No. If the individual has multiple well-placed stab and bullet wounds, and the coroner has been called in to decide whether the cause of death was shooting or stabbing, then natural causes and chance wouldn’t even be considered unless the coroner somehow determined against all appearances that the stab and bullet wounds were no inflicted deliberately.
This is so trivial a counterexample that the only reason for not tripping over it immediately is if the person presenting the analogy is deliberately avoiding looking for one.
Have you changed your name to Joshua? Did you see the name of the person to whom I addressed my question? If you think I wanted an answer from anyone but Joshua, you are mistaken.
Apparently you don’t understand how discussion boards work. Any questions you post here are fair game for comment or conversation. If you wanted a private conversation with Dr. S. you do it through PM. The only thing forcing you to respond to the comments of others is your ego.
4 Likes
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
44
Amazingly enough, here is a scientist who doesn’t think much of Luke Barnes views on fine tuning.
[See link below - - my apologies for forgetting this link when I first made this posting]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
.
.
.
My own personal position is based on a simple truth: the fact the Universe is turned the way it is - - is exactly why we are able to read books on this tuning - - because otherwise we wouldn’t exist.
So, “I think … therefore I live in a fine tuned Universe”!
Depending on what formulation of the fine-tuning argument is being advanced, there are different responses to them. That said, there are a lot of bad responses to them, such as the anthropic principle. I also find that Douglas Adam’s puddle-analogy doesn’t serve as a good response to many types of fine-tuning arguments(some are vulnerable to it, some aren’t).
In all honesty the best responses I have seen to some versions of the fine-tuning argument(I’m thinking of the type of argument offered by Luke Barnes) comes from philosophers, such as Keith Parsons.
So I linked to Luke Barnes’ criticism of Arvin Ash’s video on fine-tuning in physics - in which he raises several very serious problems with said video - and your reply is to link to a completely irrelevant criticism of Barnes’ review of a book about evolution?
The point I was trying to make is that Arvin Ash has a giant axe to grind … since he wrote a book on Fine Tuning of the Universe. And part of his giant axe to grind is that I suspect that he is a Creationist.
His critics acknowledge he does not like being called a Creationist. And many of us here at Peaceful Science understand why he doesn’t want to be labeled as such.
I haven’t had time to confirm much of Luke Barnes criticisms (by the way, I fixed the typo in my prior posting - - I think you saw that it was a typo. For whatever reason, I put Ash’s name instead of Luke’s name).
But I was certainly saddened by some of the criticisms Luke published. I didn’t realize Ash could so easily lose his way in the discussion. But let me say I still have to verify Luke’s criticisms.
But my position against the Fine Tuning hypothesis was not based on Ash’s video… I just thought his video was the best I had seen on the matter.
To answer the obvious question: what IS my opposition to Fine Tuning based on? It is based on the simple point that no matter what the fine tuning discussion specifies, the only reason we can discuss it is because: BY DEFINITION, the only way we can be amazed at fine tuning is because we are alive to notice it.
I THINK … therefore I live in a fine tuned universe!
