Refuting Vic Stenger: fine tuning (Introduction)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, March 04, 2014, 21:03 (3918 days ago) @ dhw

I've had to edit the below to keep within the word limit.-> Not all points are givens.
> They certainly aren't. Here are a few examples:
> 
> 1) "If you are a non-expert on any subject, you should not say anything about it beyond your competence."-This is just advice to atheists debating theologians. Probably a theist would advise a theologian debating a physicist similarly not to get too deep into the complexities of physics unless you happen to be someone like Polkinghorne.-> 2) "If the God most people worship existed, we should have seen evidence for him by now. The fact that we do not proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he does not exist."
> 
> What "evidence" have we seen that life and the mechanisms for reproduction and innovation could arise by chance? None. Does this prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that chance is impossible and design is the only solution? Of course not. 
>-This is just the usual dhw argument about chance. I don't know why you have such a down on chance. Unlike God we do have conclusive evidence that Chance exists! We even have laws about how Chance works.-> 3) "Science and religion are fundamentally incompatible because of their contradictory view on the source of knowledge. Science assumes that only by observation can we know about the world. Religion assumes that in addition we learn by revelations from God."
> 
> "Revelations" are a soft target, but science and religion (i.e. belief in a "divine creator") are perfectly compatible if you go beyond the limitations of science and try to answer the questions science raises. 
> -I dare say most of the theologians one is likely to debate these questions are of the bible-believing religious type. If you have a religion based on something else, it may indeed be compatible with science.-> 4) "Atheists claim that the universe just "popped" into existence. I can't believe this.
> A number of plausible scenarios have been published by reputable scientists in reputable scientific journals. If you insist they are impossible, then you have the burden of disproving them."
> -My approach to this question would be more philosophical, asking what is meant by existence and time - but we've argued that extensively before.
 
> 5) Stenger pooh-poohs NDEs. He says you can only prove they are not hallucinations if "the subject returns with some knowledge that she could not possibly have known prior to the experience". Clearly this is a subject he should have steered clear of, since there are numerous examples of such information being obtained.
>-There are none that do not have convincing alternative explanations.
 
> 6) "The obvious presence of design and complexity in the world, especially in life, proves there was a designer.
> That was a good argument prior to Darwin when people had no idea how life came about. Darwin showed that complex organisms evolve from simpler ones by purely natural processes, without the need for a more complex designer."
> 
> We have no idea what processes have enabled so-called simple organisms to live, let alone invent the complex forms of life we know today. 
> -Why should one postulate divine intervention processes when natural processes, based on chance and physics, appear quite adequate.
 -> 7) "Many Christians believe in evolution.
> Not really. Surveys indicate that what most believe in is God-guided evolution. That is not evolution as understood by science. That is intelligent design. There is no room for God in evolution."
> 
> Objective information and subjective interpretation can be perfectly compatible, and God-guided evolution will still be evolution! Darwin himself explicitly left room for God in his theory.
> -It should be possible to distinguish God-guided evolution from natural evolution. In the same way that it is possible to distinguish fraudulent science from genuine science. The statistics would be different from what they should be according to the laws of chance.-
> 8) "Science still has not shown how life began.
> That is true; but it does not follow that life had to be created by God. To assert that, you have the burden of proving that science will never discover the natural origin of life." [/i]
> 
> our knowledge of Nature is so sparse, we have no idea what it might encompass. The terms natural and supernatural are therefore meaningless except to those who insist they already know what is natural.-But science has shown that all the necessities for life to begin were in existence ready for abiogenesis to occur. The action of chance and physical law is what "natural" means here. Supernatural would be some form of miracle, breaking these laws.-I was asked to respond by DT. The above are my point by point responses, the best I can do at short notice.

--
GPJ