12 b. It would be more miraculous if we were sustained in a hostile environment but then how would God do miracles for particular purposes if we were continually bathed in a miraculous situation and how could we have free choice? Wouldn’t that situation force us to believe?

13. This sounds a bit like a cheeky schoolboy comment (particularly the torturing bit) so hopefully it doesn’t reflect poorly upon me that I need to think more about whether the inferences were overextended or whether that misses a point in that evidence of fine tuning is evidence of a designer and the only current contender is God.

14. So some facts don’t require fine tuning and that is the most extreme case. Interestingly it isn’t one of the 10 I listed and there are 122 identified in total. Without more detail on the ranges it is hard to work out how important this is or isn’t. If there is an argument there it would be nice if he didn''t just debunk 1 in 122 and make an ambiguous remark about the rest. Just giving more information could help us reason whether or not there is anything in it. Is this a point or is it an exception that proves the rule. Unfortunately the author keeps us guessing.

mjpb,

Twice now I have explained to you that the fine tuning argument is fallacious and why. You don’t get to just continue on as if nothing was said.

You see, mjpb, when someone presents a rational argument, you need to address that argument and show it to be wrong before you can continue any further. This is the only reason we’re still here; every time I present an argument that is too tough for you, you simply press on with other arguments that you don’t seem to realise mean nothing until you address my initial point.

A classic example of this is the apparent mental block of yours that prevents you from understanding what most other theists can understand:

That it is the claimant who bares the burden of proof.

Theism is the positive claim, [strong] atheism is the rejection of that claim as not supported by evidence. A person who holds the default position does not have to justify why they don't yet accept an unsupported claim.

But instead of rebutting my point here, you make incorrect analogies using the defence in a court of law (who, like I said, don’t have to prove anything until the prosecution presents some credible evidence), or you commit the ‘shifting the burden of proof’ logical fallacy by accusing those who don’t have the burden of proof of doing that very same thing.

As for this fine tuning argument, your god hypothesis is even more speculative than a multiverse (since a multiverse would at least adhere to the natural/physical realm - a realm we actually know exists - and not some unproven supernatural realm), and speculation is not evidence.

Perhaps one of the most important points here though, and possibly the one most fatal to your argument, is the simple fact that ‘unlikely’ does not mean ‘impossible’ - no matter how unlikely. Even if a naturalistic explanation were found to be impossible, you would still have to demonstrate that anything like what you’re proposing exists.

122, 1022, it doesn’t matter. Your god does not become anymore likely than some other unthought-of phenomena.

A J Phillips,

To the contrary the first time you merely said it was fallacious and hinted you’d explain once I’d finished what I was doing then you gave some detail and then you took a different slant. So far (today) I have responded to the middle bit which was the most detailed so as to keep things sequential.

“ You see, mjpb, when someone presents a rational argument, you need to address that argument and show it to be wrong before you can continue any further. This is the only reason we’re still here; every time I present an argument that is too tough for you, you simply press on with other arguments that you don’t seem to realise mean nothing until you address my initial point.

A classic example of this is …

That it is the claimant who bares the burden of proof.

Theism is the positive claim, [strong] atheism is the rejection of that claim as not supported by evidence. A person who holds the default position does not have to justify why they don't yet accept an unsupported claim.

But instead of rebutting my point here, you make incorrect analogies using the defence in a court of law (who, like I said, don’t have to prove anything until the prosecution presents some credible evidence), or you commit the ‘shifting the burden of proof’ logical fallacy by accusing those who don’t have the burden of proof of doing that very same thing.”

It has been reasonably argued that theism is the default position. Belief in God is properly basic and is entitled to the default position but I mention that in passing. That doesn’t mean that I fail to understand that you are using that to describe the party not making the positive claim. I’m not saying it is like a court of law and falling over in my ‘incorrect analogy’. A central part of my reasoning was explaining why the situation differed from a court of law.

What I said was:

‘’Burden of proof is from Roman law and is used in our legal system. It is established by rules that vary throughout legal systems. In civil law in Australia it typically falls upon the plaintiff as it does in a more convoluted way in criminal law. It is a procedural concept not a matter of logic and it doesn’t automatically fall on someone making a grammatically positive statement. Quite often they can be translated to negative statements. Further, to be taken seriously many negative statements eg. "there are no atoms" require evidence while there corresponding positive statement would not.

Burden of proof in an argument is largely independent of the question of what evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions. Suppose in the atom example the negative attracted the burden. That doesn’t mean it is rational to believe electrons exist without ever having encountered evidence.

Of course even if the burden of proof fell on theists (which there is no reason to believe) it doesn’t mean that athests can rationally have a belief that there is no God or other divine reality without evidence.

Ultimately the honest approach is that if disagreeing participants in an informal discussion of a controversial topic are expected to be taken seriously they must all bear the burden to provide support for their claims. That athiest porn writers try to pretend otherwise says more about their argument than any real burden of proof.”

You said:

“Not only is often impossible to disprove something that doesn’t exist but,””

That requires two elements being that it might be impossible if it is within the subset of things that don’t exist and can’t be disproved and secondly that it doesn’t exist. However how relevant this is is unknown and you didn’t take it further.

“as I’ve said before, it is theists who are making the original claim. Atheists are simply responding to that claim. Therefore the burden of proof is on the believer.””

This is your reply but it is the starting point that I was replying to and reasoning against.

”We’re not talking about laws of a land that have ramifications on a whole society. You’re analogy is invalid.”

You didn’t explain why. If you accepted the part of my reasoning that indicated that legal systems have introduced burden of proof rules for procedural reasons and disagreeing participants in an informal discussion on a controversial topic are not bound by those rules then it would not apply. However if you disagree just saying my analogy is invalid doesn’t explain your reasoning.

’Yes, because there is evidence that atoms exist. Theists are yet to provide any evidence at all, and so the burden of proof remains on them and will solely until they can provide some. Then things may change.”

It illustrates that burden of proof is not automatic as a matter of logic irrespective of your dogma relating to theism.

”No reason? Then explain to me why my reasons are invalid.”

This responded to me discussing the hypothetical burden on theists. What reasons? Outside of making a burden of proof claim and a consequent call for evidence you haven’t really argued with me much unless something was buried in all that stuff about me running away from the discussion?

”Atheists don’t need an argument. Until theists can provide some evidence, they’re already ahead by default.’

Theists don’t have a burden of proof for the reasons I gave.

I see we have some unfinished business, mjpb. I’m actually glad you’ve raised these points. But first...

<<To the contrary the first time you merely said it was fallacious and hinted you’d explain once I’d finished what I was doing then you gave some detail and then you took a different slant.>>

Oh, okay then. We'll say one-and-a-half times. Sheesh! Both slants were correct. The second slant was just a little more refined.

<<It has been reasonably argued that theism is the default position.>>

No, it hasn’t.

This coming from a person who claims to have originally been an atheist too.

Sure, I may have been a theist before now, but I was still an atheist before my parents indoctrinated me.

<<Belief in God is properly basic and is entitled to the default position but I mention that in passing.>>

Theism may be “properly basic”, but that doesn't, in any way, make it a default. Atheism is “properly basic” too, only it’s a state of mind that doesn’t even require an idea. You could possibly argue - depending on how you looked at it - that atheism wouldn’t exist without theism and so it is not “properly basic”, but that would only go against your idea that theists don’t have a burden of proof.

If someone tells you the Lochness monster exists, do you believe them until it’s proven that it doesn’t exist?

No.

And there you also have yet another reason why theism has the burden of proof.

<<"there are no atoms" require evidence while there corresponding positive statement would not.>>

Correct.

But while some atheists will go as far as to say “There are no atoms”, atheism doesn’t necessarily require that one go that far (I’ll explain further shortly with a court analogy).

If I was to start a thread in the here, where I brazenly got up and said something along the lines of, “Look here Christians. Your god doesn’t exist, okay!”, then yes, it could be argued that in that particular case, on that particular occasion, I would have the burden of proof.

Continued...