Timeline for In what way is the fine tuning argument supposed to lead us to prefer design?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 27 at 15:42 | comment | added | Dcleve | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Feb 27 at 11:40 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | Again you keep harping on the same thing. I am not talking about LOGICAL contingency. I am talking about whether something could have physically been otherwise | |
| Feb 27 at 8:26 | comment | added | Dcleve | @Baby_philosopher Logical contingency is proven. Our world is not logically necessary. If you think there is a necessity other than logical necessity, it is up to you to articulate what that could be, and justify why to accept its possibility. | |
| Feb 27 at 6:22 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | I’m asking you for justification that things could be contingent and thus happen otherwise. I’m not making the claim that something is metaphysically necessary. @Dcleve | |
| Feb 27 at 6:06 | comment | added | Dcleve | @Baby_philosopher -- So -- you provide no justification whatsoever for your claim of metaphysical necessity, other than insults, and shifting the burden of evidence? Two more fallacies. | |
| Feb 27 at 6:03 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | Again, contingent does not mean “not logically necessary”. Please take a basic philosophy course. In order for you to say something could have been physically otherwise, you need to show this. Could it have been the case that world war 2 did not happen? If no, it’s metaphysically necessary. If yes, it is not. If you can’t prove either, then don’t say it’s contingent | |
| Feb 27 at 5:43 | comment | added | Dcleve | All its advocates have going for it is that it has not yet been "proven" wrong. And since empiricism can never provide proofs, this is just an impossible standard fallacy, which is the only justification! | |
| Feb 27 at 5:40 | comment | added | Dcleve | @Baby_philosopher -- that something is contingent, IE not logically necessary, can be shown by refuting any claim to logical necessity. This has been done for our world. There is a massive spectrum of the logically possible. If you make a claim that things have to be one way for some OTHER reason than logical necessity, that is a massively significant assertion, which you have the burden of evidence to justify. "Metaphysical necessity" does not even come with any MECHANISM to arrive at necessity! | |
| Feb 26 at 10:40 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | There is no empirical contingency @Dcleve You would have to show that something could have been otherwise if it’s contingent and testable. Hint: you can’t replay time | |
| Feb 24 at 0:21 | comment | added | Dcleve | @Baby_philosopher What is metaphysical necessity??? All it appears to be is an untestable "wish it weren't so" in response to empirical contingency. | |
| Feb 23 at 23:10 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | Logical necessity does not equal metaphysical necessity. Postulating that something could be otherwise is not empirical either | |
| Feb 23 at 14:12 | comment | added | Dcleve | @Baby_philosopher -- We can show that nothing in the universe is logically necessary, hence it is contingent. The "first principles" are all postulated, and logically (and physically) could have been otherwise. Unless you reject empiricism as a method of discovering our universe. | |
| Feb 23 at 7:38 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | Anyways, you missed the point. Even if it was contingent, a designer is not needed. If the designer has free will, then his choices would be contingent just like the universe | |
| Feb 23 at 7:37 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | How do you know that anything is contingent if we can’t replay time? | |
| Feb 23 at 2:32 | comment | added | Dcleve | @Baby_philosopher -- The features of our universe are contingent, not necessary. That was settled back ~300 years ago in philosophy. "Necessity" isn't an empirical hypothesis, it must be derived from first principles, and logically shown that it MUST be the case. Given the even more recent acceptance of logical pluralism, this is actually an impossible requirement, so -- no necessity. | |
| Feb 18 at 21:02 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | If anything, the designer hypothesis will always be more complex than the necessity hypothesis | |
| Feb 18 at 21:02 | comment | added | Baby_philosopher | Even if the universe was beaming with life at every corner of the universe, this would be evidence of a universe that simply out of necessity has a disposition to create life just as much as it would be evidence of a designer wanting to create life. What gives you a reason to prefer the latter over the former? You may argue that one can look at our history of design inferences in the real world to suggest the designer is more likely: but our experience is limited to things designed by humans, and in each case, we can observe the existence of humans directly and the design process | |
| Jan 29 at 9:01 | history | edited | Dcleve | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 820 characters in body
|
| Jan 29 at 8:50 | history | edited | Dcleve | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 820 characters in body
|
| Jan 29 at 8:42 | history | answered | Dcleve | CC BY-SA 4.0 |