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]

If the coin toss experiment had different results, instead of the example I gave of 12 heads in a row there might be 14 tails in a row somewhere else in the sequence.

This analogy is simply flawed. In the coin toss experiment that you describe above, there is a sequence of 14 tails in a row in the middle of a longer sequence. It is not the case that in the list of constants there is a small sequence of life-permitting constants, but rather all of them are in that range.

And since Craig utilizes his ‘conclusion’ in support of a creator God, discussing Craig’s argument in those terms is definitely on topic.

You need to understand what a cumulative case is. Surely a theist would ultimately want to show that the designer is God, but he would do so utilizing a combination of arguments. In order for this particular argument to succeed and to have theological significance, it does not need to distinguish between a physical and a non-physical creator, it only needs to show that there is some kind of a designer. Thus, your complaint that this argument cannot specifically establish a non-physical designer is a futile objection.

An ultimate creator is definitely within the scope of the argument.

Nonsense. Show me a version of the fine-tuning argument that attempts to establish "an ultimate creator".

Your advanced scientist scenario removes the discussion from the context intended by both the OP and Craig. In the OP/Craig context, it answers no questions.

The point that I am making is that this argument does not have to distinguish between the types of designers in order to succeed and to have theological significance. Certainly no-one has claimed that this argument alone answers any questions. If you interpret the word 'designer' in the context of the fine-tuning argument as in the Christian God, you are simply reading too much into the argument. That is why your objection is just flawed and not applicable to the argument at hand.

This is also what a Christian apologist would tell you. You complain that a multiverse is a more parsimonious explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe than the Christian God. But, this argument is not claiming to establish the existence of God in the first place, it simply attempts to justify a conclusion that has theological significance. Thus, your concerns are misplaced.

The multiverse proposal requires only a principle of existential imperative, that what is possible exists.

While the principle is simple, it's direct implications are not, and the latter is what the principle of parsimony is concerned with.

What you are positing is not a principle but it's implications. Principles do not exist, they explain that which exists.

[Ancient of Years]

[instantc]

[Ancient of Years]

[instantc]

[Ancient of Years]

[instantc]

[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.

[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.

[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.