3 ms·

>it's all the same Yes, in the sense that they point towards a creator of the universe. But intelligent design theory is more readily dismissed as anti-scienti

>it's all the same Yes, in the sense that they point towards a creator of the universe. But intelligent design theory is more readily dismissed as anti-scientific nonsense, while the fine-tuning argument is not. Since your original reply to the original poster was that "none of these reasons are reasons", and you went on to say, re: the design argument, nothing more than "this is a creationist argument", the implication seemed to be that an argument being a creationist one is reason enough to dismiss it. If you were just making a comment that the argument was expressing a belief that the universe was created (creationism), that seems fairly obvious, and I don't have anything to quibble about.

f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
I would not agree that the fine-tuning argument "point[s] towards a creator." As I understand it, it is that if various natural constants had values other than those we observe, either life as we know it, or even the universe itself, could not exist. Nothing about a creator. Certainly, there are those, seemingly including you, who would like to use it to "point towards a creator," but I think that in general, they want to point in that direction regardless, and will hang their hats on whatever comes along that seems like it might get them where they want to go.
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  >As I understand it, it is that if various natural constants had values other than those we observe, either life as we know it, or even the universe itself, could not exist. This is just a fact, no? The fine-tuning argument is something like, Premise (1) this fact is true, and it must be because of chance, necessity, or design. Premise (2) it is not by chance or necessity. Conclusion: it is by design. You can reject the premises (probably premise 2), but it's a valid (even if unsound) argument whose conclusion points towards a creator. And its rejection probably warrants some explanation rather than an out-of-hand dismissal.
  - f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
    Good lord. Your (2) is entirely unfounded and can absolutely be rejected with no further explanation than that. All you have is (1), from which no conclusion can be drawn. Again, nothing about (1) itself "points towards a creator." You just seem to wish that it did.
    - knightoffaith 3y ago
      At first glance (2) seems plausible, no? Given that there's an apparently narrow range in which certain universal/cosmological constants lie, outside of which life (possibly the universe itself in the way we know it) would be impossible, it seems that that these constants are what they are is a very low probability event. And in the same way that we would probably say a coin that turns up heads a thousand times in a row isn't by chance (we would probably have no trouble saying it's by design in this case, that is, the coin has been rigged), it seems plausible to say the Goldilocks state of affairs isn't by chance. And it seems that the state of affairs could have been other than what they are, so it seems that it's not by necessity. So it's not obvious that we can reject (2) out of hand. There is, I think, a good case to be made against (2)---for example, an appeal to the anthropic principle, or an appeal to multiverse theory. But this is far from a rejection with no further explanation.
      - f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
        > At first glance (2) seems plausible, no? Not particularly. > it seems that that these constants are what they are is a very low probability event. Pure speculation. > we would probably say a coin that turns up heads a thousand times... [is] by design This is just yet another misplaced, unhelpful analogy similar to many others made by creationists of various stripes. It gets you nowhere. > it seems that the state of affairs could have been other than what they are Again, pure speculation. > So it's not obvious that we can reject (2) out of hand. Given that it is entirely unfounded, I would say that we not only can, but should. I think that you just want to get to a particular conclusion and will postulate whatever it takes to get there.

f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago

I would not agree that the fine-tuning argument "point[s] towards a creator." As I understand it, it is that if various natural constants had values other than those we observe, either life as we know it, or even the universe itself, could not exist. Nothing about a creator. Certainly, there are those, seemingly including you, who would like to use it to "point towards a creator," but I think that in general, they want to point in that direction regardless, and will hang their hats on whatever comes along that seems like it might get them where they want to go.

knightoffaith 3y ago
>As I understand it, it is that if various natural constants had values other than those we observe, either life as we know it, or even the universe itself, could not exist. This is just a fact, no? The fine-tuning argument is something like, Premise (1) this fact is true, and it must be because of chance, necessity, or design. Premise (2) it is not by chance or necessity. Conclusion: it is by design. You can reject the premises (probably premise 2), but it's a valid (even if unsound) argument whose conclusion points towards a creator. And its rejection probably warrants some explanation rather than an out-of-hand dismissal.
- f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
  Good lord. Your (2) is entirely unfounded and can absolutely be rejected with no further explanation than that. All you have is (1), from which no conclusion can be drawn. Again, nothing about (1) itself "points towards a creator." You just seem to wish that it did.
  - knightoffaith 3y ago
    At first glance (2) seems plausible, no? Given that there's an apparently narrow range in which certain universal/cosmological constants lie, outside of which life (possibly the universe itself in the way we know it) would be impossible, it seems that that these constants are what they are is a very low probability event. And in the same way that we would probably say a coin that turns up heads a thousand times in a row isn't by chance (we would probably have no trouble saying it's by design in this case, that is, the coin has been rigged), it seems plausible to say the Goldilocks state of affairs isn't by chance. And it seems that the state of affairs could have been other than what they are, so it seems that it's not by necessity. So it's not obvious that we can reject (2) out of hand. There is, I think, a good case to be made against (2)---for example, an appeal to the anthropic principle, or an appeal to multiverse theory. But this is far from a rejection with no further explanation.
    - f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
      > At first glance (2) seems plausible, no? Not particularly. > it seems that that these constants are what they are is a very low probability event. Pure speculation. > we would probably say a coin that turns up heads a thousand times... [is] by design This is just yet another misplaced, unhelpful analogy similar to many others made by creationists of various stripes. It gets you nowhere. > it seems that the state of affairs could have been other than what they are Again, pure speculation. > So it's not obvious that we can reject (2) out of hand. Given that it is entirely unfounded, I would say that we not only can, but should. I think that you just want to get to a particular conclusion and will postulate whatever it takes to get there.