Fine tuning of the Universe

[Mr.Badham]

I'm confused, because it seems like the argument could go both ways.

Either the universe is fine tuned for life, and therefore is full of it, or only Earth is fine tuned for life, and the rest of the universe will have none of it.

I want theists to take a stand right here and say;

The universe is fine tuned, and is full of life.

Or

The Earth is fine tuned, the rest of the universe has none of it.

Then I want you to stake your religiosity on it. If you make the claim, one way or the other, and are shown to be wrong, you will then become an atheist.

If you are not willing to do this, I would like you to proclaim that the argument is bogus, and should never be used.

You have 1 of 3 options;
The universe is full of life.
Only earth has life.
The fine tuning argument is bogus and should never be used.

[instantc]

By "playing that game" you mean responding to the clearly and fairly formulated simple argument that I have presented to you in form of two premises and a conclusion?

You have not been able to point to a premise that is mistaken, nor have you challenged the validity of the deduction.

Your lengthy posts have mostly not been pertinent to the argument that I presented.

Like I said you have not paid attention to any of my posts.

If you want to refute an argument, you need to be able to point to a premise and explain why it is wrong.

I have repeatedly and extensively explained why the argument referenced by the OP and presented by Craig in the several links I provided - the argument related to theism - does not work. But you insist that everyone talk about a different version that you came up with. At the same time, you have not addressed my arguments concerning the theistic argument or my alternative explanation in any serious manner and most of them not at all.

You just want everyone to play your little side tangent game. Sorry, not interested. I suggest you go play the game with yourself.

I happily congratulate you for all your success in debunking those other arguments. I would be doubly happy, if you also put forward your objections to the version of fine-tuning argument that I presented. Referring me to multiple walls of text that you wrote, parts of which may or may not bear relevance to the argument that I brought up, is not going to do much.

[Ancient of Years]

By "playing that game" you mean responding to the clearly and fairly formulated simple argument that I have presented to you in form of two premises and a conclusion?

You have not been able to point to a premise that is mistaken, nor have you challenged the validity of the deduction.

Your lengthy posts have mostly not been pertinent to the argument that I presented.

Like I said you have not paid attention to any of my posts.

If you want to refute an argument, you need to be able to point to a premise and explain why it is wrong.

I have repeatedly and extensively explained why the argument referenced by the OP and presented by Craig in the several links I provided - the argument related to theism - does not work. But you insist that everyone talk about a different version that you came up with. At the same time, you have not addressed my arguments concerning the theistic argument or my alternative explanation in any serious manner and most of them not at all.

You just want everyone to play your little side tangent game. Sorry, not interested. I suggest you go play the game with yourself.

I happily congratulate you for all your success in debunking those other arguments. I would be doubly happy, if you also put forward your objections to the version of fine-tuning argument that I presented. Referring me to multiple walls of text that you wrote, parts of which may or may not bear relevance to the argument that I brought up, is not going to do much.

Let me try to make this very clear. I have no interest in your tangential argument. It is not the argument that this thread is about, which I have already expended much time and effort in addressing. I am expending my future time and effort elsewhere.

[instantc]

By "playing that game" you mean responding to the clearly and fairly formulated simple argument that I have presented to you in form of two premises and a conclusion?

You have not been able to point to a premise that is mistaken, nor have you challenged the validity of the deduction.

Your lengthy posts have mostly not been pertinent to the argument that I presented.

Like I said you have not paid attention to any of my posts.

If you want to refute an argument, you need to be able to point to a premise and explain why it is wrong.

I have repeatedly and extensively explained why the argument referenced by the OP and presented by Craig in the several links I provided - the argument related to theism - does not work. But you insist that everyone talk about a different version that you came up with. At the same time, you have not addressed my arguments concerning the theistic argument or my alternative explanation in any serious manner and most of them not at all.

You just want everyone to play your little side tangent game. Sorry, not interested. I suggest you go play the game with yourself.

I happily congratulate you for all your success in debunking those other arguments. I would be doubly happy, if you also put forward your objections to the version of fine-tuning argument that I presented. Referring me to multiple walls of text that you wrote, parts of which may or may not bear relevance to the argument that I brought up, is not going to do much.

Let me try to make this very clear. I have no interest in your tangential argument. It is not the argument that this thread is about, which I have already expended much time and effort in addressing. I am expending my future time and effort elsewhere.

Isn't it a bit over to top to call an argument tangential in this context, when its conclusion is that the universe is designed? Plain and simple. Seems more like a cheap cop-out to me, especially considering how much time and effort you have already invested in avoiding the version of the argument that I brought up.

I think that the main problem with the argument that I brought up is that your stock objections don't apply to it.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to instantc]

Are you describing what you believe in, or are you just rebutting what someone else has said?

I've found a lot of people feel vindicated, not when they prove themselves correct, but rather when they show that someone else might be incorrect. Not that I think you have done that, but you have disagreed.... and for many people that's enough.

The ability to type the words "you're wrong" doesn't mean that they are. And certainly doesn't mean that you're right. To be honest, I didn't even know what you were arguing for; A physical/non-physical designer who may or may not be interested in life, whether it does or does not exist in whatever form it may or may not take.

WTF? Why would you argue for that? It doesn't make any sense on an intellectual level? That's not even what I wanted to know!!

Usually a person will argue something they feel strongly about. We already know the universe is capable of life. Theists and Atheists agree. What we don't agree on is design/designer. There's no point in talking about design/designer without talking about "HUMANS". This is because no bacteria has ever made the argument. The argument is by humans, about humans, for humans.

Humans argue for design. And only humans. And not even all humans. Only well to do humans. Healthy humans. Recent humans.

Design suggests interest. Otherwise we're back to arguing chance. The mold that grows behind the drywall in my tub could argue that the tub and drywall was designed to harour it. It wasn't. It's life is based in chance. It's luck. And so be it. But if I find it, I'll kill it. Then what does the mold say? Does it claim that I'm God and I work in mysterious ways?

I'm the universe. So is the drywall. So is the mold. So is the sun. So is the internet.

You've shown me the argument is bogus.

[instantc]

To be honest, I didn't even know what you were arguing for; A physical/non-physical designer who may or may not be interested in life, whether it does or does not exist in whatever form it may or may not take.

WTF? Why would you argue for that? It doesn't make any sense on an intellectual level? That's not even what I wanted to know!!

In this context you must understand what is meant by a cumulative case. The purpose of the fine-tuning argument, as I understand it, is to establish that the universe is designed. It does not have to answer any questions about the motives of the designer, it can simply leave those questions open.

Now, even with such a "modest" conclusion, the argument definitely has theological significance, if it is successful. Would you not agree that it would be a theologically significant finding, if we found out that the universe is designed, even if we did not know by whom or for what? It would make ANY God-hypothesis one step more plausible.

Now, a natural theologian employs other arguments to show that the designer is indeed the one that he believes in. That's what is meant by a cumulative case. Even if the theologian will ultimately want to show that the universe was designed by God, this does not have to follow from the fine-tuning argument alone, but rather from a combination of arguments.

Thus, these objections along the lines of 'if the fine-tuning argument does not point to a specific God, it is useless for Christians' baffle me.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to instantc]

Suggesting that the universe was not created with humans in mind would mean that humans are a product of chance. No better than the theory of evolution. The fine tuning argument I thought was supposed to prove that humanity was not a product of chance.

Christianity says that not just life is special, and not just human life is special, but that I am special.

The creator you speak of is not the one of Christianity. That's fine. I don't care. I just wonder why you are so attached to the label "Christian". You obviously aren't attache to it's teachings.

I'm curious as to what would make you believe the universe isn't designed.

[instantc]

The creator you speak of is not the one of Christianity. That's fine. I don't care.

No, the argument does not specify the qualities of the creator, it merely established that there is one. Thus, it is supportive of Christianity just like any other religion.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to instantc]

I think you're wrong. I think the qualities of the creator would be implicit. For instance, it would be uncaring. It quite possibly is unaware. It definitely doesn't pick favourites. It's not omnipotent, because life has parameters. We can tell all those things about what a creator of this particular universe would be like if it existed. You still haven't shown there is one.

I can't help but think though that arguing in retrospect comes off sounding a little arrogant. Like a lottery winner claiming they knew all along what numbers to pick. Those were the numbers that came up, you happened to have them, you're the winner. Good for you. Just accept the fact that you got lucky.

I don't mind the idea of luck. I know I am the product of it. My brother and sister were born less than a year apart and I was born a little more than 2 years later. My sister says I was a mistake, my mother says I was a surprise. I couldn't care less. I'm here, and I'm grateful for the opportunity. We can frame these arguments anyway we like, but we have to be honest with ourselves. Are we arguing for what we think is correct, or are we arguing for what we want to believe?