Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

By what evidence do you come to the conclusion that our universe is "fine-tuned"? We've only ever observed one universe, and we've never observed any kind of process that suggests that the constants of the universe are in any way "tunable" or alterable in any way. For all we know, the kind of universe we have now is the only kind that can exist.

It cuts the theistic argument off at the knees. If lifeless universes aren't even a possibility, then why would there need to be a god to make sure the universe could sustain life? It's like appointing a Minister of Gravity to make sure that objects continue to fall towards the Earth - it's redundant and pointless. Ah, but the majority - in fact, the entirety - of geological formations we've observed aren't F/A-18's.On the other hand, 100% of the universes we've observed are capable of life, and 0% of the universes we've observed are incapable of it. Of course, I'm playing numbers games here, but my point is that none of us have any idea of the universe is fine-tuned or not, so there's no basis on which to build a theistic argument.

Someone would have been concieved. It certainly wouldn't have been you. Why not? These things have been the case in every universe we've ever observed.

It's impossible, logically, to distinguish between that that is inexplicable, and that that is merely unexplained.If he thinks he can, he's overstepping his epistomological bounds.

I don't see that it's in any way analogous. You're comparing something that is true in every observed case - that universes can support life - with something that is never ever observed. How is that an appropriate analogy?

If that was true, we'd hardly find any significance in the existence of F-18's, now would we? No more significant than the existence of stones.The analogy doesn't make sense. In a world full of F-18's, or anything else, their existence is not significant. The only reason life is at all significant to us is because our observable universe has so little of it.

But that wouldn't be miraculous in the least. That would be commonplace.You only think it would be miraculous because it doesn't happen.This is seriously the worst analogy you could come up with. You're right. And we wouldn't be here to find that particularly significant. We've had a grasp on it from the beginning. What we can't seem to get you to see is why it's an intellectually bankrupt excercise. Just because you can imagine non-existent universes where the conditions won't support life doesn't mean that those universes can exist. If they can't exist, then the universe we do have isn't fine-tuned at all; it's inevitable.

Why? In fact, the opposite would be true - the ability of mere natural processes to give rise to complicated machines would be incontrovertable; it would be observed everywhere you look.Again, you assume what you are trying to prove - design proves intelligence to you, no matter how natural it appears, because you've already assumed that intelligence is the only source of design. That's circular reasoning.

Clearly no such thing. Again with the circular reasoning - order "proves" intelligent design, no matter how natural it appears, because order is already assumed to be soley the product of intelligent design.

Let's put it like this - prove it. Show your work for these "odds". What's your sample space? How many universes did you observe in total, and out of those, how many had life or the conditions suitable for it and how many did not?All the universes I've ever observed had life in them. That makes the "odds" of our universe being able to support life 1/1, or dead certain.

Oh, does it? I assume, therefore, you believe that snowflakes and other crystals are assembled by tiny little men?

Unsupported assertion. Where are these million trillion trillion trillion other universes that you claim to have observed?You can't determine probability with the knowledge of only one outcome. Let's say I crabbable a phlonox and it comes up libbitz. What are the odds of that? But you don't know that. You don't have the sample space to calculate those odds. You have only the knowledge of one universe with life in it. I crabbable a phlonox and it comes up libbitz. What are the odds of that?

No, I define a crystal as being ordered; you claim that never happens naturally. So where are all the little men putting all the crystals together?

So what's grand? Some green slime chemistry on one planet, around one sun, at the edge of one galaxy, in a potentially infinite universe?Exactly what "grand scale" order are you referring to? I've seen some pretty grand crystals, and there were no little intelligences putting them together. Yeah, it's called "chemistry." Crystals are symmetric because that's the only way their molecules fit together.

Just because you can imagine it doing those things, doesn't mean it could have. What universes have you observed that were too fast or too slow?I crabbable a phlonox and it comes up libbitz. What are the odds of that? 1 in 2? 1 in 10? Astronomical? You tell me. Show your work. Why on Earth should I find your "argument by made-up odds" compelling?