Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Dawkamentalism and it's Stiffeling Effect Upon Metnal Maturity

Arguing with a guy who claims to be a Ph.D. candidate in phsyics or astronomy. His name is "Sea of Read." The argument is fine tuning and he's just propossed that the the hypothetical multiverse kills the ft argument.

SR:
Another possibility is other universes with different physical parameters. It bothers many and sounds like something from Star Wars, but it is far from a controversy. Current cosmology predicts other universes or a multiverse.


Meta (Before) generalized overstatement. you can't say that as though all physicists and cosmologists are just absolutely certain there are other universes. I know for fact there are many who don't. there's evdience to support it and I have 26 arguments against it.


sea of red
These other universes will have a different set of parameters and maybe other kinds of life(or not in some cases).

Meta:
I have 26 arguments aginst multiverse. you have not answered one of hem. I've linked to them several times. you do not answer them. you can't just wave the term mutliverse around like a cross before a vampire and not answer of of the 26 arguments against it.

(1) show the hit rate for life in the MV

(2) each space/time in the MV would have to be fine tuned too to produce life, you just multiply the problem

(3) since you can't prove prove it is forever nothing more than a possibility so you can't really xpect it to be an answer. that's no different than just saying "maybe I'm right."




you can't prove that. just because they have different ones doesn't mean those others don't have to be fine tuned too. Your multiverse just repeats the same problem for every universe in it. you have evidence to the contrary.


SR
When alpha is changed you get different chemistry and thus different life. Many theists claim that no evidence exists for a multiverse but this shows their ignorance of the topic. Much evidence exists, all one would have to do is get a past issue of Sky and Telescope, Astronomy mag, or scientific American to get a good grasp of this theory. I won't repeat what is in these articles as people need to search for and find the answers on their, plus there will be no complaining about bias.


Now, it can thus be said that once we accept the multiverse as fact and realize that it is as good science as the big bang we can make some theories on this “fine tuning”.

Meta:
but that can't happen without proof. The reason the BB has been accepted universally and is seen as "good science" is exactly because we do have proof it. The background radiation and the expansion of the universe, we can't have that kind evdience of the MV not at all. probably never will.

1)Our universe is only capable of producing the kind of life we are.
2)We are that kind of life and are in this universe.
3)We are in the universe that is capable of producing our kind of life and thus evolved in it.

that's just question begging. You can't argue our existence as proof of anything becasue it does not tell us the reasons for it! can't you see that? that's so fundamental.

but you can't show a single case of any other kind of life, or a single case of another universe. all you have is total speculation. you argument is no better than saying "if you are wrong you are wrong" that's exactly all you are saying.

If there are other universes

If the parameters for life in those universes doesn't repeat the same problem

if if if if you don't have any answers. you have no evidence.

Here are my 26 argumetns against the multiverse.


SR
Other kinds life with different chemistry will only be capable of living in the universes suitable for them.

Meta
we are cable of doing that. that's not the question. the question is now likely is it that a universe suitable for them came to be and hit all the proper trip wires right down the line when each one was extremely improbable.

It's just silly to think that other universes would not have vast improbabilities. the only example we have of a universe is a vast web of great improbabilities. Why wouldn't another be also?



SR
In other words we are in the only universe we can be in, and we are in it, just like certain animals are in the only parts of the world they can survive in, but we don't think those parts of the world are “fine tuned” for those animals.


Meta:
that is a false analogy. you are arguing from analogy that in itself is a fallacious way to argue. analogous are not proof. but this is not even a good analogy becasue the basic issue is not "we are in the only universe we could be in" that's a distortion of the FT argument. you have created a straw man in order to set up a fallacious analogy to argue from. that's two fallacious ways of arguing compounding each other.




SR

Finally. Even with all that said creation theist still have a huge problem with a designer. No evidence. Even if all of their argument was true it would add not one bit of credibility to the god hypothesis.

Meta
that's nutty. that is evidence itself. How question begging can you get? that's just ridiculous. The argument itself is the evidence you say there is none of. Silly.

I want to know what you mean by "creation theists?" anyone who believes in god of any kind would believe in creation, even a theist evolutionist would believe God created. That's like saying "one of them God believing christians." You know as opposed to all those atheist Christians.



SR
Claiming it looks design= It is designed doesn't always follow(ask Paley).

Meta
I don't argue Paley that is not the FT argument

you are clutching at straws. that's NOT even an argument I made. You are trying to answer that because you are not sure you answered the other one? I never said anything about it "looking designed." I agree that's one of the weaknesses of the conventional design argument that's not a weakness of the fine tuning argument.







SR
Is a direct copy of the first post you made to me in this thread.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...66&postcount=8

This is pathetic.. and creepy.

Meta
you are still distorting what I said. look closely in this and the previous post. you just waxed. you got your butt kicked.

(1) you admitted you have not gone over the major parts of the argument.

(2) you totally ignored the Linde stuff and tha'ts what's driving my arugment.

(3) aruge argue agsint things I don't say such as Paley

(4) you argue form analogy

(5) your basic method is question begging.


SR
Do people really expect me to respond to his garbage?


Meta
on this board, probably not, in a real debate. of course you have to answer the arguments are you lose.

You just lost big.



so here in response he shows his true maturity:


SR
Okay.

So you think this over do ya? Not a chance. I am going to address your BS arguments point by point tonight. But not at this site, it's going to be at my other home AtheistForums.com. I want to curse, and not be subject to any of the rules at this forum. You've gotten me pretty damn angry, that's a mistake you're going to regret.

Congratulations you're going to be the first theist at this forum to see the real Sea of red.

I hope you enjoyed my patience. Cuz now it's gone.



I see he's so brave he's even brave enough to go on a board he knows I wont go on and he's going to curse at me there! O my, what a regular Bruce Lee.

Why are so many atheists like this? they just become absoluteness furious when you beat their arguments in a fair debate? Because their basic motivation (not all but many) is to feel Superior. Take away their feeling of being superior to theists and they just fall apart.

4 comments:

XAtheistX said...

I read this guy's response and I think he tore your argumnets apart. I agree he shouldn't have used bad language but you still never argued against anything he said. The guy said there was a lot of evidence for it anyway.

What in the world are you talking about 'superiority' for? It's a known fact that atheists are superior to theists.

J.L. Hinman said...

the drivel you spout here is typical of the unthinking hate monger atheist crap. You don't even understand the issues:

he had no expedience t all.
he quoted nothing.

he answered arguments I didn't make

He actually used the theory of the major source that I used and didn't even know it was the guy's theory.

he never mentioned the Linde stuff. That was my major argument.

he confused inventing with proving.


you are an idiot. typical atheist idiot. obvious Christians think and atheists don't because you don't think.

XAtheistX said...

You wanna talk about drivel, I think you need to read your blog. I don't hate you, I just think you're an ignorant asshole.

And you didn't argue against anything. You never disproved his claims about an MV at all.

None of your arguments prove your god, or anything else. It's ridiculous.

You obviously don't understand proof and evidence. Someone can have no absolute proof, but have evidence for something, and make reasonable deductions from that evidence.

That's just more evidence that you don't think.

J.L. Hinman said...

Look you little dumb ass butt fuch. It's his burden of proof to show there is a Multivese. dumb dora. don't you know anything about logic?

this is why atheists are so fucking stupid.they just don't lsiten and they don't read, and they know nothing about debate.

he didn't have a single price of evidence. you butt queer. I had 2 pages crammed full of stuff. why should he be allowed to just assert whatever he wants to without proving anything asserts, you dumb fuck.