Is The Universe Fine Tuned for Human Life?

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Jose Fly]

Otherwise, why do they keep doing it?

To convince you that they're rational and reasonable.

That seems to contradict the above. "I'm justified because of apparent fine-tuning" is only necessary when faith, experience, and scripture aren't enough by themselves.

That's right. Faith is enough to be convinced themselves, but if they want to argue with you, faith is a non-starter.

That's not really the case in the religious circles I've been in. Being overcome by the spirit, speaking in tongues, healing the sick, and prophetic dreams are all seen as very good indications that the underlying beliefs are valid.

And they don't waste time talking about fine-tuning with each other. They're slain in the Spirit when they're with their fellows. With you, it's fine-tuning.

So what you're saying is, they realize that since other people will not see subjective experiences, faith, and scripture as persuasive, they must appeal to something that society does usually find persuasive....science.

IOW, threads like this are testament to the fact that society generally sees science as more authoritative than religious experiences, faith, and scripture. So the theist feels compelled to argue that their beliefs are supported by science.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

Got it, thanks!

It's interesting though that this compulsion to appeal to science seems to be a fairly recent development. IMO, that's because science has usurped religion's place as the primary means of determining reality. I guess that presents the religious with a choice....either fight to put religion back on top, or try and give religion credit for science.

[Jose Fly]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

[Inquirer]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

[Jose Fly]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

[Inquirer]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

Not again, you didn't understand last time and I have no reason to believe you'd understand this time.

[Jose Fly]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

Not again, you didn't understand last time and I have no reason to believe you'd understand this time.

What last time? Can you even provide a post #?

[Inquirer]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

Not again, you didn't understand last time and I have no reason to believe you'd understand this time.

What last time? Can you even provide a post #?

I'm leaving it as an exercise for you, it will possibly be more instructive if you attempt to prove that cosmology can in principle scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

[Jose Fly]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

Not again, you didn't understand last time and I have no reason to believe you'd understand this time.

What last time? Can you even provide a post #?

I'm leaving it as an exercise for you, it will possibly be more instructive if you attempt to prove that cosmology can in principle scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Your concession is noted.

I never claimed to be able to prove that cosmology can do that. I simply noted that it's one of the things cosmology investigates.

[Inquirer]

Very good, and I assume you'll agree then that cosmology can never scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Why not?

That's very simple, in logic its called "proof by contradiction" are you really not familiar with it?

I am, I don't see how it applies here.

Really? perhaps you're not as familiar with it as you claim.

Then explain.

Not again, you didn't understand last time and I have no reason to believe you'd understand this time.

What last time? Can you even provide a post #?

I'm leaving it as an exercise for you, it will possibly be more instructive if you attempt to prove that cosmology can in principle scientifically explain the presence of a rationally intelligible universe.

Your concession is noted.

I never claimed to be able to prove that cosmology can do that. I simply noted that it's one of the things cosmology investigates.

I know you never claimed it, I'm suggesting you attempt it, in doing so you'll encounter the contradiction that I told you about.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #142]

Right there is where we depart down different paths. To me that sentence reads like "And my science education says the "cause" was more likely the cause..." it is empty, a con, says absolutely nothing of substance. An absence of an answer pretending to be an answer.

Your stock response when someone doesn't buy what you're selling (apart from not including the word vacuous). Claiming fine tuning by some superior being provides absolutely nothing useful when no such being has ever been shown to exist. It is a textbook example of attributing something to a god being when you don't understand it. It does nothing to help answer any questions.

Any philosophical mindset that leads to such statements is - IMHO - deeply flawed. That one could be satisfied with such an answer, unashamed to seriously proffer it, amazes me and convinces me more that I am seeing all this correctly.

It was a very simple answer ... nature (the universe) developed from its origin point (which we don't know the details of yet) without the input from any imaginary god beings. If you can't understand something that simple I don't know what to tell you to help. And I'm not the least bit ashamed of not believing in imaginary gods, as amazing as that may seem.

If you cannot really see, appreciate the futility of your answer, then no wonder we disagree!

There's nothing "futile" about the answer ... just a lack of belief in god beings and taking an alternative view. You don't agree with it, so respond with the usual condescension.