I'll say it. Fine tuning is the best argument out there for God's existence. But that hardly says much of anything because as has been said by others and as I pointed out earlier in the thread the argument itself is really really bad.
You have an opinion on the reasonableness of the argument. That’s fine. I’m happy to know you are honest enough to say Fine Tuning Argument is the best argument out there for the existence of God.
I'll say it. Fine tuning is the best argument out there for God's existence. But that hardly says much of anything because as has been said by others and as I pointed out earlier in the thread the argument itself is really really bad....
The only evidence I'm aware of is personal testimony type of stuff. I can't figure out how anyone sees personal internal witness as sufficient evidence for the claim. But some do. But it can't possibly be seen as evidence that can convince others.
So mg agrees that the best evidence for his position is "really really bad," and "can't possibly be seen as evidence" and "hardly says much of anything."
"A bit cocky"? Let's see, MG has a belief, makes a positive claim "My religion is true" or "My god exists". He offers in order to defend his claim arguments from other "smart guys" and when those arguments get challenged its cocky for those who challenge the arguments because there are large groups of people who believe?
No, that’s a distortion of what I’m saying.
There are well known and respected scientists who believe Fine Tuning has merit. If I wasn’t clear, I think it’s a bit cocky for you or anyone else here on this board who doesn’t have the scientific expertise to expertly comment on these matters to come off saying , “It’s all BS.”
...There are well known and respected scientists who believe Fine Tuning has merit. If I wasn’t clear, I think it’s a bit cocky for you or anyone else here on this board who doesn’t have the scientific expertise to expertly comment on these matters to come off saying , “It’s all BS.”
In other words, a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."
A concept of god doesn't have to include intelligent design. The god of rocks, neutrons, and empty spaces Trump's your god of life where humans are the crown jewels.
You deny the grace of the noodley appendage at your own peril.
You have an opinion on the reasonableness of the argument. That’s fine. I’m happy to know you are honest enough to say Fine Tuning Argument is the best argument out there for the existence of God.
I think so to.
Regards,
MG
There are rules of logic. When arguments violate these rules we declare the logic fallacious, irrespective of whose opinion likes or dislikes the argument.
MG:
There are well known and respected scientists who believe Fine Tuning has merit. If I wasn’t clear, I think it’s a bit cocky for you or anyone else here on this board who doesn’t have the scientific expertise to expertly comment on these matters to come off saying , “It’s all BS.”
Again you are misusing reason. It is a fallacy to suggest smart people buy or like the argument therefore we can't really point out the fallacy in it. You're appeal to fallacy is just like their appeal to fallacy, no matter how smart any of you are. There could be a scientist who adjusts the argument to exclude the fallacies, but I haven't seen it. Is the argument free of fallacy? I've never seen it. Has a scientist or anyone for that matter ever addressed the fallacies and have not invoked more fallacy when they have done so? I have yet to see it. Have you?
It seems like you're at the end of your rope playing repeat with everyone. Appealing to authority often sounds good, but it doesn't quite address anything. Unless you are willing to name an expert and bring his/her argument here, it appears this is going nowhere but deeper into your fallacious reasoning.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
"A bit cocky"? Let's see, MG has a belief, makes a positive claim "My religion is true" or "My god exists". He offers in order to defend his claim arguments from other "smart guys" and when those arguments get challenged its cocky for those who challenge the arguments because there are large groups of people who believe?
No, that’s a distortion of what I’m saying.
There are well known and respected scientists who believe Fine Tuning has merit. If I wasn’t clear, I think it’s a bit cocky for you or anyone else here on this board who doesn’t have the scientific expertise to expertly comment on these matters to come off saying , “It’s all BS.”
Not saying that you’re not a smart guy and all…
Regards,
MG
The point you keep evading is that the problem with using the SAP argument as evidence of the existence of God has nothing to do with scientific expertise. It has to do with Fallacious reasoning. It’s an argument from ignorance. “I don’t know, therefore God did it” is not rational.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
I'll say it. Fine tuning is the best argument out there for God's existence. But that hardly says much of anything because as has been said by others and as I pointed out earlier in the thread the argument itself is really really bad.
You have an opinion on the reasonableness of the argument. That’s fine. I’m happy to know you are honest enough to say Fine Tuning Argument is the best argument out there for the existence of God.
I think so to.
Regards,
MG
Yes, because ranking terrible arguments on their degree of terribleness is a productive exercise.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
I'll say it. Fine tuning is the best argument out there for God's existence. But that hardly says much of anything because as has been said by others and as I pointed out earlier in the thread the argument itself is really really bad.
You have an opinion on the reasonableness of the argument. That’s fine. I’m happy to know you are honest enough to say Fine Tuning Argument is the best argument out there for the existence of God.
I think so to.
Regards,
MG
If the best argument is fundamentally flawed in that its base premise is a total unknown - then do really have anything? Is it really any kind of admission from him when he says "your best argument is a burning trash heap?"
You have an opinion on the reasonableness of the argument. That’s fine. I’m happy to know you are honest enough to say Fine Tuning Argument is the best argument out there for the existence of God.
I think so to.
Regards,
MG
There are rules of logic. When arguments violate these rules we declare the logic fallacious, irrespective of whose opinion likes or dislikes the argument.
MG:
There are well known and respected scientists who believe Fine Tuning has merit. If I wasn’t clear, I think it’s a bit cocky for you or anyone else here on this board who doesn’t have the scientific expertise to expertly comment on these matters to come off saying , “It’s all BS.”
Again you are misusing reason. It is a fallacy to suggest smart people buy or like the argument therefore we can't really point out the fallacy in it. You're appeal to fallacy is just like their appeal to fallacy, no matter how smart any of you are. There could be a scientist who adjusts the argument to exclude the fallacies, but I haven't seen it. Is the argument free of fallacy? I've never seen it. Has a scientist or anyone for that matter ever addressed the fallacies and have not invoked more fallacy when they have done so? I have yet to see it. Have you?
It seems like you're at the end of your rope playing repeat with everyone. Appealing to authority often sounds good, but it doesn't quite address anything. Unless you are willing to name an expert and bring his/her argument here, it appears this is going nowhere but deeper into your fallacious reasoning.
It is more than that, MG is misrepresenting the smart people. There are really smart physicists and cosmologists who state that the universe "appears to be tuned" they then go on to posit the multiverse theory as the explanation. I have yet to see one of these guys argue - thus god. MG is deliberately obfuscating their position. They don't believe the fine tuning argument for god has merit, they believe that their might be a multiverse. What they discuss categorically is not "the fine tuning argument for god".
