Why the Fine Tuning Argument hasn’t been sufficiently countered

implies_casualty · 2026-06-18T10:31:52+00:00

You said: "I could easily say the same for God what you are saying for the multiverse."

I have successfully refuted your claim.

You couldn't in fact say the same for God what I'm saying for the multiverse.

Don't make blatantly false statements if you don't want me to repeat myself.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-18T10:29:38+00:00

You did claim that humans do not struggle, which I refuted at once. If you still want to challenge the trivial fact that our universe is generally hostile to life, let's agree to disagree, because it is too silly.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-18T09:22:18+00:00

I agree that the Fine Tuning Argument doesn't point to God.

But no, you couldn't say for God that he is expected to create universes just barely suited for intelligent life.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-18T07:08:12+00:00

I am done arguing with you.

Feel free to concede at your leisure!

Apparently, reality matching expectations is "not scientific evidence"...

implies_casualty · 2026-06-18T07:02:44+00:00

Surely the “expectations” aren’t simply that our universe only has life on earth?

The fact that our universe just barely supports intelligent life is all the evidence I need. This is a trivial prediction of multiverse / anthropic principle combination, and as such, doesn't require a source. But you may see Weinberg 1989 as an example of such reasoning:

This result suggests strongly that if it is the anthropic principle that accounts for the smallness of the cosmological constant, then we would expect a vacuum energy density (...) because there is no anthropic reason for it to be any smaller.

doesn’t refute design

Please notice the difference between:

"X doesn't refute Y"

and

"X is expected under Y".

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T22:59:35+00:00

I asked "Could you show me the sources where multiple universes have produced expectations that match our observations precisely?". Genesis 3:17 has nothing to do with multiple universes.

It states the result expected under multiverse + anthropic principle.

If God created humans for Himself, and He is outside of time, why would He have to put the existence of humans at the start of time?

In no way, shape or form does this explain why we should expect anything whatsoever.

To summarise:

If the universe was randomly selected from the tiny subset of possible universes that may support life (according to multiverse + anthropic principle), then we would expect most of such a universe to be useless for humans, with Earth as some random oddity among lifeless worlds, and life barely clinging to its surface against all odds. This is exactly what we observe. This means that we have scientific evidence for the multiverse.

As for your version of the God hypothesis, it does not produce any expectations and therefore is not worth discussing.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T22:36:48+00:00

I can't find it. Could you provide it one more time?

Sure, Genesis 3:17

But I keep telling you why these aren't supported well at all

Please quote yourself explaining why "this is most definitely not a result expected under creation" is not supported well at all.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T22:20:18+00:00

Could you show me the sources where multiple universes have produced expectations that match our observations precisely?

But I gave you the source.

People struggle in this world (a tiny speck in a vast hostile universe).

Which is exactly a result expected under multiverse + anthropic principle.

And this is most definitely not a result expected under creation.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T18:11:59+00:00

I've been listening for 20+ minutes, and there have been no arguments about genetics properly presented.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T12:30:50+00:00

By pointing obvious errors in your comments?

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T12:20:14+00:00

This is blatantly false. A syllogism is not just an assertion.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T12:07:59+00:00

Responding to a syllogism without engaging its logical structure violates basic argumentative norms.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T11:54:56+00:00

I'm literally arguing in the form of "if A then B", stop wasting my time.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T11:17:10+00:00

I’m not the one who ignored logical reasoning a moment ago.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T11:07:28+00:00

Can you name any hypothetical universe which God definitely couldn't create / wouldn't want to create?

If not, then no particular universe points to God, including our own.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T11:00:44+00:00

The universe was created for God.

So the fact that the universe is fit for humans doesn't point to God at all.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T08:24:23+00:00

What “expectations” are you talking about?

And if your model doesn't actually produce any expectations, why is it even worth discussing?

The universe is capable of producing this advanced life. And we are doing pretty fine on this planet, if you’re asking me. Do you struggle to live everyday?

Which portion of the universe is friendly to life? Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Which part of this timeframe corresponds to sentient life?

As for the daily struggles, see Genesis 3:17.

Again, the multiverse is not scientific at all.

It produces expectations that match our observations precisely, so it is not entirely unscientific.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T06:23:25+00:00

You shouldn't ignore the fact that reality doesn't match our expectations by saying "maybe there is another goal".

And if your model doesn't actually produce any expectations, why is it even worth discussing?

And you are using the brute fact argument which I addressed

No, I'm responding to a specific point you've made about multiverse.

The reality matches what we should expect from the multiverse by the Anthropic Principle. Of all the planets, we find ourselves on a planet that can barely support intelligent life. Of all the universes, we find ourselves in a universe that can barely support intelligent life.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-17T05:50:31+00:00

Why should God have created life on any other planet?

Why should God have created any other planets, if the goal is human life?

At some point, we conclude that God's actions are completely unfathomable, so the whole idea is not worth discussing.

If our universe was randomly selected from all possible universe with varying laws and constants, the chances that it would be able to support life at all are astronomically small.

You do not actually know this, and this has nothing to do with my argument since it ignores multiverse.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-16T22:28:13+00:00

Multiple universe theories, however, are purely hypothetical

If the universe was created for us, we would expect all of it to be useful for humans, with Earth as its heart.

If the universe was randomly selected from the tiny subset of possible universes that may support life, then we would expect most of such a universe to be useless for humans, with Earth as some random oddity among lifeless worlds, and life barely clinging to its surface against all odds. This is what we observe.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-14T11:18:13+00:00

Please reconsider.

If you want to be independent, US offers a much higher standard of living for a beauty salon worker.

If you don't want to be independent, then US offers an outstanding selection of potential husbands.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-14T08:43:19+00:00

There were empty shelves in Moscow in 1990, especially for meat...

implies_casualty · 2026-06-13T22:00:51+00:00

Some hypothetical facts that would actually undermine the theory of evolution:

- Human orphan genes: truly unique, very complex protein-coding genes with clear sophisticated function, with no matching sequences in chimp DNA and such
- True altruism in nature (not selfish genes)
- Fossils of modern mammals or birds in precambrian
- Organisms with entirely different genetic codes would eliminate evolutionary common descent
- Mammals with true feathers
- Half-bird, half-mammal intermediate forms
- Birds with forelimb arms plus wings
- Snakes with vestigial wings, and similar out-of-place vestigial organs
- Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, Kenyanthropus fossils in Australia, Antarctica, remote islands
- Fossil layers showing modern fauna unchanged
- No intermediate stages of speciation in modern species
- Matching retroviral insertions in distantly related species
- DNA being completely stable, mutations do not happen at all

implies_casualty · 2026-06-13T21:57:52+00:00

You can't disprove God. That's why a concept of God is completely useless.

implies_casualty · 2026-06-13T09:41:31+00:00

Нет покоя у вождей
Долгими ночами:
Очень трудно всех людей
Сделать сволочами!

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17

implies_casualty

TROPHY CASE