Become a theist

Author: Fallaneze ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 496
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    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.

    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?

  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    2
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @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.

  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    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.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,212
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    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. 
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    The universe is so fine tuned that 99.99999999999999999999999% of it is fatal to life.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,212
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @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. 
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    @ET
    Go five miles from where you are now and you will be dead.
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @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.


  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,212
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @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.
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    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.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    @ET
    Still haven't learned how to read, go to a god world LOL that teaches it.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,212
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @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. 
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,212
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @disgusted

    That's what I thought. 
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @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.


  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,212
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @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. 
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,212
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @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. 


  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @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.

  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @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 :)
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @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.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    Let's have a debate on whether it's evidence of God.
  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @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.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @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.


  • Analgesic.Spectre
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 474
    1
    1
    5
    Analgesic.Spectre avatar
    Analgesic.Spectre
    --> @Fallaneze
    I'm going to make an example out of you.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @Analgesic.Spectre
    I created the debate.
  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @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!