Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Ringtone, Oct 10, 2019.

  1. Ringtone
    Offline

    Ringtone Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    947
    Thanks Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    45
    Ratings:
    +1,067
    Genetically Modified Skeptic Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument

    By Ringtone


    Note the silly conviction of intellectual superiority on Simpleton's face as he
    confounds the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle with the
    teleological argument from Design.


    While the entirety of GMS' video is a train wreck of factual and logical errors, the arguably most mangled debris among the wreckage is his treatment of the scientific principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument for God's existence is predicated, namely, the strong anthropic principle, which has absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or adaptation of life to the conditions of the extant universe.

    GMS stupidly invokes the philosophically obtuse and scientifically naive reasoning of Douglas Adams' Puddle Analogy Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy (YPSPA), which Adams initially presented in a live forum from his unpublished musings. A few years later it was published in a posthumous collection of his previously published and unpublished material in The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time (2002):

    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 so staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!' —Douglas Adams​

    The analogy has been panned for years by both theist and atheist philosophers of science alike who grasp the prevailing scientific data and the ramifications thereof. While Adams' Analogy is arguably applicable to Paley's teleological argument from design/complexity, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle. Only philosophically incompetent and/or scientifically illiterate atheists invoke Adams' analogy against the alternate cosmological models of the weak or the strong anthropic principle.

    Listen carefully to this portion of GMS' video: (1:27 — 4:31).

    GMS unwittingly conflates the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle and the teleological argument from design/complexity. He thinks they're the same thing in terms of logic, and refers to his delusion as the fine-tuned argument or the teleological argument interchangeably relative to the YPSPA.

    Douglas Adams, who was not a trained scientist, by the way, made the same mistake two decades ago, and, blindly following his lead, new atheist laymen have been foolishly repeating this error over and over again ever since. GMS stupidly avers that the fine-tuned argument "is no problem for the [Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy]" because "[t]he analogy just shifts perspectives, presenting the possibility that the universe existed first and that we in our evolution came to exist as a creature that fits its preexisting environment. . . . It entertains the thought that we are the result of adaptation to our environment, rather than our environment was built to specifically accommodate the capabilities and limitations of humans."

    But contrary to what GMS claims, the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle isn't drawn from the observation that "the nature of the cosmos is such that it allows for life as we know it to exist." Straw man! GMS thinks his observation is profoundly obvious, when it's only mundanely obvious and irrelevant.

    The prevailing scientific data evinces that the range of habitable cosmologies is very narrow (finely tuned), such that the statistical odds of our universe coming up heads for any form of life at all (whether it be terrestrial life or not, intelligent life or not) from a single, unguided roll of the dice, as it were, are staggeringly unlikely! In other words, Adams and his lemmings have never understood what finely tuned means in this instance relative to the prevailing scientific data. The theological inference of the strong anthropic principle is not drawn from our extant perspective after the fact of an apparently wonderous complexity of life that must necessarily be a product of design at all! It is not drawn from the notion that "the nature of the cosmos is such that it allows for life as we know it to exist", as GMS claims. Turek, who understands the matter just fine, doesn't say anything about "life as we know it" relative to the finely tuned range of habitable cosmologies.

    Why?

    Because the finely tuned argument does not go to the occurrence or evolution of life in any given habitable environment after the fact; it goes to the apparent fact that the astronomical structures and systems, and the elemental diversity that are necessary for any kind of life at all to occur or evolve wouldn't exist in the first place if any one of the physical constants or initial conditions were significantly different in this universe or in any other. Indeed, according to the standard model, if the strength of the cosmic inflation of the Big Bang had varied by 1 part in 10^60 the universe would have never reached the expansion phase at all, but would have collapsed back onto itself faster than you can say lickety-split!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2019
  2. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    191,524
    Thanks Received:
    27,752
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +100,393
    tl; dr
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Third Party
    Offline

    Third Party Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2019
    Messages:
    7,556
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,810
    Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Ringtone
    Offline

    Ringtone Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    947
    Thanks Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    45
    Ratings:
    +1,067
    Speak for yourself. God reveals plenty about the contents of his mind via the first principles of ontology and logic. It's the atheist who incessantly dabbles in the reading of tea leaves sans these imperatives and imagines that he knows how God would necessarily do things.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. diver52
    Offline

    diver52 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2019
    Messages:
    707
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +200
    You know, there has been multiple posts about why atheists would care to constantly write about theism. But that is a two way street. Here we are again with a thread to attack atheists. I guarantee it will eventually come down to atheists being accused of attacking theists. The hypocrisy in this is incredible.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Ringtone
    Offline

    Ringtone Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    947
    Thanks Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    45
    Ratings:
    +1,067
    If you say so. But, of course, the real; issue is the typical pseudoscientific drivel and irrationality of new atheist rubes, specifically, in this case, the failure to grasp the fact that the only sensible counter to the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle is the potentiality of a multiverse, not Adam Smith's silly "Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy", especially given the fact that dozens of prominent scientists, including atheists, agree that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is a real problem that must be resolved. The real issue is the science of theoretical cosmology and the pertinent physics thereof.

    Right?
     
  7. Ringtone
    Offline

    Ringtone Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    947
    Thanks Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    45
    Ratings:
    +1,067
    tl;dr?

    What's that mean?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. diver52
    Offline

    diver52 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2019
    Messages:
    707
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +200
    Wrong.
     
  9. Third Party
    Offline

    Third Party Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2019
    Messages:
    7,556
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,810
    YOU flippin arrogant bastard! you are saying you ARE God if you know God's mind. You better rethink that. And no, people don't read tea leaves-not the sane ones.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  10. Ringtone
    Offline

    Ringtone Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    947
    Thanks Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    45
    Ratings:
    +1,067

    Oh, why so angry? All I said is that God reveals plenty about the contents of his mind via the first principles of ontology and logic. You're going on about something else without having the vaguest clue, apparently, of what I'm talking about.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page