Originally posted by geniusThere are a few things about this article that I noticed.
i was infomed of this the other day, and it seems rather intresting-it's not a proof that God created the universe, but it does show that it is much more probable that an intelligent being created it. tis intesting...
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/finetune/anth.htm.htm
1) The concept that the universe developed in such a way as to allow life is fundamentally flawed. In fact it should be seen the other way round. Life developed from the structure that was already in place, it is not at all unbelievable that were the laws of physics different, then different forms of life may have involved. For example silicon based instead of carbon based.
2)Once he starts with the arguement about the theistic likelyhood of fine-tuning he fails to recognise that the fine-tuning idea is actually still not proved or generally accepted as fact. He continues to make reference to it as a strong standing hypothesis.
3)He states that the Anthropic Principle Objection is refuteable because of the unlikelyhood of our existence under the atheist single universe theory. But the fact that we are here is nullification of that and his attempt to talk in circles around this is counterproductive.
Those are just some of the things I picked up on whilst glancing over the article. I'll have another look later. Happy Firday everyone 🙂
Originally posted by geniusI found your link to be a complete waste of time. Here are a couple of websites that demonstrate how flawed the argument from (or to) design is.
i was infomed of this the other day, and it seems rather intresting-it's not a proof that God created the universe, but it does show that it is much more probable that an intelligent being created it. tis intesting...
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/finetune/anth.htm.htm
http://skepdic.com/design.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
1 edit
Originally posted by geniusA colleague of mine has recently provided a nice rebuttal of Collins' fine-tuning argument. You can find the PDF file of the article here:
i was infomed of this the other day, and it seems rather intresting-it's not a proof that God created the universe, but it does show that it is much more probable that an intelligent being created it. tis intesting...
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/finetune/anth.htm.htm
http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=5274478&PDF=1
Pay special attention to footnotes 6 and 7.
why is it so hard for people to belive that the universe was never created and that it has always been there and will always be there?Maybe its their fear of death, they know they where not alway here and they will not alway be here so it must be the same for the universe and everything else???😕
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanI think the point is not that life formed because of the exact conditions on Earth, but that if you meddle with a few universal constants too much (such as the fine structure constant) most of the possible universes you get are really, REALLY dull (it is reckoned), so it's difficult to imagine how life could emerge in them. Ours is an aberration in that we get interesting things like protons, elements and even stars. Several explanations have been suggested:
There are a few things about this article that I noticed.
1) The concept that the universe developed in such a way as to allow life is fundamentally flawed. In fact it should be seen the other way round. Life developed from the stru ...[text shortened]... have involved. For example silicon based instead of carbon based.
1. We just got lucky.
2. The whole fine-tuning business is a myth, and changing with the constants still gives interesting (albeit bizarre from our p-o-v) universes.
3. Thanks to some mathematical principle which we don't yet understand, the constants of our universe are the ONLY possible ones - any other possibilities just wouldn't make any sense. Alternatively, our kind of universe is extremely probable to come about compared to the boring ones.
4. There are plenty of other universes where the constants are different, and by the anthropic argument it's no surprise that we're in one of the few 'interesting' ones.
5. An intelligent being (which comes about how? If it doesn't live in any universe, isn't its complexity a greater mystery than our own?) fiddled everything to make the porridge just right.
Originally posted by bbarrThe link doesn't work for me. Can you provide the title of the
A colleague of mine has recently provided a nice rebuttal of Collins' fine-tuning argument. You can find the PDF file of the article here:
http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=5274478&PDF=1
Pay special attention to footnotes 6 and 7.
article?
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioThe link I provided should take you to a page that has a button labelled 'PDF' inside the left hand side of a narrow light blue bar in the middle of the screen. 'PDF' is located just under the orange words 'Next Abstract'. This button loads the following article:
The link doesn't work for me. Can you provide the title of the
article?
Nemesio
The Application conditions for cesign inferences: Why the design arguments need the help of other arguments for God's existence
By Kenneth Einar Himma
Originally posted by bbarrBut what do you offer for us open minds?
The link I provided should take you to a page that has a button labelled 'PDF' inside the left hand side of a narrow light blue bar in the middle of the screen. 'PDF' is located just under the orange words 'Next Abstract'. This button loads the following article:
The Application conditions for cesign inferences: Why the design arguments need the help of other arguments for God's existence
By Kenneth Einar Himma
I have not visited any of those links.
Originally posted by geniusHey mr. genius,
i was infomed of this the other day, and it seems rather intresting-it's not a proof that God created the universe, but it does show that it is much more probable that an intelligent being created it. tis intesting...
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/finetune/anth.htm.htm
Good to see yer post.
I can't add much. Just a thought. If God or any intelligent being designed this mess.... What the hell were they thinking of!
Just kidding.
I don't know. I just chose on the information that I have. I may change later on. If the evidence presents. I don't even care the source. Just let it be provable. And reproducible.
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardThis is just another version of the "tortoises all the way down!" argument of Terry Pratchet's Discworld!
why is it so hard for people to belive that the universe was never created and that it has always been there and will always be there?Maybe its their fear of death, they know they where not alway here and they will not alway be here so it must be the same for the universe and everything else???😕
For those of you who don't know it (you illiterate sods!) the argument goes something like this:
Acolyte: Oh Wise One, what supports the World?
WO: Don't you know that the world is carried on the back of a giant elephant that stands on the back of the ancient Tortoise Mergutroyd?
Acolyte: But what supports Mergutroyd, oh Wise One?
WO: Off course, another tortoise!
Acolyte: But, oh Wise one......
WO (irritated): No buts, it's tortoises all the way down!
What is surprising about LotC's comment, is that he finds it strange that people find it difficult to believe that something has no beginning. The converse is true! How can someone believe something has NO beginning?? If you believe that, all you are actually doing is moving the beginning so far back that (you hope!) it makes no difference!
In peace,
CJ
Originally posted by CalJustno im not trying to move the begining way back...i actualy mean that there was never a beginning and that the universe has always been here and will always be here, maybe not in the same shape but it will still be here. I think everyone would agree that you can't make something out of notting so it seems logical to assume everything has always been here.
This is just another version of the "tortoises all the way down!" argument of Terry Pratchet's Discworld!
For those of you who don't know it (you illiterate sods!) the argument goes something like this:
Acolyte: Oh Wise One, what supports the World?
WO: Don't you know that the world is carried on the back of a giant elephant that stands on th ...[text shortened]... is moving the beginning so far back that (you hope!) it makes no difference!
In peace,
CJ
Originally posted by geniusDoes it exclude the possibility that an intelligent universe created god complete with a memory that He created it, sometime after man evolved as a joke to fool mankind?
i was infomed of this the other day, and it seems rather intresting-it's not a proof that God created the universe, but it does show that it is much more probable that an intelligent being created it. tis intesting...
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/finetune/anth.htm.htm