"Refutation" of the Cosmological Argument (AndromedasWake)
Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:06 am
Warning, here comes AndromedasWake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dmc_a_E ... re=related
So he says that these constants don't exist, but rather they are something made up in the theories of cosmology, physics and other areas of science. Since they don't actually exist, there is no fine-tuning because they might as well be necessary. There are 3 false premises here though:
A - 1) This video, though the guy tries to avoid it, is actually saying the current theories are false and later on a theory will be made that explains away all the "fine-tuning" and renders the argument false, we just don't know it yet (science-of-the-gaps).
2) At least some of these constants are indisputably real, like say the relation of quarks to anti-quarks. We know there
are both and we know that if there was an equal amount then there couldn't be galaxies, planets, etc. - much less
complex organisms, like say dogs. Then again, he believes that different things are really just different arrangements
of matter. Can that apply then even to basic pieces of matter?
B - Since he says there are no actual constants or such to tweak -
3) This abolishes absolute truth, since practically anything can happen (there's no actual rules, just things we make up to
explain the universe). I suppose you could say logic is an exception (even God is subject to logic), but it allows for
literally any kind of scientific laws.
4) Since there can be any kind of scientific laws, there are an infinite amount of possible universes, which means the
probability of this universe is literally infinity to one. But isn't that a contradiction?
5_A) If something is infinitely improbable than it's probability is equivalent to 0, so it's actually
impossible.
5_B) If something is improbable than no matter how improbable, it is still possible - unless it's
probability is equivalent to 0.
C1: There must be a limited amount of universes possible for any universe to be possible, at the very least on an atheistic view.
C2: To deny C1 you would have to deny absolute truth completely, even logic, philosophy, existence, etc. in which case I can say AW is crazy and I will be meeting him at the mental hospital tommorow at 3 o'Clock.
Well can I be sure that I won't?
The idea of a lack of absolute truth is also self-refuting though. Can you be absolutely sure that you can't be absolutely sure?
I was laughing at the end of the video. The level of philosophy on Youtube is ridiculous. Then again, it's like me before I got into apologetics (well more or less).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dmc_a_E ... re=related
So he says that these constants don't exist, but rather they are something made up in the theories of cosmology, physics and other areas of science. Since they don't actually exist, there is no fine-tuning because they might as well be necessary. There are 3 false premises here though:
A - 1) This video, though the guy tries to avoid it, is actually saying the current theories are false and later on a theory will be made that explains away all the "fine-tuning" and renders the argument false, we just don't know it yet (science-of-the-gaps).
2) At least some of these constants are indisputably real, like say the relation of quarks to anti-quarks. We know there
are both and we know that if there was an equal amount then there couldn't be galaxies, planets, etc. - much less
complex organisms, like say dogs. Then again, he believes that different things are really just different arrangements
of matter. Can that apply then even to basic pieces of matter?
B - Since he says there are no actual constants or such to tweak -
3) This abolishes absolute truth, since practically anything can happen (there's no actual rules, just things we make up to
explain the universe). I suppose you could say logic is an exception (even God is subject to logic), but it allows for
literally any kind of scientific laws.
4) Since there can be any kind of scientific laws, there are an infinite amount of possible universes, which means the
probability of this universe is literally infinity to one. But isn't that a contradiction?
5_A) If something is infinitely improbable than it's probability is equivalent to 0, so it's actually
impossible.
5_B) If something is improbable than no matter how improbable, it is still possible - unless it's
probability is equivalent to 0.
C1: There must be a limited amount of universes possible for any universe to be possible, at the very least on an atheistic view.
C2: To deny C1 you would have to deny absolute truth completely, even logic, philosophy, existence, etc. in which case I can say AW is crazy and I will be meeting him at the mental hospital tommorow at 3 o'Clock.
Well can I be sure that I won't?The idea of a lack of absolute truth is also self-refuting though. Can you be absolutely sure that you can't be absolutely sure?
I was laughing at the end of the video. The level of philosophy on Youtube is ridiculous. Then again, it's like me before I got into apologetics (well more or less).