Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument

Ringtone

Platinum Member
Sep 3, 2019
6,142
3,522
940
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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Analogy "Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy" (YPSPA), which Adams initially presented in a live forum from his unpublished musings. A few years later it was published in a posthumous collection of his previously published and unpublished material in The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time (2002):​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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​
 
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​
Yous is the stereotypical religionist claim, “but, but, but, but the gawds fine tuning”.

It’s a remarkable thing, “if things were different, things would be different”. For example; if the chemical composition of water was different, it wouldn’t be water. See, I just proved that the gods made water and water was “fine tuned” for humans by the gods.

I think most people can see I’m being facetious but the above is the basic premise of the “fine tuning” argument meant to support the gods.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the span of a few billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind neutrons and protons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to bind molecules and atoms together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life bound to the surface of the earth. Oddly, I find nothing in any of the Bibles describing any of the above.

As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.
 
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​
Yous is the stereotypical religionist claim, “but, but, but, but the gawds fine tuning”.

It’s a remarkable thing, “if things were different, things would be different”. For example; if the chemical composition of water was different, it wouldn’t be water. See, I just proved that the gods made water and water was “fine tuned” for humans by the gods.

I think most people can see I’m being facetious but the above is the basic premise of the “fine tuning” argument meant to support the gods.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the span of a few billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind neutrons and protons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to bind molecules and atoms together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life bound to the surface of the earth. Oddly, I find nothing in any of the Bibles describing any of the above.

As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

There's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent physics,
Lunatic.jpg
.
 
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​
Yous is the stereotypical religionist claim, “but, but, but, but the gawds fine tuning”.

It’s a remarkable thing, “if things were different, things would be different”. For example; if the chemical composition of water was different, it wouldn’t be water. See, I just proved that the gods made water and water was “fine tuned” for humans by the gods.

I think most people can see I’m being facetious but the above is the basic premise of the “fine tuning” argument meant to support the gods.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the span of a few billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind neutrons and protons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to bind molecules and atoms together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life bound to the surface of the earth. Oddly, I find nothing in any of the Bibles describing any of the above.

As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

There's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent physics, View attachment 437744.
I can teach you a great deal about physics. Your obvious limitations will dull your ability to comprehend much of it.
 
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​
Yous is the stereotypical religionist claim, “but, but, but, but the gawds fine tuning”.

It’s a remarkable thing, “if things were different, things would be different”. For example; if the chemical composition of water was different, it wouldn’t be water. See, I just proved that the gods made water and water was “fine tuned” for humans by the gods.

I think most people can see I’m being facetious but the above is the basic premise of the “fine tuning” argument meant to support the gods.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the span of a few billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind neutrons and protons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to bind molecules and atoms together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life bound to the surface of the earth. Oddly, I find nothing in any of the Bibles describing any of the above.

As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

There's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent physics, View attachment 437744.
I can teach you a great deal about physics. Your obvious limitations will dull your ability to comprehend much of it.

You sniveling twit of a braying jackass, it's abundantly self-evident that you don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect or that of my learning regarding the pertinent physics. LOL!
 
Last edited:
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​
Yous is the stereotypical religionist claim, “but, but, but, but the gawds fine tuning”.

It’s a remarkable thing, “if things were different, things would be different”. For example; if the chemical composition of water was different, it wouldn’t be water. See, I just proved that the gods made water and water was “fine tuned” for humans by the gods.

I think most people can see I’m being facetious but the above is the basic premise of the “fine tuning” argument meant to support the gods.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the span of a few billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind neutrons and protons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to bind molecules and atoms together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life bound to the surface of the earth. Oddly, I find nothing in any of the Bibles describing any of the above.

As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

There's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent physics, View attachment 437744.
I can teach you a great deal about physics. Your obvious limitations will dull your ability to comprehend much of it.

You sniveling twit of a braying jackass, it's abundantly self-evident that you don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect or my understanding of the pertinent physics. LOL!
Your juvenile tirade aside, the altitude of your intellect approaches only a thick fog.

LOL!
 
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​
Yous is the stereotypical religionist claim, “but, but, but, but the gawds fine tuning”.

It’s a remarkable thing, “if things were different, things would be different”. For example; if the chemical composition of water was different, it wouldn’t be water. See, I just proved that the gods made water and water was “fine tuned” for humans by the gods.

I think most people can see I’m being facetious but the above is the basic premise of the “fine tuning” argument meant to support the gods.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the span of a few billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind neutrons and protons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to bind molecules and atoms together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life bound to the surface of the earth. Oddly, I find nothing in any of the Bibles describing any of the above.

As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

There's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent physics, View attachment 437744.
I can teach you a great deal about physics. Your obvious limitations will dull your ability to comprehend much of it.

You sniveling twit of a braying jackass, it's abundantly self-evident that you don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect or my understanding of the pertinent physics. LOL!
Your juvenile tirade aside, the altitude of your intellect approaches only a thick fog.


Hollie
Lunatic.jpg
 
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​
Yous is the stereotypical religionist claim, “but, but, but, but the gawds fine tuning”.

It’s a remarkable thing, “if things were different, things would be different”. For example; if the chemical composition of water was different, it wouldn’t be water. See, I just proved that the gods made water and water was “fine tuned” for humans by the gods.

I think most people can see I’m being facetious but the above is the basic premise of the “fine tuning” argument meant to support the gods.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the span of a few billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind neutrons and protons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to bind molecules and atoms together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life bound to the surface of the earth. Oddly, I find nothing in any of the Bibles describing any of the above.

As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

There's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent physics, View attachment 437744.
I can teach you a great deal about physics. Your obvious limitations will dull your ability to comprehend much of it.

You sniveling twit of a braying jackass, it's abundantly self-evident that you don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect or my understanding of the pertinent physics. LOL!
Your juvenile tirade aside, the altitude of your intellect approaches only a thick fog.


Hollie
View attachment 437823
A demonstration of your pertinent physics knowledge?

More like a display of your stunted emotional / intellectual development.

LOL!
 
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​
Yous is the stereotypical religionist claim, “but, but, but, but the gawds fine tuning”.

It’s a remarkable thing, “if things were different, things would be different”. For example; if the chemical composition of water was different, it wouldn’t be water. See, I just proved that the gods made water and water was “fine tuned” for humans by the gods.

I think most people can see I’m being facetious but the above is the basic premise of the “fine tuning” argument meant to support the gods.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the span of a few billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind neutrons and protons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to bind molecules and atoms together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life bound to the surface of the earth. Oddly, I find nothing in any of the Bibles describing any of the above.

As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

There's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent physics, View attachment 437744.
I can teach you a great deal about physics. Your obvious limitations will dull your ability to comprehend much of it.

You sniveling twit of a braying jackass, it's abundantly self-evident that you don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect or my understanding of the pertinent physics. LOL!
Your juvenile tirade aside, the altitude of your intellect approaches only a thick fog.


Hollie
View attachment 437823
A demonstration of your pertinent physics knowledge?

More like a display of your stunted emotional / intellectual development.

LOL!

Hollie
Lunatic.jpg


Rolling Eyes.jpg
 
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​
Yous is the stereotypical religionist claim, “but, but, but, but the gawds fine tuning”.

It’s a remarkable thing, “if things were different, things would be different”. For example; if the chemical composition of water was different, it wouldn’t be water. See, I just proved that the gods made water and water was “fine tuned” for humans by the gods.

I think most people can see I’m being facetious but the above is the basic premise of the “fine tuning” argument meant to support the gods.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the span of a few billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind neutrons and protons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to bind molecules and atoms together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life bound to the surface of the earth. Oddly, I find nothing in any of the Bibles describing any of the above.

As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

There's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent physics, View attachment 437744.
I can teach you a great deal about physics. Your obvious limitations will dull your ability to comprehend much of it.

You sniveling twit of a braying jackass, it's abundantly self-evident that you don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect or my understanding of the pertinent physics. LOL!
Your juvenile tirade aside, the altitude of your intellect approaches only a thick fog.


Hollie
View attachment 437823
A demonstration of your pertinent physics knowledge?

More like a display of your stunted emotional / intellectual development.

LOL!

Hollie
View attachment 437834

View attachment 437835
You‘re reduced to stuttering, mumbling and cutting and pasting cartoons.

LOL!
 
You sniveling twit of a braying jackass, it's abundantly self-evident that you don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect or that of my learning regarding the pertinent physics. LOL!

You're what's known as a pseudo-intellectual.
 
You sniveling twit of a braying jackass, it's abundantly self-evident that you don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect or that of my learning regarding the pertinent physics. LOL!

You're what's known as a pseudo-intellectual.


In the meantime, back to reality. . . .

Michael Rawlings:

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.​
Anomalism: Ad hominem.
 
Last edited:
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​


As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

Indeed, that's what I said. LOL! And the point that follows from that flies right over your little pinhead as you, like GMS, fail to grasp, apparently, why Douglas Adams' Puddle Analogy "Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy" (YPSPA) is imbecilic. It does not impinge on the fine-tuned argument of the anthropic principle in any way, shape or form!

Once again:

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 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 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.

You have not addressed the actual argument or its ramifications, not once, not ever. You just spout mindless slogans and ad hominem.
 
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​


As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

Indeed, that's what I said. LOL! And the point that follows from that flies right over your little pinhead as you, like GMS, fail to grasp, apparently, why Douglas Adams' Puddle Analogy "Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy" (YPSPA) is imbecilic. It does not impinge on the fine-tuned argument of the anthropic principle in any way, shape or form!

Once again:

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 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 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.

You have not addressed the actual argument or its ramifications, not once, not ever. You just spout mindless slogans and ad hominem.

Other than you use of stereotypical cliche’ and slogan, you offered nothing. You are simply re-writing the arguments that are formula from any and all of the fundie ID’iot creation ministries. It’s the stereotypical “what are the odds” claims. You stole your version from Henry Morris, right?

Let’s give you a lesson in physics that you were denied at the AIG madrassah. First off, a universe must have (by definition) a set of natural laws or it is not a universe. Note the term “natural” as there is no indication that gods or anyone else’s gods were involved in the expansion of the universe. Now, any particular combination of such laws is just as likely as any other. It is like a Royal Flush in poker. The odds for that particular hand may be vanishingly small, but they are identical to the odds of any other poker hand... even a hand that will not win the pot. Whatever the odds actually are doesn't matter because these are the natural laws we have. They could have been different, but they're not. Any other set might not have allowed the universe as we currently understand it to have expanded. But that doesn't matter either. The fact that we were dealt a particular Royal Flush does not make it less probable.

Second, the calculation of ID’iot creationer odds requires first that you know how many universes there are, or have ever been. Since you do not know that number, any calculations you attempt to perform are bogus. If there are an infinite number of universes, then the odds are not 1 divided by some very large number, but instead infinity divided by some very large number which mathematically speaking would still be infinity. We just happen to live in one of them. If we didn’t, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. See how that works?

ID’iot creationers fail to understand their “what are the odds” phony calculations are a gross misuse of probability and statistics when used to calculate the odds against that they have no history of. How is this a misuse? Well, in actual [probability theory, you can only calculate the odds for future events, but not for past ones

Third, you would also need to know how many different combinations of natural laws allow for life and intelligence (which is of course the criterion you are probably using for considering our set equivalent to a Royal Flush). But you have no way of knowing that, either. Perhaps a different set of laws would allow for a different form of life and intelligence, say based on electromagnetic energy. In that universe, an electromagnetic religious fundamentalist would probably be found providing equally vacuous calculations to electromagnetic discussion board participants in complete ignorance of the different set of natural laws that allows for this discussion board. So on every level your calculations are futile and absurd.

There is no meaningful calculation of the odds of the moon being farther from or closer to the earth than it is. It is where it is. The odds are 100%. There is no meaningful calculation of the odds of the Earth being tilted differently than it is now. It’s already tilted 23 degrees. The probability of that is 100%.

There are billions of galaxies, and trillions of stars, and certainly trillions of planets as well. Many if not most of them cannot support life. At least one can. What are the odds of that?

100%. We know this because it did happen. Something HAD to happen, and it just so happened that this one could support life. You can’t tell if it was an accident or not, because the probability remains the same.

100%

See... it helps to do more than study what you learn at rhe Henry Morris madrassah. You need to actually understand what you are studying. Parroting back the silly rhetoric of creationist ideologues does not give other readers here confidence that you are taking your lessons very seriously.
 
You‘re reduced to stuttering, mumbling and cutting and pasting cartoons.

LOL!

You're trying to debate somebody that allows other people to think for them. There's nothing beneath the surface.
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​


As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

Indeed, that's what I said. LOL! And the point that follows from that flies right over your little pinhead as you, like GMS, fail to grasp, apparently, why Douglas Adams' Puddle Analogy "Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy" (YPSPA) is imbecilic. It does not impinge on the fine-tuned argument of the anthropic principle in any way, shape or form!

Once again:

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 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 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.

You have not addressed the actual argument or its ramifications, not once, not ever. You just spout mindless slogans and ad hominem.

Other than you use of stereotypical cliche’ and slogan, you offered nothing. You are simply re-writing the arguments that are formula from any and all of the fundie ID’iot creation ministries. It’s the stereotypical “what are the odds” claims. You stole your version from Henry Morris, right?

Let’s give you a lesson in physics that you were denied at the AIG madrassah. First off, a universe must have (by definition) a set of natural laws or it is not a universe. Note the term “natural” as there is no indication that gods or anyone else’s gods were involved in the expansion of the universe. Now, any particular combination of such laws is just as likely as any other. It is like a Royal Flush in poker. The odds for that particular hand may be vanishingly small, but they are identical to the odds of any other poker hand... even a hand that will not win the pot. Whatever the odds actually are doesn't matter because these are the natural laws we have. They could have been different, but they're not. Any other set might not have allowed the universe as we currently understand it to have expanded. But that doesn't matter either. The fact that we were dealt a particular Royal Flush does not make it less probable.

Second, the calculation of ID’iot creationer odds requires first that you know how many universes there are, or have ever been. Since you do not know that number, any calculations you attempt to perform are bogus. If there are an infinite number of universes, then the odds are not 1 divided by some very large number, but instead infinity divided by some very large number which mathematically speaking would still be infinity. We just happen to live in one of them. If we didn’t, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. See how that works?

ID’iot creationers fail to understand their “what are the odds” phony calculations are a gross misuse of probability and statistics when used to calculate the odds against that they have no history of. How is this a misuse? Well, in actual [probability theory, you can only calculate the odds for future events, but not for past ones

Third, you would also need to know how many different combinations of natural laws allow for life and intelligence (which is of course the criterion you are probably using for considering our set equivalent to a Royal Flush). But you have no way of knowing that, either. Perhaps a different set of laws would allow for a different form of life and intelligence, say based on electromagnetic energy. In that universe, an electromagnetic religious fundamentalist would probably be found providing equally vacuous calculations to electromagnetic discussion board participants in complete ignorance of the different set of natural laws that allows for this discussion board. So on every level your calculations are futile and absurd.

There is no meaningful calculation of the odds of the moon being farther from or closer to the earth than it is. It is where it is. The odds are 100%. There is no meaningful calculation of the odds of the Earth being tilted differently than it is now. It’s already tilted 23 degrees. The probability of that is 100%.

There are billions of galaxies, and trillions of stars, and certainly trillions of planets as well. Many if not most of them cannot support life. At least one can. What are the odds of that?

100%. We know this because it did happen. Something HAD to happen, and it just so happened that this one could support life. You can’t tell if it was an accident or not, because the probability remains the same.

100%

See... it helps to do more than study what you learn at rhe Henry Morris madrassah. You need to actually understand what you are studying. Parroting back the silly rhetoric of creationist ideologues does not give other readers here confidence that you are taking your lessons very seriously.

More mindless ad hominem and slogan speak . . . which does not and cannot account for the existence of "nature," let alone for the laws of physics, in the first place, and still cannot seem to grasp the fact that the refutation goes to GMS' fallacious contention, not any contention of mine, that the fine-tuned argument of the anthropic principle pertains to the formulations of life. It does not pertain to the formulations of life at all; it pertains to the formulation of cosmological structure in the first place, regardless of your ridiculous account of the attending odds, regardless of your personal beliefs about the imperatives of the anthropic principle. GMS, like Adams, is a nitwit.

You don't read and understand, Hollie. You just knee-jerkingly react to anything that smacks of God.

And then we have this patently false gibberish from you: "The odds for that particular hand [royal straight flush] may be vanishingly small, but they are identical to the odds of any other poker hand."

No, Hollie, the odds of lesser hands are not identical to that of a royal straight flush, not even close, hence, the hierarchy of poker hands from those of greater to lesser frequency! What are you babbling about? LOL!

Hollie
Lunatic3.jpg


In any event, I go on to discuss the anthropic principle relative to the pertinent physics and cosmology in detail, well beyond your overly simplistic meanderings. Read it or not. It's no skin off my nose.
 
You‘re reduced to stuttering, mumbling and cutting and pasting cartoons.

LOL!

You're trying to debate somebody that allows other people to think for them. There's nothing beneath the surface.
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​


As science has demonstrated, these forces have been in operation within seconds of Planck Time and the expansion of the universe.

Indeed, that's what I said. LOL! And the point that follows from that flies right over your little pinhead as you, like GMS, fail to grasp, apparently, why Douglas Adams' Puddle Analogy "Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy" (YPSPA) is imbecilic. It does not impinge on the fine-tuned argument of the anthropic principle in any way, shape or form!

Once again:

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 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 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.

You have not addressed the actual argument or its ramifications, not once, not ever. You just spout mindless slogans and ad hominem.

Other than you use of stereotypical cliche’ and slogan, you offered nothing. You are simply re-writing the arguments that are formula from any and all of the fundie ID’iot creation ministries. It’s the stereotypical “what are the odds” claims. You stole your version from Henry Morris, right?

Let’s give you a lesson in physics that you were denied at the AIG madrassah. First off, a universe must have (by definition) a set of natural laws or it is not a universe. Note the term “natural” as there is no indication that gods or anyone else’s gods were involved in the expansion of the universe. Now, any particular combination of such laws is just as likely as any other. It is like a Royal Flush in poker. The odds for that particular hand may be vanishingly small, but they are identical to the odds of any other poker hand... even a hand that will not win the pot. Whatever the odds actually are doesn't matter because these are the natural laws we have. They could have been different, but they're not. Any other set might not have allowed the universe as we currently understand it to have expanded. But that doesn't matter either. The fact that we were dealt a particular Royal Flush does not make it less probable.

Second, the calculation of ID’iot creationer odds requires first that you know how many universes there are, or have ever been. Since you do not know that number, any calculations you attempt to perform are bogus. If there are an infinite number of universes, then the odds are not 1 divided by some very large number, but instead infinity divided by some very large number which mathematically speaking would still be infinity. We just happen to live in one of them. If we didn’t, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. See how that works?

ID’iot creationers fail to understand their “what are the odds” phony calculations are a gross misuse of probability and statistics when used to calculate the odds against that they have no history of. How is this a misuse? Well, in actual [probability theory, you can only calculate the odds for future events, but not for past ones

Third, you would also need to know how many different combinations of natural laws allow for life and intelligence (which is of course the criterion you are probably using for considering our set equivalent to a Royal Flush). But you have no way of knowing that, either. Perhaps a different set of laws would allow for a different form of life and intelligence, say based on electromagnetic energy. In that universe, an electromagnetic religious fundamentalist would probably be found providing equally vacuous calculations to electromagnetic discussion board participants in complete ignorance of the different set of natural laws that allows for this discussion board. So on every level your calculations are futile and absurd.

There is no meaningful calculation of the odds of the moon being farther from or closer to the earth than it is. It is where it is. The odds are 100%. There is no meaningful calculation of the odds of the Earth being tilted differently than it is now. It’s already tilted 23 degrees. The probability of that is 100%.

There are billions of galaxies, and trillions of stars, and certainly trillions of planets as well. Many if not most of them cannot support life. At least one can. What are the odds of that?

100%. We know this because it did happen. Something HAD to happen, and it just so happened that this one could support life. You can’t tell if it was an accident or not, because the probability remains the same.

100%

See... it helps to do more than study what you learn at rhe Henry Morris madrassah. You need to actually understand what you are studying. Parroting back the silly rhetoric of creationist ideologues does not give other readers here confidence that you are taking your lessons very seriously.

More mindless ad hominem and slogan speak . . . which does not and cannot account for the existence of "nature," let alone for the laws of physics, in the first place, and still cannot seem to grasp the fact that the refutation goes to GMS' fallacious contention, not any contention of mine, that the fine-tuned argument of the anthropic principle pertains to the formulations of life. It does not pertain to the formulations of life at all; it pertains to the formulation of cosmological structure in the first place, regardless of your ridiculous account of the attending odds, regardless of your personal beliefs about the imperatives of the anthropic principle. GMS, like Adams, is a nitwit.

You don't read and understand, Hollie. You just knee-jerkingly react to anything that smacks of God.

And then we have this patently false gibberish from you: "The odds for that particular hand [royal straight flush] may be vanishingly small, but they are identical to the odds of any other poker hand."

No, Hollie, the odds of lesser hands are not identical to that of a royal straight flush, not even close, hence, the hierarchy of poker hands from those of greater to lesser frequency! What are you babbling about? LOL!

Hollie
View attachment 438199

In any event, I go on to discuss the anthropic principle relative to the pertinent physics and cosmology in detail, well beyond your overly simplistic meanderings. Read it or not. It's no skin off my nose.
That was quite the dance you performed there. It’s always a rude awakening for the hyper-religious when their phony “what are the odds” pontificating is shown to be pointless.

I'm sure that you can rattle on for multiple pages hoping to defend the ID creationer “what are the odds” claims but those will be abandoned like your previously discredited “proofs” of your gods (which you now seem to understand were useless to your task) and trying to substitute others, as you have done in this latest post. Having already demonstrated your failure to think through this argument (since, after all, it is not your own) a new list does not give us great confidence that your substitutions are any better than your originals.

Providing a watered down list of your earlier claims to magic and supernaturalism is not much of a challenge. Your necessary task here is not to make lists, but to provide a good reason for actually considering the items on your list true or at least plausible. Until you can do so, you might be advised that taking “Gender Studies” courses rather than Physics, Chemistry, Biology at Advanced Level and University will leave you at a disadvantage. You are not defending a serious idea here with science, you are instead defending dogma with science fiction. I would also point out that your cut and paste cartoons do little to support whatever case you hope to make for your gods.

I’ll note that Hinduism proposes up to 33 million gods. That is vs. your mere three.

If we do the math, what are the odds of your gods being true vs the Hindu gods?
 
By Michal Rawlings (a.k.a Ringtone)

To read this refutation one must have a Youtube account and log into that account before clicking on the link below. Also, open a new tab and see GMS' video in order to follow my eradication of his gibberish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

INTRODUCTION

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 cosmological model of the strong anthropic principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument is predicated. He 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 staggeringly well, 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, albeit, on a case-by-case basis only, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument proper. 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 fine-tuned argument proper). 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 from design for God's existence 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: the principle of abundance. More on that later. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning
Behold another urban myth of the new atheism born of philosophical, theological and, as we shall, scientific ignorance. (By the way, for those who might be thinking that any of the other objections raised by Rational Wiki are credible—size, physical constants, ascribing probabilities and natural selection—I assure you that most of them arise out of the fallacious conflation. A few aspects of these objections derive from disinformation propagated by sources that should know better. More on that latter. The result is a stream of misunderstandings of the anthropic principle in general, misunderstandings of the finely tuned construct, misapplications of the multiverse factor, misunderstandings of the essence of the constant-equation bifurcation, presumptuous metaphysics, inherently self-negating contradictions, and bad science. Feel free to ask me about any of these objections and I'll slap 'em down for you.) Once again: (1:27 — 4:31).​
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!​
(I can hear the cackling roar of the thoughtless peanuts in the gallery as they imagine that here I contradict my observation regarding one of the urban myths of atheist apologetics, precisely because they unwittingly presuppose naturalism/materialism and, thusly, fail to grasp the teleological nature of their own reasoning and the actual ramifications thereof when they confound the logic of the scientifically informed fine-tuned argument of recent history with that of Paley's teleological argument, and/or misconstrue the contingently special argument for life from the theological perspective for a general argument for God's existence from design. Objectively speaking, I know of no philosophical or scientific reason to hold that only carbon-based life as we know it or that only carbon-based life can exist in our universe, however unlikely the latter might be. In any event, whatever form life might take in this or in any other universe would at the very least, as GMS puts it, have to conform to "its preexisting environment." In other words, 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 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 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!​
Hello! knock knock Anybody home?​
The church bad mouths atheist's, and at the same time can't see the word set in Genisis 1: 17. You don't see the word star, assuming that set, is not about stars. I dare say that genisis 1:17 verse is not seen at all. How is the church smart? This is only the begginning of what I can say.
 

Forum List

Back
Top