Bollocks.
Star fish, sea cucumber, coral… all examples of life, naturally formed and require no brain/mind nor any magical overlord.
Back to square one for you.
1 Like
No atheist makes that claim, we’ve all repeated this to you many times.
Atheism is literally the response to the theistic claim of a god(s) existing by replying, we are unconvinced of the evidence put forward to said claim.
However, basic probability would suggest that there is a ridiculously high percentage that the notion that there is a diety is most likely horse shit.
There is no objective evidence to support the claim.
2 Likes
@WhoAreYou, I’ll iterate: the opposite of a theist claim does not reside in the arena of science. That shouldn’t be too hard to understand.
Additionally, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
1 Like
What about the cosmic constants: gravitational force constant, electromagnetic force constant, strong nuclear force constant, weak nuclear force constant, cosmological constant? The cosmological constant must be finely tuned to 1 part in 10^120. The ratios of the other cosmic constants have to be fine tuned with respect to one another. Strong nuclear force has to be 10^40 times stronger than the gravitational force. Also fine tuned are: speed of light, ratio masses of protons and electrons? The odds of the universe being fine tuned gives a high percentage that there is fine tuner.
No it doesn’t, that’s a god of the gaps fallacy, where science hasn’t YET discovered, how or why, you want to evoke your god.
But literally anyone can ompuy anything into that slot… I could say a fluffy cosmic unicorn did it, it holds the same weight as your god.
You’ve still yet to show your god exists or show any proof… twisting facts to suit theories rather than theories to suit facts.
3 Likes
Nope, finely tuned is a matter of subjective perception. It’s a simple fact the universe exists, and that organic life exists on at least one planet, if you’re adding unevidenced deities then this violates Occam’s razor. remember nobody has to offer a contrary explanation or anything at all to refute a claim, the burden is on the claim. You keep making this same error in reasoning.
Exactly so, and even if science never develops any explanation this does not evidence a deity, not knowing is not knowing and nothing more. Any claim must be supported by sufficient evidence, and stand on its merits.
4 Likes
No it doesn’t, that would need to demonstrated, you are using a circular reasoning fallacy. You are assuming your conclusion in your premise, but have demonstrated no objective evidence it is fine tuned.
For the sake of argument, how do you know any other type of universe is even possible for a start? If it isn’t then the odds would necessarily favour the type of universe we see, and adding an unevidenced deity, from an archaic superstition, using inexplicable magic that has no explanatory powers whatsoever, is not my idea of shortening long odds, it is in fact violating Occam’s razor “up hill and down dale”.
We know the physical natural universe exists, we know natural phenomena exist, thus both are possible as an objective fact, we have no objective evidence at all that any deity or anything supernatural is even possible, so adding them makes much less plausible scenario, obviously. Also this flawed argument gets you no closer to Jesus than it does to Zeus or Apollo, or the Aztec god of gluttony come that.
We have seen these flawed apologetics time and time again on here, and every time the religious apologists who parrot them, have not submitted them to sceptical rigorous scrutiny.
4 Likes
Are you a trained and credentialed cosmologist? If so, did your uni teach you about ‘fine tuning’? If not, who taught you that anything, other than a cello, is fine tuned? Were they a trained and credentialed cosmologist?
3 Likes
The ratio of the strength of those forces, depends on which particles you are talking about. You can pick a pair where the strong force is much stronger than gravity (like you said); or you could pick a different pair and find that gravity is infinity stronger than the strong force (or any other force). There is no (known) objective way to compare those two forces.
But hey, you don’t know me from Adam; why don’t you show your work how you got that value?
1 Like
Fine tuned is a metaphor used by some scientists to convey certain characteristics of the universe’s, like biologists asserting something has the appearance of design. Of course it suits creationists to misrepresent these terms as literally true in a scientific sense, and their propaganda is then disseminated by the overly credulous, often without even understanding their error.
To be fair religious apologetics has zero interest in being objective, or utilising objective facts. You’re kind of taking away the only arrow in their quiver, if you insist they don’t use subjective claims.
And for what it is worth:
Complexity and entropy both increase together, spontaneously.
So we get a kind of paradox where the apologists are claiming that low entropy is evidence for god, and that high entropy is evidence for god.
Oh look, the apologetic duplicity is back again, along with the peddling of MANIFEST BARE FACED LIES.
Let’s take a look at this shall we?
This is horseshit for several reasons. First of which is that LIFE IS CHEMISTRY WRIT LARGE. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions STOP, you DIE.
Indeed, the very fact that we are able to treat human diseases with chemicals is a direct, practical corollary of that demonstrable fact. Scientists have not only documented in exquisite detail vast swathes of metabolic pathways, ranging from the carboxylic acid (or Krebs) cycle, through the mevalonate pathway that synthesises cholesterol, to the process of DNA transcription and gene expression, ALL OF WHICH DEMONSTRABLY INVOLVE CHEMICAL REACTIONS.
Furthermore, the pharmaceutical industry has been able to devise chemial therapeutic agents to treat a wide range of diseases - for example, statins interfere with the mevalonate pathway, and prevent excess cholesterol synthesis in people with hypercholesterolaemia. Anitbiotics work by interfering with bacterial chemistry. If creationist assertions on this topic were something other than ex recto nonsense, the modern pharmaceutical industry would not even exist.
It’s the basis in addition for the operation of poisons - which exert their influence by shutting down essential metabolic pathways. For example, cyanide compounds exert their toxic effects by irreversibly binding to the cytochrome c oxidase enzyme, shutting it down and shutting down mitochondrial ATP synthesis in the process. Take enough cyanide, and this process is lethal within about 10 minutes. A secondary reaction also binds cyanide ions to haemoglobin, interfering with its oxygen carrying capacity, though this secondary reaction is moot, given that the primary “kill mechanism” exerts its influence far more quickly.
As a corollary of the above facts, it makes eminent sense for scientists to postulate that chemistry underpins the origin of life, given that chemistry plays such a central role in living organisms and their functioning. And guess what? Scientists have provided a vast body of hard experimental data, demonstrating that every chemical reaction implicated in the origin of life WORKS.
Furthermore, chemists have known for over 200 years, that chemicals will react when they encounter each other. Hundreds of relevant reactions form the basis of chemistry classes. All that’s needed is sufficient activation energy (just being at room temperature provides sufficient activation energy for many reactions) and an energy transfer process driving the reaction forward. No cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology needed.
Indeed, this brings me neatly to the next reason your above assertion is horseshit, namely that the chemical basis for the origin of life isn’t, as you mendaciously assert, an “atheist claim”. Instead, the chemical basis for the origin of life IS A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS BACKED BY AN EVER GROWING BODY OF HARD EXPERIMENTAL DATA. Data which you’ve already admitted that you dismiss summarily because it doesn’t genuflect before the fatuous assertions of your favourite goat herder mythology. You’ve openly admitted that you treat the hard experimental data in those scientific papers as “lies”, because you prefer the diseased ravings of Bronze Age nomads who were too stupid to count correctly the legs that an insect possesses. ALL the dishonesty in this thread lies with YOU as a result of this admission.
That you have to resort to blatant bare faced lies in order to prop up your attachment to a ridiculous goat herder mythology, and the imaginary cartoon magic man asserted to exist within its risible pages, merely demonstrates how utterly worthless your mythology and its cartooon magic man are - indeed, because you have to LIE on behalf thereof, they’re worse than worthless, they’re a pernicious ideological disease, they’re a cognitive cancer destroying discoursive honesty and integrity wherever they exert their malign and venomous influence. Your sordid career of discoursive mendacity here merely adds to the voluminous body of evidence leading to that conclusion.
This is bullshit plain and simple. I’m aware of two scientific papers destroying the “fine tuning” myth, otherwise known as Douglas Adams’ Puddle.
We are here because the laws of physics permitted our emergence, and the relevant, physically permitted interactions took place. You have it backwards.
To ram home this point, one scientific paper I’m aware of, demonstrates that stellar nucleosynthesis and organic chemistry would remain essentially unchanged, even if key physical constants varied by as much as five orders of magnitude. Another paper demonstrates that the same would be true, even if we deleted the weak nuclear force from the universe.
Once again, your infantile presumption that a “who” was responsible for the universe and its contents is precisely that - infantile presumption, with zero factual basis. You have to peddle ex recto apologetic fabrications in order to prop up this childish view, and indeed, demonstrate once again that creationists aren’t interested in genuine science, but instead that their primary focus is treating science dishonestly as a branch of apologetics. It isn’t. Fucking learn this lesson once and for all.
4 Likes
If you really believe the Bible is an historical document, I’ve got some swampland in Arizona for sale, cheap.
It’s all bullshit.
FWIW we know chemical reactions exist as an objective fact, and they are essential to organic life. We have no objective evidence any deity or anything supernatural is even possible. Ever heard of Occam’s razor @WhoAreYou? It is theists who are adding unevidenced claims to what we see existing, not atheists, all atheists are doing is not believing those unevidenced claims for thousands of unevidenced deities that humans have imagined are real.
@WhoAreYou, the bible is an historical book the same way The Odyssey, The Art of War, The Epic of Gilgamesh, and Beowulf are historical books.
3 Likes
All he’s doing with his repeated excursions into the realm of duplicitous ex recto apologetic fabrications, is demonstrating that the essential creationist view can be summed up by two succinct aphorisms:
[1] “I can’t imagine how a testable natural process can produce X, therefore no testable natural process can produce X, therefore Magic Man did it”;
[2] “if reality and my mythology differ, reality is wrong and my mythology is right”.
3 Likes
Of course you do. Instance #6 where you’ve shown yourself too lazy to verify the principles.
Instance #7 where you’ve shown yourself too lazy to verify the principles.
Also #8
#9
#10
#11
#12
Etcetera. Get back to me when you’ve developed an intellect strong enough to fathom the nature of darkness.
Hissssss! 
you haven’t seen the last of me!
#27
#28
#29
Offer something beyond unevidenced subjective assertions, or this juvenile mimicry, or even something original, that doesn’t involve parroting religious fantasies, and I will get back to you.