Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> [b]Fine tuning again[/b]
> 
> DAVID: [i]This is a specific universe of a type that allows life to appear anywhere in it. In any other form of universe life would not/could not happen. We observe the 26 constants but cannot explain the underlying mechanism that makes them the way they are. Secondarily, a life-friendly environment is required as on the Earth. This is the accepted version of fine-tuning.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]The third quote is Siegel’s sole mention of fine-tuning, but he has left out the crucial biochemical and environmental fine-tuning. [color=#f00][b]Of course the universe as it is ALLOWS life, or makes life POSSIBLE.[/b][/color] But that doesn't mean that ”[b]the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear[/b]”. [b]Without biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, life could NOT appear[/b], and the only place that we know has this fine tuning is Planet Earth. Therefore, as you agreed on March 3rd, the entire universe is NOT fine-tuned for life to appear. Please stop disagreeing with yourself.[/i] 
> (David’s red. Dhw’s bold)
> 
> DAVID:[i] The first bolded/colored statement above is the essence of the fine-tuning concept. I have agreed to your point to add secondarily a local friendly-to-life climate.[/i]
> 
> You are deliberately ignoring the whole point of this discussion. Allowing life, or making it possible, is not enough to produce life! Life requires biochemical and environmental fine-tuning, without which it cannot exist. Indeed, the sheer complexity – the fine tuning - of living things (and their interaction with the all-important, fine-tuned hospitable environment) is a crucial factor for your faith in the existence of a designer. It is therefore absurd to claim that “[b]the entire universe is fine-tuned for life to appear[/b]”, when as far as we know, the fine-tuning for life has taken place only on Planet Earth. That is my view of fine-tuning.
> 
> DAVID (March 3):[i] I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine tuning in my statement.[/i]
> 
> dhw: […] [i]then of course we can close the discussion.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Yes, close.[/i]
> 
> Please stop disagreeing with yourself.
> 
> [b]Theodicy[/b]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Without the good there is no evil.[/i]
> And:
> DAVID: [i]Without life no evil people would exist.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]So how does that explain why a supposedly all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of everything created evil people, murderous viruses, lethal “natural” disasters etc.? Did he want evil? Was he powerless to prevent it?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]The good came with the evil side effects. God had to accept them.[/i]
> 
> Your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God [b]had to[/b] accept that he was powerless to prevent the evil he had created, and did not have the knowledge to create the world he wanted (assuming that in his all-goodness he disapproved of evil). Your view of God is as illogical as your attempts to prove that the entire universe is fine-tuned for life, although only Planet Earth is known to be fine-tuned for life.  
> 
> [b]Climate change
> 
> Timing a probable glacial period[/b]
> 
> dhw: [i]Please tell me which of your agreements you now disagree with.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]I only protest your degree of urgency.[/i]
> And:
> DAVID: [i]We agree on the effects humans have and should mitigate them, but you want it faster than I do.[/i]
> 
> I have not specified a speed. You agree that we need to start now, and we must proceed at a speed which will balance the need to avoid increasing damage to the environment against the need to avoid social and economic disaster. I don’t know why you are so desperate to withdraw your agreements with me. 
> 
> [b]Evolution[/b]
> 
> DAVID: [i]It is dog-eat-dog with a designed evolution creating humans.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Interesting. Instead of all evolution being geared to us and our food, you now seem to agree that your God might have created a free-for-all, but later intervened with dabbles to create humans. Please confirm.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]All one process with dog-eat-dog from the very beginning.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]The free-for-all dog-eat-dog from the very beginning is the opposite of an evolution designed solely to create humans plus food. Humans as a new idea and a late dabble would neatly counter your ridicule of your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.[/i] […]
> 
> DAVID: [i]God evolves all. You don't like it, but it works eventually.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]I have no objection to the theory of evolution. I only object to the absurdity of an all-powerful God who is messy and inefficient. You refuse to consider alternatives.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]I refuse to accept humanized God forms.[/i]
> 
> You have proposed that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, may or may not love us, may want a relationship with us, may want us to recognize his work and worship him, and probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Furthermore, a God whose designing talents are messy, cumbersome and inefficient sounds all too human to me. Why do you refuse to accept your own humanizing proposals?