New Miscellany: fine-tuning, climate, theodicy (General)

by David Turell , Monday, March 03, 2025, 17:24 (3 days ago) @ dhw

Fine tuning

DAVID: Why attack my construction? I have accepted the Wilsonian view of fine-tuning in my statement. Or not? Please explain.

dhw: You would have to explain why I would be the last in science, and how the difference is “emphasis”. Your statement does not even mention fine-tuning. But since you have now explicitly accepted my argument, then of course we can close the discussion. Thank you.

Yes, close

Theodicy

dhw: ... I am explaining why “proportionality” does not solve the problem we call theodicy.)[/i]

DAVID: It is the way theodicy experts view it.

dhw: I don’t know how you can possibly talk of “experts” since nobody knows (a) whether God actually exists, or (b) if he does, what is his nature. Why must you blame other people for an argument which clearly makes no sense?

I am not a trained theologian. I might remind you, theologians ae experts in the belief in God. I have simply parroted their views on theodicy.

Climate change

Timing a probable glacial period

dhw: Stop dodging and distorting what I have said! I have emphasized that there are no “accurate predictive models”, but the plain fact that our current practices are already causing damage should make it abundantly clear that if they continue, the damage will escalate. If temperatures continue to rise as they are now doing, you don’t need to be a prophet to assume that there will be even more damage during the next 11,000 years. Hence the need for pragmatic action now to prevent future environmental disaster while at the same time avoiding social and economic disaster. Your attempt to brush this argument aside and focus solely on suspect predictions is part of your head-in-the-sand tactic, which is a shame, because earlier you agreed completely with what I have just said.>

DAVID: Yes, I have agreed, but without the panic attack you favor. We do not know how much heat will delay glaciation, which will destroy much of our civilization in the cold ice.

dhw: I do not favour a panic attack. We agree that all measures to prevent escalation of damage must be balanced against the need to avoid social and economic disaster. How does that constitute panic? Glaciation would indeed destroy much of our civilization, and so will unrestricted warming. Are you now panicking over the glaciation which some folk prophesy will happen in 11,000 years’ time?

There is your panic again: What is "unrestricted warming"? The Earth and its humans can tolerate a degree or two of more warmth, which may then plateau. Our defense again clearly destructive glaciation is heat!!!

Evolution: dinosaurs to birds

QUOTE:"Fossils of birds are rare because of their fragile bones. When Wang held the Baminornis zhenghensis fossil for the first time, he said, his heart raced. “If there are still any doubts about how birdy Archaeopteryx is,” he said, “Baminornis is undoubtedly a real bird.”

DAVID: this settles the argument. Dinosaurs gave us birds.

dhw: It should also open minds to the distinct possibility that there are countless extinct life forms that have left no fossils at all. Why should we expect an unbroken chain to survive for 150 million years, let alone 3,800,000,000 years?

DAVID: That we have a good chain of fossils to explain the course of evolution is obvious.

dhw: Yes indeed. But you like to emphasize the gaps as evidence that your God steps in to create species “de novo”.

It is the only explanation we have, sadly for Darwinists.