Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
why that was nice
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="faulkton" data-source="post: 3155793" data-attributes="member: 561910"><p>The essay’s presented by Davis and Hambourger are successful pieces of natural theology in the sense that they offer an explanation not reliant on revelation. Nonetheless, their arguments are not successful in convincing me of their conclusion.</p><p></p><p>It might be true that the conditions required for the universe as we know it would require a series of highly unlikely situations and that the probability of all these things coming together perfectly to form our universe is extremely small. However, I fail to see why chance, or some presently unknown explanation, is somehow absurd and the existence of a hidden, purposive, secretive, and intelligent designer is acceptable.</p><p></p><p>Putting aside the possibility of some presently unknown mechanism, I do not have difficulty believing that the universe as we know it could have been the result of chance alone; the fact that I am here negates that being impossible as much as it proves an intelligent designer. Given only two options, seemingly impossible odds or the existence of an intelligent designer, the latter would be the clear choice, but when we allow for a third option and return to the previously set aside idea that the universe can be explained by some presently unknown mechanism or force, the fine tuning argument loses its appeal.</p><p></p><p>It would seem to me, that the probability of us not gaining more knowledge on the subject is somewhere near the probability of all the requirements for life and our universe being fulfilled by chance alone. Perhaps this knowledge that we are likely to acquire in the future will substantiate the claims made by proponents of the fine tuning argument; it is also possible that new knowledge will refute these claims.</p><p></p><p>The fine tuning argument seems like one of several plausible explanations, yet it fails to convince me that it is the only acceptable explanation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="faulkton, post: 3155793, member: 561910"] The essay’s presented by Davis and Hambourger are successful pieces of natural theology in the sense that they offer an explanation not reliant on revelation. Nonetheless, their arguments are not successful in convincing me of their conclusion. It might be true that the conditions required for the universe as we know it would require a series of highly unlikely situations and that the probability of all these things coming together perfectly to form our universe is extremely small. However, I fail to see why chance, or some presently unknown explanation, is somehow absurd and the existence of a hidden, purposive, secretive, and intelligent designer is acceptable. Putting aside the possibility of some presently unknown mechanism, I do not have difficulty believing that the universe as we know it could have been the result of chance alone; the fact that I am here negates that being impossible as much as it proves an intelligent designer. Given only two options, seemingly impossible odds or the existence of an intelligent designer, the latter would be the clear choice, but when we allow for a third option and return to the previously set aside idea that the universe can be explained by some presently unknown mechanism or force, the fine tuning argument loses its appeal. It would seem to me, that the probability of us not gaining more knowledge on the subject is somewhere near the probability of all the requirements for life and our universe being fulfilled by chance alone. Perhaps this knowledge that we are likely to acquire in the future will substantiate the claims made by proponents of the fine tuning argument; it is also possible that new knowledge will refute these claims. The fine tuning argument seems like one of several plausible explanations, yet it fails to convince me that it is the only acceptable explanation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
why that was nice
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list
