It is argued that current knowledge of the origin of our universe is far too limited to lead to any demonstration of the existence of a "designer."
Thats a wellknown tactic to avoice a designer. Even if the scientific evidence points clearly to God, to aknowledge his existence is negated, and the escape is to say, not enough evidence exists. That way, someone can leave God always outside the door. Whatever evidence is encountered, God will always be ignored.
- Fine-tuning is the conclusion that advocates of 'design' want to reach.
No, finetuning is the outcome and discovery made after scientific research.
However, they almost invariably assume that fine-tuning must have happened in order to reach that conclusion, thus it's a circular argument.
Of course not. Its a logic deduction.
More importantly, nobody has ever demonstrated that these constants can have different values.
BS. The earth could be more distant from the sun, have a different crust size, the moon could have a different size, oxygen could be 50% in the air etc. Physical necessity does not apply here.
YOu should come to that conclusion by your own. Your bias is evident .
- Finally, the inductive argument used here doesn't work. It's like the common example of how long it would take monkeys banging on typewriters to produce a play from Shakespeare. All we can really deduce from that argument is that monkeys are <a class="inlineAdmedialink" href="#">very[/url] very unlikely to produce great plays. Similarly, the only thing that can be concluded from this example of a firing squad is that a prisoner will not escape death by shooting without a conspiracy among the shooters. There is no reasonable way to deduce anything about the universe from either example, or a whole slew of others.
Of course we can make a logical deductin. Chance and physical necessity is a very bad explanation for the life permitting universe, thus design is the best answer. That is very obvious, thats why atheist that question these facts are irrational.
Finally, Godexists, you've proven beyond any reasonable doubt with this example that you don't do anything more than a very trivial look at the sources you use before you quote and cite them. It would have been extremely easy to tell with five minutes perusal of that paper - even one minute - that it was eminently unsuitable to your purposes, given that it was focused on pointing out the flaws with the firing squad example you borrowed from it. It is not unreasonable to expect you to read the sources you use before you pull quotes out of them, yet you somehow managed to miss what the paper was actually about
It was not my goal to present the purpose of the paper, but the example made by Craig.
Personally, I find your attitude in threads like this to just be sad.
I think the same about you. You just expose your bias, and base it on irrational arguments. I think you betray and cheat yourself.
You've accused everyone who disagrees with you of being unwilling to accept the evidence
exactly. You prove it with your missed arguments here one more time , very clearly btw. Any unbiased reader can see that very easily. The fine-tune argument of the universe is one if not the most compelling one for theism, and a designer. To dismiss it easyly, and with cheap and uncompelling reasons, as you have done with your answer right here, shows how blinded and biased you are through your willful wish no God to exist. Why that ?
that you claim supports your contention of design, of having to do anything and everything to keep their worldview intact despite that evidence, yet the only stuff you can actually provide consists of arguments from incredulity
Indeed. Questioning the fine-tuning of the universe, is as believing in Santa Claus. I do not believe unreasonable things. I believe compelling things, with strong evidence. The fine-tuning of the universe is VERY strong evidence for design.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people 39 who suppress the truth by their 40 unrighteousness, 41 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, 42 because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people 43 are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts 44 were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed 45 to be wise, they became fools
You have no business participating in discussions like this until you prove yourself capable of reading the sources you quote from.
oh, i see. you try now to find futile reasons to exclude me from this forum ?