I think that fine tuning is a legitimate discussion, but what is up with the lame quote mining? Do you suggest these snippets give any real insight into the actual viewpoints of Hawkings or Davies, or do they just sound too good to pass up?
4 Likes
The Hawking quote in particular doesn’t even suggest ‘tuning’, much less ‘fine-tuning’.
4 Likes
That is you making a claim. I challenge it and you, what? Ask why I’m challenging it?
What I posted prior to you asking me this second time. You just asked,
Is there a problem with the evidence supplied?
You’re killing me.
I thought the challenge was
There is a tad of bait and switch there, No?
Is there some magic you expect of the charge of quote mining?
They are quotes I’m aware of from the source given.
I do. On the subject they mention. Are you suggesting that they don’t? Even in light of your,
Was it not a legit discussion topic for Hawking and Davies to opine on? How are the quotes I used not reflective on their views on a legitimate discussion topic.
What am I supposed to do with that?
I don’t know what to say to that. All I can do is requote.
Hawking as quoted, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
Hawking’s quote doesn’t suggest tuning. Ok, I give up. You parse the words as you see fit.
As Bret Weinstein has said, “Language is not built to withstand an attack by sophistry”
Would you be brought onside if I’d asked,
does the very finely adjusting of the universe for life count as evidence for God?
cool.
So apparently you don’t even know how to requote…
Scroll back up, and see the attribution you originally gave to that quote. Then the quote you attributed to Hawking, which was the thing I referenced.
Then apologize.
3 Likes
All you guys are unbelievable. What a useless discussion board this is.
Yes, that you will stop quote-mining, aka quoting out of context – which you have blatantly been doing.
Given the lack of specific citation (book title and page, or equivalent), I highly doubt that you have read the original works of Hoyle, Rees, etc, etc that are the true sources for those statements. Far more likely that you merely copied and pasted them from some Apologetics site. [Addendum: on closer examination, I see that you have in fact explicitly stated that you copied and pasted them from some Apologetics video.] If so, then you have no idea as to their original context, so no idea if this context changes the meaning of these snippets.
Further, I would point out that all these snippets are merely opinions and opinions are not evidence!
5 Likes
Sure, I can do that.
Although I’m not exactly sure of what I’m apologizing for. I haven’t done the quotes right? Ok, I’m sorry for that.
There is a bit bigger space between the first quote by Hoyle and his name underneath than in all the others. In all of them the quote is given followed by the name of the speaker, writer, author, however I’m supposed to say that.
If that is not what you expected, or feel I own in the way of an apology, elaborate on what you expect. I’m quite sure I’m willing to comply. I was not trying to misquote.
I’ll try and repost them here again, It will be the quote followed by the author’s name.
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics … and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” - Fred Hoyle
“Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine tuning.” - Sir Martin Rees
“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” - Stephen Hawking
“If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely.” - David Deutsch
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all …it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.” - Paul Davies
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” - Arno Penzias
For commenting a rant against me without paying attention to the thread. Now, if you’d care to actually present a singular scrap of evidence in support of your claims, that’d be nice.
Quotes aren’t evidence.
3 Likes
Let me elevate your doubts to the status of surety. I haven’t nor did I claim to. Congratulations! They all came from the video I linked to. Actually, there might be an exception of two. But they mostly came from there. I’d listed them a year or so back.
Wow!
That would have totally rendered them useless would in not have? You guys kill me.
Is that your opinion?
We covered the definition of evidence a while back.
I like this which I found on a YouTube comment section a while back,
“A proof makes a conclusion inescapable. An evidence merely raises the probability of a proposition being true relative to what it would have been otherwise.”
I think (am of the opinion) that the quotes (especially since they are from guys you’d all otherwise applaud) count as evidence according to both.
You mean these comments,
and
Are you serious? A rant against you. That is really funny.
I’m sorry I ranted against you like that.
Wow! And to think that this “The Argument Clinic” came about because of me.
Keep on with the incestuous patting each other on the back. I’m out of here.
Bye! Come back when you actually have evidence!
2 Likes
Yes, I had already noticed that, and had in fact had already made an addendum to my post noting this.
If you take my statement in the CONTEXT of my immediately following statement (which you deceptively omitted), yes it does:
Addendum: this piece of deception is an excellent example of why out-of-context quotes are UTTERLY WORTHLESS!
No. It is an obvious corollary to evidence being a subset of facts (facts relevant to the issue at hand), and facts and opinions being different.
You can act like Humpty Dumpty, and define words to be anything you want – that does not mean that anybody else has to give your definitions even the slightest credibility. Did anybody else accept this definition of yours?
I would note that you carefully avoided the main topic of my post that of quoting out of context aka quote mining.
None of your potted, parroted collection of quote mines is worth a puddle of dog vomit.
4 Likes
I asked you a question (bolded). Do you not know the difference?
You didn’t post any evidence. You posted hearsay.
What people say isn’t evidence.
Neither. I asked for evidence, you provided none.
Let’s say we’re installing an expensive koa wood floor together. You ask me for a measurement and I reply, “Bill says that Bob said it’s 18 1/2”.
Are you going to make that cut based on hearsay, or do you want an actual measurement (evidence)?
4 Likes
You posted quotes, when you were asked for evidence. Opinions are not evidence. Your quotes were not even real quotes.
You’re supposed to be familiar with the actual quote, in its original context. You can’t be bothered. That’s literally bearing false witness.
Science doesn’t deal in proof, and opinions aren’t evidence. What’s your point?
5 Likes
Their opinions are not evidence, and Hawking offered no opinion on fine tuning whatsoever.
5 Likes
What’s unbelievable is that you think quotes from different authors constitute evidence in support of a fine-tuned universe. Maybe you should reconsider what is really “useless”.
4 Likes
The thing is, using either of these definitions of evidence, the features that these quotes comment on count just as much as evidence for a multiverse. In other words, this stuff just doesn’t adjudicate between these two options (God or Multiverse). We are none the wiser.
4 Likes