Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[G.T.]

 

[Hollie]

Again, a straw man from one who doesn't grasp the science of the fine-tuning problem and the anthropic principle. If our universe is the one and only role of the dice, the odds that it has the elemental chemistry and astronomical structure to support life is a staggeringly improbable state of affairs via a purely natural mechanism as there is nothing intrinsically necessary about the laws of physics producing the initial conditions and constants of a life-supporting universe . The overwhelming number of the leading lights of science, theists and atheists alike, agree that our universe is finely tuned for life and that if it were the one and only universe to have existed it would be very unlikely to exist as it does via a natural mechanism! Dawkins, for example, acknowledges this. Not only does he acknowledge the fine-tuning problem, but holds to the weak anthropic principle.

Do you know why?

Hint: The fine-tuning problem and the fine-tuned argument for God's existence are not the same thing. The fine-tuned argument for God's existence and the strong anthropic principle only come to fore if our universe is the one and only to have ever existed.

There’s no fine tune problem. There’s a religious extremism problem.

 

[G.T.]

 

[Ringtone]

Yeah. And Carroll is mistating the fine-tuned argument for God's existence!

It does not come to the fore unless our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, and his gibberish about how theism is not well-defined is sheer, materialistic slogan speak, a metaphysically driven opinion, asserted as if it were a fact. Further he's conflating the fine-tuned problem of the universe and the fine-tuned argument for God's existence, jumping back and forth between their varying applications without alerting his audience. He's also misleading the audience when he claims that "we don't know if the universe is fine tuned." Bull! He is in the minority. The vast majority of scientists hold that it is finely tuned. That doesn't mean that the majority of scientists hold to the fine-tuned argument for God's existence, as, for one thing, many hold that our universe is a multiverse. Finally, if his counter is to say that the theological ramifications of the strong anthropic principle for "a one and only universe" is ultimately irrelevant if we live in a multiverse, then I say to him, produce the incontrovertible evidence that the universe did not necessarily begin to exist.

EDIT: He's also mistating the fine-tuned problem of the universe. Once again, it's not about what life can exist. It's about what kind of universe can exist to support life in the first place! He's knows better, and he knows damn well that he's misleading the audience to win an argument.

 

[G.T.]

sean carroll...versus...

ringtone on the internet who writes walls of text in lieu of debating face 2 face




"that quantum physicist just DOESNT UNDERSTAND how we use HIS PHYSICS incorrectly to pwoov gawd!!! duhhh!!!"

 

[ding]

I guess he ran out of videos.

 

[Ringtone]

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

The issue is the fine-tuned problem of the universe and the anthropic principle, and at what juncture the fine-tuned argument for God's existence comes to the fore. Nobody on this thread is making the teleological argument from design, you silly ass. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the aforementioned. That's the whole point of the OP.

You're as obtuse and as easily mislead by dishonest and ill-informed atheists as Hollie is.

But that's not even the most hilarious part of your fallacious-think driven by ignorance and knee-jerk thoughtlessness. You think I'm making the fine-tuned argument for God's existence . . . that is to say, when you're not fooling yourself into believing that I'm making the teleological argument from design. LOL! I haven't argued either one. My posts are all about one thing: disabusing people of the confusion and illusions propagated by dishonest and ill-informed atheists.

 

[Ringtone]

I guess he ran out of videos.

Maybe not. It might be fun to see how many more off topic and irrelevant videos he posts before reality sinks in.

 

[G.T.]

 

[Ringtone]

sean carroll...versus...

ringtone on the internet who writes walls of text in lieu of debating face 2 face




"that quantum physicist just DOESNT UNDERSTAND how we use HIS PHYSICS incorrectly to pwoov gawd!!! duhhh!!!"

Many in the scientific community have some serious issues with the likes of Carroll and Krauss because of their tendency to mislead and overstate. But in any event, his argument is not with me, really, though I concur with the following. His argument is with the following: Dawkins, Hawking, Rees, Tipler, Deutch, Barnes, Scania, Davies, Hoyle, Mlodinow, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Barrow and many, many others. What part of he's in the minority don't you understand? What part of the fine-tuning problem is not about what kind of life can exist, but what kind of universe can exist don't you understand?

 

[ding]

sean carroll...versus...

ringtone on the internet who writes walls of text in lieu of debating face 2 face




"that quantum physicist just DOESNT UNDERSTAND how we use HIS PHYSICS incorrectly to pwoov gawd!!! duhhh!!!"

Many in the scientific community have some serious issues with the likes of Carroll and Krauss because of their tendency to mislead and overstate. But in any event, his argument is not with me, really, though I concur with the following. His argument is with the following: Dawkins, Hawking, Rees, Tipler, Deutch, Barnes, Scania, Davies, Hoyle, Mlodinow, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Barrow and many, many others. What part of he's in the minority don't you understand? What part of the fine-tuning problem is not about what kind of life can exist, but what kind of universe can exist?

I don’t know any scientist that doesn’t recognize the fine tunning of the universe necessary for the evolution of consciousness to become a reality. Quite a few things have to go right.

But no one can argue that the potential for the universe producing intelligence wasn’t allowed for by the laws of nature.

So the necessary argument moves to is this potentially on purpose? Was it intentional? Or was it unintentional?

To answer that question we must study what was created.

So I don’t know what one would call this argument. I call it a logical argument.

 

[Ringtone]

You have faith that this universe will continue after you expire. That it isn't a construct purely for your own ego, or, indeed for mine.

You have faith that the subjective isn't identical to the objective. Your belief in your own ego is incredible!

Keep creating that reality or focusing on that which you desire . . . or . . . let it go.

I think there's only room for one Breezewood on the thread at a time, MisterBeale. More than one at a time is too much.

 

[Ringtone]

I don’t know any scientist that doesn’t recognize the fine tunning of the universe necessary for the evolution of consciousness to become a reality. Quite a few things have to go right.

But no one can argue that the potential for the universe producing intelligence wasn’t allowed for by the laws of nature.

So the necessary argument moves to is this potentially on purpose? Was it intentional? Or was it unintentional?

To answer that question we must study what was created.

So I don’t know what one would call this argument. I call it a logical argument.

Exactly! The emboldened is ultimately the real issue, that and the number of chances nature may have had if we assume a strictly natural mechanism.

I know of a few others, four in total if we count Carroll. But Carroll is being a snake here, mistating the problem, so it's not clear to me what he really believes. I find it very difficult to believe that he really doesn't understand that the problem goes to the kind of universe that can exist for life to arise in the first place, not about what kind of life can exist. Another is the late Stenger, but he was a second-rate physicist and virulent atheist, a hack, whom Barnes took to task for his less than forthcoming "science":

https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life-div.pdf

He got rich selling sensational science to atheists.

The other two, Harnik and Adams, are actually respectable sorts. They've done some great work via simulations showing that the range of habitable universes is wider than we thought. They're more skeptical than others, really, so I guess they don't really count either. The fine-tuning/anthropic principle proper doesn’t assert that our universe is uniquely life-permitting, but rather that life-permitting universes are rare in the set of possible universes, i.e., that the habitable range of the continuum is very narrow (finely tuned). Their approach was to vary several of the values of the constants and conditions simultaneously. We've got computers now that can crunch trillions of calculations a second. The results yield universes that are less dynamic than ours, but arguably habitable. On the other hand, they had to adjust certain other parameters relative to the randomly chosen changes to make the models work. Fine-tuning, anyone? But in any event, it must be acknowledge that the range is wider than previously thought.

By the way, other scientists who hold that the universe is fine-tuned for life regardless the mechanism: Carr, Carter, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Wheeler, Wilczek. Like the others in the above, they are all atheists or agnostics who hold to a multiverse or some kind of cyclical universe.

 

[ding]

I don’t know any scientist that doesn’t recognize the fine tunning of the universe necessary for the evolution of consciousness to become a reality. Quite a few things have to go right.

But no one can argue that the potential for the universe producing intelligence wasn’t allowed for by the laws of nature.

So the necessary argument moves to is this potentially on purpose? Was it intentional? Or was it unintentional?

To answer that question we must study what was created.

So I don’t know what one would call this argument. I call it a logical argument.

Exactly! The emboldened is ultimately the real issue, that and the number of chances nature may have had if we assume a strictly natural mechanism.

I know of a few others, four in total if we count Carroll. But Carroll is being a snake here, mistating the problem, so it's not clear to me what he really believes. I find it very difficult to believe that he really doesn't understand that the problem goes to the kind of universe that can exist for life to arise in the first place, not about what kind of life can exist. Another is the late Stenger, but he was a second-rate physicist and virulent atheist, a hack, whom Barnes took to task for his less than forthcoming "science":

https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life-div.pdf

He got rich selling sensational science to atheists.

The other two, Harnik and Adams, are actually respectable sorts. They've done some great work via simulations showing that the range of habitable universes is wider than we thought. They're more skeptical than others, really, so I guess they don't really count either. The fine-tuning/anthropic principle proper doesn’t assert that our universe is uniquely life-permitting, but rather that life-permitting universes are rare in the set of possible universes, i.e., that the habitable range of the continuum is very narrow (finely tuned). Their approach was to vary several of the values of the constants and conditions simultaneously. We've got computers now that can crunch trillions of calculations a second. The results yield universes that are less dynamic than ours, but arguably habitable. On the other hand, they had to adjust certain other parameters relative to the randomly chosen changes to make the models work. Fine-tuning, anyone? But in any event, it must be acknowledge that the range is wider than previously thought.

By the way, other scientists who hold that the universe is fine-tuned for life regardless the mechanism: Carr, Carter, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Wheeler, Wilczek. Like the others in the above, they are all atheists or agnostics who hold to a multiverse or some kind of cyclical universe.

Exactly. By any objective measure the conditions in the universe are down right inhospitable for life. And yet the universe has not only produced life it has produced intelligent life.

I don’t believe life or intelligence is uniquely limited to our universe. The laws of nature are uniquely tuned for life and intelligence. It doesn’t surprise me that life-permitting universes are rare in the set of possible universes. In fact it goes to my point that the laws of nature are uniquely tuned for life and intelligence.

 

[Hollie]

Yeah. And Carroll is mistating the fine-tuned argument for God's existence!

It does not come to the fore unless our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, and his gibberish about how theism is not well-defined is sheer, materialistic slogan speak, a metaphysically driven opinion, asserted as if it were a fact. Further he's conflating the fine-tuned problem of the universe and the fine-tuned argument for God's existence, jumping back and forth between their varying applications without alerting his audience. He's also misleading the audience when he claims that "we don't know if the universe is fine tuned." Bull! He is in the minority. The vast majority of scientists hold that it is finely tuned. That doesn't mean that the majority of scientists hold to the fine-tuned argument for God's existence, as, for one thing, many hold that our universe is a multiverse. Finally, if his counter is to say that the theological ramifications of the strong anthropic principle for "a one and only universe" is ultimately irrelevant if we live in a multiverse, then I say to him, produce the incontrovertible evidence that the universe did not necessarily begin to exist.

EDIT: He's also mistating the fine-tuned problem of the universe. Once again, it's not about what life can exist. It's about what kind of universe can exist to support life in the first place! He's knows better, and he knows damn well that he's misleading the audience to win an argument.

Nonsense. The vast majority of scientists do not hold that the universe is “finely tuned”.

This is, as usual, another of your specious, unsupported claims. Your statement may be referring to charlatans at the various creation ministries or perhaps at Harun Yahya, but it’s obvious that scientists working in the relevant fields of science do not hold the religious view you want to impose on them.

 

[ding]

Yeah. And Carroll is mistating the fine-tuned argument for God's existence!

It does not come to the fore unless our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, and his gibberish about how theism is not well-defined is sheer, materialistic slogan speak, a metaphysically driven opinion, asserted as if it were a fact. Further he's conflating the fine-tuned problem of the universe and the fine-tuned argument for God's existence, jumping back and forth between their varying applications without alerting his audience. He's also misleading the audience when he claims that "we don't know if the universe is fine tuned." Bull! He is in the minority. The vast majority of scientists hold that it is finely tuned. That doesn't mean that the majority of scientists hold to the fine-tuned argument for God's existence, as, for one thing, many hold that our universe is a multiverse. Finally, if his counter is to say that the theological ramifications of the strong anthropic principle for "a one and only universe" is ultimately irrelevant if we live in a multiverse, then I say to him, produce the incontrovertible evidence that the universe did not necessarily begin to exist.

EDIT: He's also mistating the fine-tuned problem of the universe. Once again, it's not about what life can exist. It's about what kind of universe can exist to support life in the first place! He's knows better, and he knows damn well that he's misleading the audience to win an argument.

Nonsense. The vast majority of scientists do not hold that the universe is “finely tuned”.

This is, as usual, another of your specious, unsupported claims. Your statement may be referring to charlatans at the various creation ministries or perhaps at Harun Yahya, but it’s obvious that scientists working in the relevant fields of science do not hold the religious view you want to impose on them.

With the caveats ringtone placed upon it, I’m pretty sure they do.

 

[Hollie]

Yeah. And Carroll is mistating the fine-tuned argument for God's existence!

It does not come to the fore unless our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, and his gibberish about how theism is not well-defined is sheer, materialistic slogan speak, a metaphysically driven opinion, asserted as if it were a fact. Further he's conflating the fine-tuned problem of the universe and the fine-tuned argument for God's existence, jumping back and forth between their varying applications without alerting his audience. He's also misleading the audience when he claims that "we don't know if the universe is fine tuned." Bull! He is in the minority. The vast majority of scientists hold that it is finely tuned. That doesn't mean that the majority of scientists hold to the fine-tuned argument for God's existence, as, for one thing, many hold that our universe is a multiverse. Finally, if his counter is to say that the theological ramifications of the strong anthropic principle for "a one and only universe" is ultimately irrelevant if we live in a multiverse, then I say to him, produce the incontrovertible evidence that the universe did not necessarily begin to exist.

EDIT: He's also mistating the fine-tuned problem of the universe. Once again, it's not about what life can exist. It's about what kind of universe can exist to support life in the first place! He's knows better, and he knows damn well that he's misleading the audience to win an argument.

Actually, you have it backwards as an attempt to bolster your religious views.

It’s about how life adapted to the universe as it exists.

Unfortunately, you don’t know better as your paraphrased William Lane Craig re-writes are only intended to present a narrow and biased fundamentalist viewpoint.

 

[ding]

So apparently Hollie believes that no matter how the universe is tuned life would not only exist but would adapt. Brilliant.

 

[Hollie]

Debunking another New Wave Fundamentalists silly claims.

An earlier Pew Poll is one that debunks the angr fundamentalist's claims to scientists believing in the christian gods. When scientists in the fields of the biological sciences are included, the fundies claims are even further discredited.


Scientists and Belief

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

 

[Ringtone]

So apparently Hollie believes that no matter how the universe is tuned life would not only exist but would adapt. Brilliant.

As if life could arise in a universe consisting of only space and hydrogen, for example.

These rubes are prattling nonsense when all the while they fail to grasp the fact that all Craig is arguing is that if our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle is powerful. Otherwise, the weak anthropic principle holds; that is to say, the fine tuning of our universe would be relatively unremarkable because it would be just one universe in a continuum of discrete, albeit, similar universes within the narrow range of habitability scattered among a potentially infinite number of uninhabitable universes. Hollie doesn't grasp the actuality of the fine-tuned problem, that it must be resolved; she doesn't grasp the ramifications of the anthropic principle in toto and the actual context of the fine-tuned argument proper because she's still not reading our posts. The theists on this thread are exposing the shenanigans and ignorance of atheist hacks, but the rubes will not be taught because they're closed-minded, intellectual bigots. They will not hear us.

In the meantime, we theists, you and I, wholly agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists on the matter--most of whom are atheists or agnostics! We're only trying to lace them up on the science, not making any arguments for God's existence as such at all really.

By the way, for some reason I alluded to the work of Harnik et. al and that of Aguirre et. al in the above as Harnik and Adams. Brainfart. Something was nagging at me so I looked in the file I keep on these things:
REWINDING THE LAWS OF TIME AND SPACE / We're not alone -- thousands of other universes may exist
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/8649100_Anthony_Aguirre

I confused Aguirre with Fred Adams who makes a different argument. More on him later.