Friday, February 11, 2011

The Stupid! It Burns! (fine tuning edition)

the stupid! it burns!
As a strong agnostic, [PZ Myers argument that "Either way, you’re an atheist — and that goes for the over-philosophized fussbudgets who insist that they’re agnostics, not atheists, because they aren’t 100% positive there aren’t any gods, only 99 44/100ths positive."] is my biggest frustration with atheists. Even in admitting their lack of conclusive evidence, they seem to have an obsession with quantifying the probability of God’s existence. I am unwilling to do this. Examining the best available evidence for the existence of God, an honest inquiry must find the question inconclusive. Beyond the fact that you cannot prove a negative, there is also the fine-tuning argument which is actually quite difficult for an atheist to disarm.
Ugh. The Fine Tuning argument is fallacious on its face; it depends for its force our intuitive difficulty in grasping probability. The rebuttal is rather obvious: If naturalism were true and the physical laws of the universe were not conducive to life, then we wouldn't be here to observe the universe.

Sadly the author does not add "competent" to "honest inquiry".

2 comments:

  1. Examining the best available evidece for the existence of luminiferous aether, an honest inquiry must find the question inconclusive. Beyond the fact that you cannot prove a negative, there is also the aether pressure hypothesis, which is quite difficult for a special relativist to disarm.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The fine tuning argument is my pet hate. Not only does it ignore the obvious implications of the anthropic principle but relies on current physical reality to describe what would happen if the current physical reality were different. This is ok to a point when you want to explore what this universe would be like if the gravitational constant were altered but is an entirely useless approach when you change many of the physical constants at the same time and imagine a completely differnt universe. It essentially examines a small subset of possible universes within the immediate neighbourhood of our current one, in term of the possible "settings" for the universal constants. It would be a bit like claiming that the human form is the only possible configuration under which life can operate. To prove this idea you theorise about how a human would operate without kidneys, or a heart or a liver and conclude each time that living would be impossible if any of these things were removed. Entirely concievable approach if we had no knowledge of other forms of life - well by idiots the likes of which concieve of crap like fine tuning.

    Indeed, if the heart were a certain amount bigger or small, the human could not survive! So you see, humans are fine tuned to live!!!

    Hallelujah, hallelujah, praise the lord, hallelujah!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete

Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.