Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Fine Tuning vs Intelligent Design vs Fine Tuning vs Intelligent Design

  1. Top | #1
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    colorado
    Posts
    2,231
    Rep Power
    37

    Fine Tuning vs Intelligent Design vs Fine Tuning vs Intelligent Design

    doesn't the Intelligent Design argument render the Fine Tuning Argument useless?
    and doesn't the Fine Tuning argument render the Intelligent Design argument useless?
    I am so confused...
    plus isn't Fine Tuning the same as the Anthropic Principle?

  2. Top | #2
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    16
    Archived
    630
    Total Posts
    646
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by none View Post
    doesn't the Intelligent Design argument render the Fine Tuning Argument useless?
    and doesn't the Fine Tuning argument render the Intelligent Design argument useless?
    I am so confused...
    plus isn't Fine Tuning the same as the Anthropic Principle?
    I think the fine-tuning argument is one of the arguments for intelligent design. Intelligent design isn't an argument per se; it's a conclusion that arguments like the fine-tuning argument supposedly lead to. Fine-tuning is just another variant of the watchmaker argument.

    Somebody else had better state the anthropic principle. To me it is such backward logic that I can't even state it clearly. It's like reasoning that my existence is a miracle because the odds against it were so enormous back some arbitrary amount of time in the past. Well, yeah, but every one of the other alternatives had an equally minuscule chance of happening, looked at from back then.

  3. Top | #3
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,507
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,007
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by RandomCoolzip View Post
    I think the fine-tuning argument is one of the arguments for intelligent design.
    By ID, i think none is referring to infinitesimal comlexity.
    They're saying EITHER the universe was created such that when left to itswelf, we're an inescapable result, OR the universe is as it is, and we had a head-start in our creation with something that couldn't exist by accident.

    So, basically, either this universe was made specifically for us, or we're made specifically for this universe. Why would a god do both? What would the point be of doing both?
    There may be no meaning to this world, but that does not mean that what I do is meaningless.
    -Mark Lawrence

  4. Top | #4
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    16
    Archived
    630
    Total Posts
    646
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RandomCoolzip View Post
    I think the fine-tuning argument is one of the arguments for intelligent design.
    By ID, i think none is referring to infinitesimal comlexity.
    They're saying EITHER the universe was created such that when left to itswelf, we're an inescapable result, OR the universe is as it is, and we had a head-start in our creation with something that couldn't exist by accident.

    So, basically, either this universe was made specifically for us, or we're made specifically for this universe. Why would a god do both? What would the point be of doing both?
    I think the point, for IDers, is to have as many arguments as possible, even if they are not compatible with each other. They don't actually care how far back God inserted his "wafer of creation" as long as they can argue that he did so.

  5. Top | #5
    Super Moderator Bronzeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    6,621
    Archived
    7,568
    Total Posts
    14,189
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RandomCoolzip View Post
    I think the fine-tuning argument is one of the arguments for intelligent design.
    By ID, i think none is referring to infinitesimal comlexity.
    They're saying EITHER the universe was created such that when left to itswelf, we're an inescapable result, OR the universe is as it is, and we had a head-start in our creation with something that couldn't exist by accident.

    So, basically, either this universe was made specifically for us, or we're made specifically for this universe. Why would a god do both? What would the point be of doing both?
    All these discussions run aground when someone asks, "Why would a god....". What is the point of supposing an entity with the power to create the universe, an entity unconstrained by time and space, and then using a human brain to decide there is something he wouldn't do, or even sillier, he did something dumb.

    It comes down to two basic questions:
    If there is such a God and he really did create the universe, how would it appear to us?
    If there is no such God and the universe is a natural process of undetermined origin, how would it appear to us? Once these two questions are satisfied, the discussion is over.

  6. Top | #6
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,507
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,007
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronzeage View Post
    All these discussions run aground when someone asks, "Why would a god....". What is the point of supposing an entity with the power to create the universe, an entity unconstrained by time and space, and then using a human brain to decide there is something he wouldn't do, or even sillier, he did something dumb.
    Well, the theists' arguments always use a human brain to decide that the actions of the unconstrained being make sense to them. it's only when their sense is challenged that they drop back to the 'it's a mystery' defense.
    All the theist arguments for their god appeal to human brains, so why not question the arguments by human standards?

  7. Top | #7
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    16
    Archived
    630
    Total Posts
    646
    Rep Power
    56
    The discussion won't ever be over, however, because neither question is answerable. There is no way to tell the difference between an artifact of conscious design, and one that is a product of natural processes that you don't understand yet. After all, there's nothing to stop God from designing things to look like they happened "naturally" (whatever that means).

  8. Top | #8
    Super Moderator Bronzeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    6,621
    Archived
    7,568
    Total Posts
    14,189
    Rep Power
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronzeage View Post
    All these discussions run aground when someone asks, "Why would a god....". What is the point of supposing an entity with the power to create the universe, an entity unconstrained by time and space, and then using a human brain to decide there is something he wouldn't do, or even sillier, he did something dumb.
    Well, the theists' arguments always use a human brain to decide that the actions of the unconstrained being make sense to them. it's only when their sense is challenged that they drop back to the 'it's a mystery' defense.
    All the theist arguments for their god appeal to human brains, so why not question the arguments by human standards?
    There's nothing wrong with that as long as we concede they are arguing about humans, not God. Any inconsistency in anyone's logic cannot change the facts of the physical existence of anything.

    There is really no argument when one side says, "Look at all of this, therefore there is a God," and the other says "Look at all of this, therefore, there is no God."

  9. Top | #9
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,507
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,007
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronzeage View Post
    There's nothing wrong with that as long as we concede they are arguing about humans, not God.
    Concede? That's my premise. I haven't asked a god to explain his logic since i was 12.
    But plenty of people on this forum are sure they can explain god's logic, motives, goals, desires, regrets, foibles and actions.

  10. Top | #10
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    16
    Archived
    630
    Total Posts
    646
    Rep Power
    56

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Concede? That's my premise. I haven't asked a god to explain his logic since i was 12.
    But plenty of people on this forum are sure they can explain god's logic, motives, goals, desires, regrets, foibles and actions.
    God has foibles? Perish the thought!

Similar Threads

  1. Agnosticism and Intelligent Design
    By excreationist in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 213
    Last Post: 09-28-2018, 09:55 AM
  2. Theological Fine Tuning
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum General Religion
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 09:33 AM
  3. fine tuning argument
    By BH in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 05-06-2018, 05:45 PM
  4. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 07-03-2015, 06:17 PM
  5. Political debate about intelligent design
    By veclock in forum Religions vs. Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-23-2014, 04:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •