Become a theist

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 496
Matt Dillahunty, host of "The Atheist Experience", said that the fine-tunedness of the universe was evidence of God but was not "sufficient" evidence of God.

If there's no evidence against God, but there is evidence for God, the claim "God exists" is more likely true than not. How is that not sufficient to warrant belief that the claim is true?

--> @Fallaneze
Matt Dillahunty, host of "The Atheist Experience", said that the fine-tunedness of the universe was evidence of God but was not "sufficient" evidence of God.

  Beer is evidence of God, but not "sufficient" evidence of God.

Not sufficient for him. That is really what he means to say.


If someone doesn't want to believe that anything is ultimately real, no amount of evidence will convince them.
There's much more than just the "fine-tuning" argument/proposal, that's just a surface level interpretation or just one way of considering. There's what is called an accumulation of evidences, which includes many factors not just one or another. Most people have philosophical reasons as well as personal reasons. All the evidences and theories accumulate to an overwhelming conclusion. 
The universe is so fine tuned that 99.99999999999999999999999% of it is fatal to life.
--> @disgusted
The universe is so fine tuned that 99.99999999999999999999999% of it is fatal to life.

And......how precisely do you know what the rest of Gods creation is for? have you been there? how many galaxies and planets within those galaxies have you explored dear Bulproof? life on this planet is fit for its inhabitants. 
@ET
Go five miles from where you are now and you will be dead.
--> @Fallaneze
Matt Dillahunty, host of "The Atheist Experience", said that the fine-tunedness of the universe was evidence of God but was not "sufficient" evidence of God.
He's wrong.

The fine-tuning argument is never evidence for the existence of the Christian God. If God created a universe that is, so to speak, out-of-tune, then He created a universe that He didn't want, hence the necessity to fine-tune. Since God is supposed to be omnipotent and all-knowing, He should have the capacity to create a universe that doesn't need fine-tuning. So, when He creates a universe that needs fine-tuning, He is either proving that He isn't omnipotent, and/or he is demonstrating that he isn't all-knowing.


--> @disgusted
 Did you mean go five miles from where you are now so you can get yourself a hotdog and a Big Gulp? Try making some sense. Thanx.
The fine-tuning argument is a horrendous contradiction and a disastrously bad argument for the existence of God. If any of you disagree, I will gladly bash your arguments to a pulp in a debate.

If you seriously attempt to make a fine-tuning argument for the existence of God, you are unbelievably fucking stupid.
@ET
Still haven't learned how to read, go to a god world LOL that teaches it.
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
The so-called "fine-tuning" argument of the universe is only an interpretation really, just as materialism is or atheism. It more or less points to the irregularities of the formation of our own galaxy, where earth, moon and sun are positioned in such a precise way where it meets the needs for creatures to develop. Or even deeper, the way stars form to seed the universe and the arrangements of planets, the endless array of galaxies which could certainly contain life for other life forms. Quite incredible if you really think about it. 
--> @disgusted

That's what I thought. 
--> @EtrnlVw
The so-called "fine-tuning" argument of the universe is only an interpretation really, just as materialism is or atheism.
Absolutely not.

The fine-tuning argument is about attempting to prove God's existence through the complexity of the world -- that is not "only" an interpretation.

You clearly don't know what you're writing about. You should stop typing before the whole site is laughing at you.


--> @Analgesic.Spectre
The interesting thing is, the anatomy of physical embodiments require a certain environment to survive in. This can happen at many different levels of conscious life and certainly well out of our capacity to observe in an endless universe. The "magic" is, is that conscious activity is never dependent on forms in creation, rather is restricted to the form it is experiencing through. Those forms are supported by the "fine-tuning" of the multi-verses. 
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
The fine-tuning argument is about attempting to prove God's existence through the complexity of the world

Of course. As explained. 

-- that is not "only" an interpretation.

Of course it is, silly. 

You clearly don't know what you're writing about. You should stop typing before the whole site is laughing at you.

LOL. Nice try. 


--> @EtrnlVw
The interesting thing is, the anatomy of physical embodiments require a certain environment to survive in. This can happen at many different levels conscious life and certainly well out of our capacity to observe in an endless universe. The "magic" is, is that conscious activity is never dependent on forms in creation, rather is restricted to the form it is experiencing through. Those forms are supported by the "fine-tuning" of the multi-verses. 
That is not the fine-tuning argument. Again, you are completely ignorant as to what fine-tuning refers to. I'm going to show your posts to my friends so that we can laugh at you.

--> @EtrnlVw
Rather than running your mouth like a keyboard warrior, why don't you step up to the plate and debate me?

I'd love to permanently brand your account with a humiliating loss :)
--> @EtrnlVw
It's funny. As soon as I demand that you be held accountable for your comments in a debate, you suddenly flee.

Very funny.
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
Let's have a debate on whether it's evidence of God.
--> @Fallaneze
Since you're affirming, set up a debate however you wish, and I'll probably accept it.

But be warned: if history is anything to go by, I'm one of the top 5 debaters of this site.
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
I'm a pretty lousy debater, so don't worry about it. As soon as I get it set up I'll send it to you. I haven't made a debate on this site before but if it's quick and easy I may set it up tonight between doing other things.


--> @Fallaneze
I'm going to make an example out of you.
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
I created the debate.
--> @Fallaneze
Formal debates arefortwo people... what about the rest of us?

The fine-tuned argument is a challenge to non-theists to come up with an alternative to 'Goddidit'.  Anyone who wants to refute 'goddit' has two options a) deny the universe is fine-tuned or b) concede the universe is fine tuned, but not by the gods.

a) involves appeal to the anthropic principle/puddle argument.  b) involves an appeal to the hope that future discoveries will reveal a non-supernatural reason why the physical constantsre as they are.

it's all very unfair, because the 'goddidit' crowd get away with just claiming 'godfinetunedit' with no furter detail but insist refuters cross every t and dot every i!

i'm not keen on appeals to the AP, but until/unless a postive theory that explains the value of the physical constants turns up the AP will have to suffice!