Theological Fine Tuning

[ruby sparks]

Argument looks stuck at WLC's line about Vilenkin.

What if people propose, just for the sake of argument again, to accept "the" universe began? So remez can proceed along his script.

I'm good with that.

Personally, I'd opt for skipping the universe had a cause too, because it's already clear that's controversial.

I say we skip all the way to the juicy elf stuff.

 

[remez]

We're not in a position to say what is "far more plausible".

To make that assertion….You are assuming your position is closer to the science than mine. Clearly it’s not. I’m far closer to the mainstream science than you in regards to a past finite universe. You are protesting my position from a position that borders on fantasy. Remember post 109.

All you have is the weak notation of what I call IDKism, since we don’t know for sure than no reasonable inference of the evidence can be made. The vast majority of what we know we do not know with certainty. You are cherry picking when to bury your head in the sand and claim nobody knows. You are the one not following the evidence to its reasonable conclusion. This same nonsense is what you protest against the theists as ignoring the evidence. I’m not the one ignoring the evidence here……you are. You need to face the fact of a cosmic beginning, because even your atheistic cosmologists are.

Such a conclusion certainly doesn't follow from the BGV theorem, which identifies a boundary in inflationary models of spacetime but cannot say anything definitive about the real universe.

Three parts to address there…………..

Such a conclusion certainly doesn't follow from the BGV theorem,….

Then you are the one ignoring the science, burying your head in the sand, and refusing to follow the evidence. The gap is of your own creation. Because as you said……

…..which identifies a boundary in inflationary models of spacetime …..

….and that boundary is the beginning of our universe.

…..but cannot say anything definitive about the real universe.

If you would just pull your head out of the sand you would see, that it does precisely that. It profoundly infers our real universe began to exist.

It certainly does not support the premise that "the universe began to exist".

Not from where you have your head buried. Seriously take account of your position. Your reasoning is further from the science than mine.

We can certainly disagree, but it will cost you. I’m following the evidence where it leads. You’re are selectively looking for a place to hide on this issue. Your IDKism has forced your economy of reason into bankruptcy.

Note again that there is no theism in there at all.

 

[remez]

And maybe you are inclined to up-play it.

I have no need to play it up. The evidence you quoted supports of my position and diminishes yours. You are volitionally refusing to follow the evidence where it leads.

And I'm not sure if meaningful, quantitative probabilities can be assigned for stuff we may not understand.

Does not matter. It’s the greater part we do understand that reasonably infers that the universe began to exist. To save time I’m going to quote myself to you from what I just said to bigfield.…..

To make that assertion….You are assuming your position is closer to the science than mine. Clearly it’s not. I’m far closer to the mainstream science than you in regards to a past finite universe. You are protesting my position from a position that borders on fantasy. Remember post 109.

All you have is the weak notation I call IDKism, since we don’t know for sure than no reasonable inference of the evidence can be made. The vast majority of what we know we do not know with certainty. You are cherry picking when to bury your head in the sand and claim nobody knows. You are the one not following the evidence to its reasonable conclusion. This same nonsense is what you protest against the theists as ignoring the evidence. I’m not the one ignoring the evidence here……you are. You need to face the fact of a cosmic beginning, because even your atheistic cosmologists are.

….. further……

Either way, it weakens the premise automatically.

Your position and reasoning do not weaken the premise. That premise is closer to the mainstream science than your IDKism.

Sure. But if there are weaknesses in each step, there is arguably a cumulative effect on the whole argument.

Your minuscule weaknesses are no match for the science that does support premise 2. Hence why I have always carefully worded it as more or far more plausible. Premise 2, supported by the science, is far more plausible than its alternative supported by your IDKism.

And I see weaknesses not only in premises 1 & 2 but the add-ons to come. The argument tries to get to god.

I was only defending the plausibility that the universe began (aka premise 2). That’s all. I was not trying to defend the entire KCA. Remember this issue came up because of my critique of CC’s straw man OP.

Look, disagreeing with me is absolutely fine. But it is not free. Your IDKism is woefully bankrupt.

 

[steve_bank]

The RCC has been developing theology going on 2000 years. Today the Vatican is manned by PHD types who do nothing but insure there are no contradictions in basic catechism. It is a full time job.

Little of the Catholic theology is biblically based, it is all a theological creation.

 

[remez]

Argument looks stuck at WLC's line about Vilenkin.

What do you mean by that?

It is common knowledge to most ……that in personal correspondence between the two, Vilenkin maintains that WLC accurately portrays the theorem.......that the theorem most plausibly infers the universe is past finite.

Look it up.

What if people propose, just for the sake of argument again, to accept "the" universe began? So remez can proceed along his script.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this again.

Again, again.........again.....I'm not trying to defend the KCA. I'm defending my position that the universe most plausibly began to exist in the CONTEXT and INTENT of addressing CC's straw man. I have addressed this repeatedly. I called out posters here on the board to be reasonable and call out the straw man. We can't both be right. Call it out or show me where I was wrong. I'm not asking you to find the arguments convincing. Just to recognize that CC has again created another straw man by mixing them all up.

Since so many of you have lost sight of that, I'll once AGAIN bump it forward. Post 42. In response to 14, 31, and OP…………………..

Following the OP about the FTA and ignoring my post addressing your straw man you added this in post 14......

These facts have been latched onto by theologians and apologists to claim that the Universe as we know it is so unlikely, that there must be an all powerful, intelligent creator to account for that fact. Ignoring other possibilities of course. And jumping to conclusions.

Complete straw man. You are the one ignoring the facts here. You ignore the fact that you are referring to a deductive argument constructed to provide evidence for design. Which combined with other distinctly individual arguments (LCA, KCA, MA and RA) builds a case for God’s existence. No jumping to conclusions and certainly not ignoring any of the other possibilities which we have a history of debating. Those are disingenuous assertions without evidence.

But at root, failing to account for how such a being can come to exist and how unlikely that is.

Again the argument you posited in our OP does not pertain to cause. It pertains to the best explanation for fine-tuning. Cause and explanation are two different issues. Thus by conflating the two you're also committing a categorical fallacy.

The theistic case is far more sophisticated than your simple straw man.

What I am suggesting is that if an existing Universe that can support life is unlikely, and cannot happen by chance, a Universe that can support existence of a God as described is even more unlikely.

A properly placed “THEN” would have helped clarify your argument.
But…….
What you are suggesting is either a backwards straw man
Or
You are equivocating your use of the word “support”. That is a fallacy as well. Because you are clearly inferring........ That in the same way......... X supports Y, X supports Z.

Examine……..

When you first use the word “support” here….. "an existing Universe that can support life is unlikely” you are clearly meaning “provides substance for being, gives life to”. Crystal clear.

But how are you using “support” in the second part here…… "a Universe that can support existence of a God”?

Does it mean the same that the universe gives life to God? If so then you are not talking about theism but pantheism. Thus you are out of your own context and building a straw man of the theistic position. We are certainly not trying to infer that the universe is fine-tuned for God’s existence. That’s completely backwards.


Or……… did your second use of “support” in “a Universe that can support existence of a God” mean “provides evidence for”. If that is the case then you are committing an equivocation fallacy. Because you changed the way in which you were using the word “support”. Just like Krauss does with his use of the word nothing.

Either way your argument is a fallacy. Theism remains unaffected.

The fine tuning argument is what philosopher Schopenhauer called a taxi cab argument, an argument used to arrive to a desired conclusion and then dismissed.

The taxi cab fallacy would not even reasonably apply to the FTA. It is not that kind of argument.

You and I have been here before and perhaps that is why you ignored my first response to you. You are mixing up arguments again. Schopenhauer’s taxi cab has been falsely leveled at premise one of the KCA but not the FTA. If you disagree, simply provide some evidence.

The only place where I can reason that the Schopenhauer taxi cab fallacy would apply in reference to tha FTA is against those that deny the need for an explanation of fine-tuning.

wait.... how convenient you just brought it back up........post 31

First of all, if one brings God in as a first cause, as an explanation of all things other than himself, then to avoid Schopenhauer’s “taxi cab” objection to the cosmological argument (Schopenhauer charged that the causal principle behind the cosmological argument was dismissed once the existence of God was proved, like a cab that is no longer needed once one is at the destination, and not applied to God himself) one must affirm that God is the explanation of his own existence, perhaps by there being a sound ontological argument, though possibly outside of our grasp, for his existence or by his existence being implicated by his essence.

Note the use of the objection. It’s an objection to the use of God as a first cause. In other words, it’s specifically an objection to an argument that God made the universe. So, it’s a counter to the very argument of Cosmological Contingency that Craig is defending when he invokes the “fallacy”!

This is intellectual dishonesty of staggering proportions.

Wow you couldn't have timed that any better. You just proved my contentions above. Your OP was addressing the FTA. Not only did you get the argument backwards you conflated it with the KCA and LCA and got the Schopenhauer reference wrong.

The FTA concludes the best explanation for the fine-tuning is design.
The KCA concludes universe has a cause.
The LCA concludes the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

Three different arguments for three different objectives, therefore three different lines of reasoning.

You are ignorantly or dishonestly twisting the different objectives and arguments to create a straw man. You and I have been here before, not to long ago when you constructed the straw man that theists argue that since science/evolution cannot account for morality therefore God. This board is your playground to construct and knock over straw men. You atheists applaud yourselves as the reasonable ones. Is there anyone among you that will be honest enough to address his blatant straw man?

BTW your use of the Schopenhauer there in post 31 is doing the same thing by mixing the LCA and KCA. It's a common mistake.

Well?

 

[remez]

The RCC has been developing theology going on 2000 years. Today the Vatican is manned by PHD types who do nothing but insure there are no contradictions in basic catechism. It is a full time job.

Little of the Catholic theology is biblically based, it is all a theological creation.

Just in case and for the record.........I'm not Chatholic.

 

[bigfield]

To make that assertion….You are assuming your position is closer to the science than mine. Clearly it’s not. I’m far closer to the mainstream science than you in regards to a past finite universe. You are protesting my position from a position that borders on fantasy. Remember post 109.

All you have is the weak notation of what I call IDKism, since we don’t know for sure than no reasonable inference of the evidence can be made. The vast majority of what we know we do not know with certainty. You are cherry picking when to bury your head in the sand and claim nobody knows. You are the one not following the evidence to its reasonable conclusion. This same nonsense is what you protest against the theists as ignoring the evidence. I’m not the one ignoring the evidence here……you are. You need to face the fact of a cosmic beginning, because even your atheistic cosmologists are.

Three parts to address there…………..

Such a conclusion certainly doesn't follow from the BGV theorem,….

Then you are the one ignoring the science, burying your head in the sand, and refusing to follow the evidence. The gap is of your own creation. Because as you said……

…..which identifies a boundary in inflationary models of spacetime …..

….and that boundary is the beginning of our universe.

…..but cannot say anything definitive about the real universe.

If you would just pull your head out of the sand you would see, that it does precisely that. It profoundly infers our real universe began to exist.

It certainly does not support the premise that "the universe began to exist".

Not from where you have your head buried. Seriously take account of your position. Your reasoning is further from the science than mine.

We can certainly disagree, but it will cost you. I’m following the evidence where it leads. You’re are selectively looking for a place to hide on this issue. Your IDKism has forced your economy of reason into bankruptcy.

Note again that there is no theism in there at all.

Your entire posts boils down to "nuh uh!"

 

[ruby sparks]

I have no need to play it up.

Yeah right. Like you're not trying to get to god. Sure. You have no reason to want to play it up.

The evidence you quoted supports of my position and diminishes yours.

Whatever. It does not support premise 1. It weakens it. Sorry. If you think otherwise, maybe you are trying to play it up.

Your minuscule weaknesses are no match for the science that does support premise 2.

If something doesn't necessarily need a cause that's hardly a minuscule weakness for premise 2 in an argument that says it does. Maybe you are trying to play it down.

I was not trying to defend the entire KCA.

Of course you weren't.

I suggest we leave premise 1 & premise 2 behind and move on to where mr cosmic elf supposedly comes on stage. Maybe the argument will have more luck at that point. Somehow I doubt it. I think it's going to get worse. Perhaps that's why you're so reluctant about getting into it.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just in case and for the record.........I'm not Chatholic.

So what flavour of woo are you?