Three Powerful Books

[_honorentheos]

I think it's been pointed out to you before the fine tuning argument is slightly ignorant of the relationship between organism and environment. The analogy of a sentient puddle that marvels over the miracle that it happens to fit exactly the conditions of the depression in the ground it occupies is reasonably simple.

But let's say that the conditions of the universe we observe tells us something about your hypothetical God. The vast majority of the universe is empty and hostile to humans. Conditions on Earth where we evolved are still pretty hostile and much more precarious than our limited short live spans allow us to perceive. Exhibit A, novel Coronavirus. The most resilient and successful forms of life are simple organisms like bacteria that predate us by eons and constantly threaten our survival as a species. They occupy almost every available environmental niche on the planet. Including our bodies which we even need in symbiotic ways. They'll be here after we're gone. If the universe was fine tuned for the benefit of a particular branch of life, why not argue it was for bacteria and we are just one of the many host options around to ensure they diversify and prevail? Just because some people wrote some stories a few thousand years ago that we've adapted over and over to the changing times so we can maintain our psychological balance on a world where we are just intended to be food for bacteria? Maybe religion is part of the universe scheme to keep us docile and not freak out over the nihilism of our existance because it's good for E coli.that you believe in a creator god and will pray for healing after eating a bad sandwich rather than dose it with antibiotics? I mean the evidence is stronger in favor of bacteria than us just based on the numbers.

Before you dismiss that, remember that the Bible and LDS teachings include the diversity of life on Earth being for the benefit of mankind. So the honey bee may think it's collecting pollen and creating honey for the good of bees but if taken at face value, according to this belief that's just a trick of the universe on bees so they make honey that you can then enjoy.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG

So honor, how do get past the Fine Tuning Argument? How...at least with a straight face...can you chalk up the universe to mere chance? Fine tuning, at the very least, opens up the possibility of divine intelligence.

Or at least it doesn’t close the door.

Regards,
MG

If you weren't such a lazy Mormon brainwashed troll regurgitating the same old arguments ad nauseum, a quick Google search will find not only articles, books, but also and You Tube videos giving you years of reading and watching and learning evidence of why the argument is invalid.

Even 4 year olds can do this......

There are two sides to every coin. I can just as well say you’re full of crap...but I won’t. One thing I think we can agree on is that 4 year olds can understand the majesty and glory of God’s universe.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/mus ... g=eng&_r=1

Back to name calling, eh? At one time I would have said that was beneath you. Not so much anymore.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

https://youtu.be/79n8EADHh1s

1 minute, 30 seconds.

Oh my gosh, I’m convinced. 1 minute and 30 seconds. Changed my whole paradigm of belief! Thanks honor. Forever indebted.

Although as I think about it I think I’ll side with the academic theists just to play devil’s advocate. Masochistic crazy man that I am. And yeah,I know, I’m hanging with a bunch of losers.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Honor and Philo, I’m perfectly happy that you’re happy in a world with no creator God.
I have no reason to convince you otherwise. I’m guessing you feel the same way. Right?

Peace.
MG

[_honorentheos]

I did listen to the first 11 minute video in your link of multiple interviews.

The points made weren't even theistic. He was clearly saying the conditions we observe in the universe are what they are because we are who we are. Carbon based observers only occur.in universes with certain conditions, for example.

If you don't like the bacteria point, perhaps you'll take me up on a bet. I'm very certain two things will occur in the next decade. Someone will win the Powerball lottery jackpot. And that person will not be you. I'm so certain of this, I'd bet you any amount of money that this almost impossibly unlikely thing to happen to you will also almost certainly happen to someone. Care to bet?

[_honorentheos]

Honor and Philo, I’m perfectly happy that you’re happy in a world with no creator God.
I have no reason to convince you otherwise. I’m guessing you feel the same way. Right?

Peace.
MG

MG, my question to find a comparable circumstance where the nonbeliever is clearly setting evidence aside in order to protect their a priori belief. You brought up one example, kinda since you just posted a link to a podcast of sorts and said, "Watch all that and then tell me what you think?" Remember one of my major complaints about your approach to Grant Hardy's book was you just posted, "This is a strong argument but I betcha no one here will read it." And then when I did read it you basically went, "What Hardy said." No analysis and synthesis on your part. It's almost like you just heard the subject was positive to your position, it was pleasant to read but not think about in any real.way, and had nothing more to share than "But the book exists so you are biased against it of you don't like it."

The argument for fine tuning is a weak argument than holds water if you don't realize what it's basically saying about the relationship between an aware being existing in a universe where they are able to exist.

[_honorentheos]

https://youtu.be/79n8EADHh1s

1 minute, 30 seconds.

Although as I think about it I think I’ll side with the academic theists just to play devil’s advocate. Masochistic crazy man that I am. And yeah,I know, I’m hanging with a bunch of losers.

Regards,
MG

So to prove this isn't about bias but an informed decision, where is Sean Carroll off in his abbreviated and clipped critique? He's an academic. Is this a card turning game like war? You flip a card, I flip a card, ten beats seven, but king beats queen? Or, you know, we take what is being shared and, you know, present it and debate it as if we kinda get more out of it than assigning team colors?

[_mentalgymnast]

Remember one of my major complaints about your approach to Grant Hardy's book was you just posted, "This is a strong argument but I betcha no one here will read it." And then when I did read it you basically went, "What Hardy said." No analysis and synthesis on your part. It's almost like you just heard the subject was positive to your position, it was pleasant to read but not think about in any real.way, and had nothing more to share than "But the book exists so you are biased against it of you don't like it."

Truth be told I’ve been out school for a whole lot of years, and the schooling that I had in college wasn’t anywhere near as rigorous as other academic disciplines. I’m not an academic. Rather obvious, right? I marked up Hardy’s book and had a whole lot of thinking going on while reading it, but a month or two after reading it all I came away with was, “Wow, that was a great book!” And I knew that the gist of it convinced me of the complexity throughout the Book of Mormon in a way that I had not observed or really considered before. THAT was the crux of all the reading/thinking I’d done along the way. But then to try and present what I’d experienced through my reading in some kind of systematic and/or analytic way was a bit beyond my pay grade and training in academia.

You might say that the devil is in the details when it comes to Hardy’s book or the Anthropic Principle. I tend towards seeing God in the details. Especially when a high degree of complexity/organization appears to be involved.

As I’ve said, I am happy to let you see the devil in the details rather than God.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

You're calling evidence that you don't like Satanic?

Look. It's nice you found out people have biases that affect the way we approach information in foundational ways. It's a good thing to recognize. But it's value is in its affect on one's own approach to overcoming bias in ones own thinking. It's not a weapon to be welded or a shield to hide behind. That recognition should become a mental discipline to be applied and exercised regularly.

I'm asking you to put your new toy to it's proper use. I presented you an opportunity to demonstrate where you see legitimate bias affecting unbelievers when they/we are hiding behind it in a way I clearly see you use in discussion after discussion. Including what you did above.

Is it really too much to ask that you lay out where you see the strengths of the fine tuning argument that you think is being dismissed by those who don't accept the claims the mythology of a given people from a certain period of time is somehow special compared to the numerous other myths our species has generated to explain the world?

[_Lemmie]

Truth be told I’ve been out school for a whole lot of years, and the schooling that I had in college wasn’t anywhere near as rigorous as other academic disciplines. I’m not an academic. Rather obvious, right? I marked up Hardy’s book and had a whole lot of thinking going on while reading it, but a month or two after reading it all I came away with was, “Wow, that was a great book!” And I knew that the gist of it convinced me of the complexity throughout the Book of Mormon in a way that I had not observed or really considered before. THAT was the crux of all the reading/thinking I’d done along the way. But then to try and present what I’d experienced through my reading in some kind of systematic and/or analytic way was a bit beyond my pay grade and training in academia.

So go back to the book, open to one of the pages you marked up, quote the part you highlighted, and write out the comments or words you wrote in the margin. If the one you picked doesn’t seem to capture a large enough point, go to the next one you marked up and repeat. In the end, you should be able to pick out a point to make or at least be reminded of the overarching themes you found convincing.

You recently noted that you find it difficult to determine if people here give due diligence to the concepts behind their comments. Surely you can understand that if you can’t make a single substantive statement about the content of a book you are telling others will change their lives, it is difficult to imagine you’ve done any due diligence yourself.