Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
251
Points
90
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Analogy Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy (YPSPA), which Adams initially presented in a live forum from his unpublished musings. A few years later it was published in a posthumous collection of his previously published and unpublished material in The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time (2002):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!
 
Last edited:

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
208,725
Reaction score
35,765
Points
2,190
tl; dr
 

Third Party

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
621
Points
275
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, so much so that this fallacious conflation has evolved into a standard counterargument in the arsenal of new atheism's apologetics. In fact, reasoning from this fallacious conflation, Rational Wiki, for example, compounds the matter by mistaking the Goldilocks Zone (GZ) hermeneutic of biblically informed apologetics with the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle. The GZ hermeneutic presupposes the veracity of the biblical imperative that as the home of the bearers of the Imago Dei, Earth is the theological center of the universe. It's not a general teleological argument for God's existence from design at all. Rather, It invites one to marvel at the finely balanced conditions that also prevail in our solar system for the carbon-based, terrestrial life of the image bearers, namely, human beings. Insofar as it may be asserted as an argument, it would be contingently predicated on one of the classical arguments for God's existence or on the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle, and would go toward substantiating the veracity of the biblical revelation of God as opposed to history's competing revelations of God. The Bible is the first and, aside from the Qur'an which copies the Bible, the only sacred text of history that emphatically asserts that "the heavens and the earth" were specifically designed for terrestrial life, crowned by humanity, centuries before mankind had any scientific inkling that life could only exist under intricately favorable planetary conditions.

In hindsight, it would appear that only the God of the Bible knew what the rest of us didn't know until the 20th Century.

It’s possible the contributor(s) of Rational Wiki derived his fallacious conflation from the title of Paul Davies’ book The Goldilocks Enigma in which Davies summarizes the various proposals in the literature that attempt to account for the apparent fine tuning of our universe. Davies is a brilliant physicist and has a better grasp of Christian theology than most naturalists, but, apparently, he's not cognizant of the nature of the biblical hermeneutic and the logical order of predication per the fine-tuned argument of the strong, anthropic cosmological principle. This is unfortunate for those who don’t understand that Davies is not alluding to the GZ of our solar system, but to a much broader issue relative to multiverse cosmology, namely, the principle of abundance:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning

Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and scientific ignorance.

Back to 1:27 — 4:31 in the video. 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!
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
251
Points
90
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
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.
 

diver52

Active Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
707
Reaction score
37
Points
33
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.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
251
Points
90
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.
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?
 

diver52

Active Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
707
Reaction score
37
Points
33
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.
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?
Wrong.
 

Third Party

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
621
Points
275
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
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.
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.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
251
Points
90
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
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.
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.

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.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
251
Points
90
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.
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?
Wrong.
Well, that was intellectually scintillating.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,643
Reaction score
492
Points
85
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
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.
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.

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.
.
God reveals plenty about the contents of his (their) mind
that is not true, you are to prove yourself there is no benefit to them to communicate personally with anyone not yet a free spirit. especially a corruption of a construed corrupt religion. pertaining to them.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Silver Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,158
Reaction score
251
Points
90
that is not true, you are to prove yourself there is no benefit to them to communicate personally with anyone not yet a free spirit. especially a corruption of a construed corrupt religion. pertaining to them.

I know this is difficult for you to get your head around, but the fundamental laws of logic—the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, the law of the excluded middle—as well as the principle of sufficient reason, which is sometimes referred to as the fourth fundamental law of logic—because of x, y; symbolically, x —> y—are, collectively, the eternal, uncreated logic of God bestowed on us. Behold the logical imperatives of God's mind! And the first principles of ontology and epistemology immediately extrapolated by those who bring them to bear on the problems of being, morality and truth? These are also the contents of God's mind!

To explore the mind of God, the Logos, is to faithfully follow the path of logic in all things.
 
Last edited:

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,271
Reaction score
3,629
Points
1,130
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
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.
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.

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.
It seems you’re suggesting the gods reveal things to you, specifically.

You’re hearing the voices again, right? Psychiatry can offer some treatment for that.
 

Third Party

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
621
Points
275
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
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.
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.

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.
Speak for yourself-you asked a question about others, I answered and you ignored it.If you don't want to hear what others have to say, don't ask.
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
Speak for yourself-you asked a question about others, I answered and you ignored it.If you don't want to hear what others have to say, don't ask.

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.
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.

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.
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
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.
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.

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.
Speak for yourself-you asked a question about others, I answered and you ignored it.If you don't want to hear what others have to say, don't ask.
 

Vastator

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
16,133
Reaction score
3,337
Points
290
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
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.
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.

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.
Speak for yourself-you asked a question about others, I answered and you ignored it.If you don't want to hear what others have to say, don't ask.
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
Speak for yourself-you asked a question about others, I answered and you ignored it.If you don't want to hear what others have to say, don't ask.

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.
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.

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.
Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.
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.
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.

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.
Speak for yourself-you asked a question about others, I answered and you ignored it.If you don't want to hear what others have to say, don't ask.
You can say that again.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,750
Reaction score
1,082
Points
245
Location
Virginia
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!
Seems like a debate based on our ignorance. It may turn out that life can be found on billions of planets and every planet would be unique. If that is the case, each would be able to make the same argument that its existence is proof of a designer
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,643
Reaction score
492
Points
85
that is not true, you are to prove yourself there is no benefit to them to communicate personally with anyone not yet a free spirit. especially a corruption of a construed corrupt religion. pertaining to them.

I know this is difficult for you to get your head around, but the fundamental laws of logic—the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, the law of the excluded middle—as well as the principle of sufficient reason, which is sometimes referred to as the fourth fundamental law of logic—because of x, y; symbolically, x —> y—are, collectively, the eternal, uncreated logic of God bestowed on us. Behold the logical imperatives of God's mind! And the first principles of ontology and epistemology immediately extrapolated by those who bring them to bear on the problems of being, morality and truth? These are also the contents of God's mind!

To explore the mind of God, the Logos, is to faithfully follow the path of logic in all things.
.
To explore the mind of God, the Logos, is to faithfully follow the path of logic in all things.
the exploration of the Almighty's mind at best is a superfluous, nefarious pursuit that only someone out of their mind would pursue ... however to accomplish the religion of antiquity, the triumph of good vs evil, as prescribed may encompass your above (whatever) however in the simplest of terms the religion requires the being to become sinless through triumph, a permanent state for their admission to the Everlasting to be granted -

"I know this is difficult for you to get your head around " - the religion of antiquity is all there is - in freeing one's spirit to be eligible for judgement.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top