that happens to have the right physical properties for us to exist. We cannot observe any other universes so imo belief in the latter is as objectively speculative as the former.
nagirrac wrote: » What we know from science is that the universe is very finely tuned, otherwise we could not exist.
HHobo wrote: » In short, to accept this argument you have to start with the assumption that humans/life is the goal of the universe. This is exactly what the argument is trying to demonstrate. If I created a universe that wasn't turned for anything in particular, it would look exactly, perfectly like it had be tuned for whatever just happens to be in it.
HHobo wrote: » I've always been confused as to why this argument ever really gained any serious traction.
Zombrex wrote: » But some how the universe is "finely tuned" for life. :rolleyes:
robindch wrote: » On the plus side, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999% of the universe is non-religious. I think that should give us all a little hope.
Sarky wrote: » I think you missed a few orders of magnitude there. Then again there is a character limit for each post...
nagirrac wrote: » If ever there was evidence needed regarding the the closed minded worldview of atheists, this thread is it. The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point. The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger. If you don't mind, I'll stay with the open minded fecking stupid crowd.. and of course be accused yet again of using arguments from authority by the same people who predictably wheel out Dawkins at every opportunity. If you want to maintain an open mind on the subject of fine tuning then start by reading "Just 6 Numbers" by Martin Rees (an atheist) and work from there.
Sarky wrote: » Are you sure you've been in scientific research for years? They didn't just say it to keep you happy?
nagirrac wrote: » Nothing constructive to offer then? Sadly predictable that attacking the poster is perfectly acceptable on this forum so long as one agrees with the dogmatic atheist mindset. Pathetic, and almost cult like, behavior.
oldrnwisr wrote: » Oh dear, not this again. Since there is no credible evidence to suggest any kind of deity I'm not sure what you mean by "more evidence than for any proposed alternative" Secondly, the fine-tuning argument, out of all the arguments for the existence of a God, is the most fundamentally flawed. In fact, if I were to start detailing all the problems of the fine-tuning argument then it would probably end up being the longest post in boards history. Just one tiny example of the problems with this argument is that we can already show that life is possible without two of the four fundamental forces of nature and yet you think the universe is fine-tuned.
nagirrac wrote: » Every eminent astrophysicist I am aware of with the exception of Stenger thinks that the universe is fine tuned.
Obliq wrote: » 'Ere mate - it's you who's been calling every person on this thread closed minded and told us to look at some book to broaden our minds. And there you go again with the "dogmatic atheist mindset" insults. What makes you think your insults are less insulting than the one you just got?
Sarky wrote: » Become aware of more astrophysicists, then. The one I live with thinks you're talking rubbish.
Sarky wrote: » I'm not naming the guy I live with! He has a right to his privacy. But google astrophysicist and fine-tuned. Ah go on.
nagirrac wrote: » So you would equate calling someone's beliefs "dogmatic atheist" with being called "moronic", a "rube" and "fecking stupid" as I have been on this forum? Interesting Heaven forbid one should read a book. What an illogical position to hold. What do you suggest, better to form an opinion based on ignorance?
krudler wrote: » There was a sickening comment on facebook recently when those kids were killed in the school shooting, something along the lines of "those angels were called to heaven early"
Obliq wrote: » I suggest that if you want someone to read a book, or better form an opinion, then ask them nicely. Did it ever occur that the reason you're out on your own here is that you seem to deliberately set yourself apart from any reasoned opinion that anyone has offered you?
nagirrac wrote: » Sadly predictable that attacking the poster is perfectly acceptable on this forum so long as one agrees with the dogmatic atheist mindset. Pathetic, and almost cult like, behavior.
nagirrac wrote: » No in short. The reason I am out on my own is that I hold a different mindset to that of an atheist. I would have thought that was obvious. My opinions are simply different to those of an atheist on the belief in God question. On many other issues discussed here I generally agree with most people.
nagirrac wrote: » The argument for fine tuning is firmly rooted in science, not in philosophy. Yes, there are scientists who argue that fine tuning is evidence for a creator (Bernard Haisch, The God Theory) and scientists who argue against fine tuning to defend their dogmatic atheist position (Victor Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine Tuning), but to jump on either side of that debate is missing the point. The list of eminent scientists who accept the fine tuning argument is exhaustive: Rees (Just 6 numbers, the book on the subject), Deutsch, Davies, Carter, Smolin, Susskind, Hawking, Guth, Greene, Penrose, Barrow, Hamilton, Sandage, Tegmark, etc. etc. Roughly half these scientists are theists / deists and the other half agnostic athiests. What they all have in common is making no dogmatic claim on what conclusion we should draw from the evidence of fine tuning. The only scientist I am aware of who openly disputes the fine tuning argument is Stenger.
nagirrac wrote: » name one
swampgas wrote: » You do seem to argue very much from authority - i.e. this is what eminent scientists X, Y and Z believe, therefore it must be a credible theory. Scientific theories/hypotheses can and should be evaluated on their merits, not simply accepted because of the (supposedly infallible?) eminent scientists who subscribe to them.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Neil Tyson:
