| padib said: I am making an effort to understand, after reading your post a few times, because I'm not a professional in proof and logic. @underlined. Given the conditions being what they are and not different, then it's more safe to assume that it was indeed fine-tuned for the living organisms we see today. Otherwise, it would be like saying, in a crime scene, that the killer could have used a knife instead of a gun if in other conditions he could only find a knife. If he used a gun, then he didn't use a knife. The fact that he may have used a knife doesn't change the fact that he used a gun. So the conditions in the universe may have been different, but what we are certain of is that they are not different, they are what they are and that's the bottom line. That's what we go by, the actual state of the universe, not what could have been. @italics. The idea is not to prove than humans are special, but when the parameters required for human existence are very precise it's enough to wonder if it was designed that way. There's not more to this. It becomes an even more nagging question if you see no truth to evolution and naturalistic explanations to life. |
probably shouldnt even waste my time here as it will only give you another opportunity to present further piss poor arguments, but here we go.
P1) A maximally Excellent being exists.
P2) A maximally Excellent being would create a maximally Excellent world.
P3) A maximally Excellent world would be the one best fine-tuned for its purpose.
P4) A maximally Excellent world best fine-tuned for its purpose would be one in which its purpose is maximally achieved.
P5) The purpose for this maximally Excellent world is human life.
P6) Humans are restricted to living on one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy, in one Universe.
C1) Such a world does not exist. P3 & P6.
C2) Such a being does not exist, C1 & P2.
This is an original argument, so there may be flaws not apparent to me. But I think it's quite concise and gets to the point.
