Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Religion and evolution [View all]skepticscott
(13,029 posts)69. You truly don't see the fallacy, do you?
The argument is that "life" could not have evolved without a "fine tuning" of the physical constants of the universe. And yet it requires a conscious entity, capable of deliberate action and of affecting the physical world to do the "tuning". If that's not "life", assumed to precede the need for "fine tuning", then what is it? If whatever "god" supposedly did the fine tuning could come into being before that fine tuning took place, then why couldn't life of a variety of other types? Maybe not exactly like what we see now, but something that would easily qualify. The type of matter and life we see may be just what fell out. Principle of Necessary Improbability.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
98 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Anthropic fallacy: "Isn't it amazing that we are here, to be amazed that we are here?"
immoderate
Jan 2012
#42
I find it easier. No RW Cristian has been able to refute me, yet. There is always a yet.
Festivito
Jan 2012
#5
These questions are raised thousands of times every week all across the globe.
Thats my opinion
Jan 2012
#77
God lit the fuse, crouched down in a hole, butt facing the bomb, arms over his head...
hunter
Jan 2012
#17
As a null hypothesis, atheism is the only legitimate position unless...
Humanist_Activist
Jan 2012
#54
Stated very well: "unscientific bias that cannot be reconciled with his profession"
MarkCharles
Jan 2012
#55