Example of an A+ tier debator- not too often you have these - #christian #apologetics #easternorthodox #trinity #bible

I mean he's on another level, like Hegel is someone that no one can like there's no one on the app that can beat that guy Like there's no one that's better than Hegel. He has like a multi-faceted layer arguments that he can use his philosophy is continental And not a lot of people can track continental because most of the atheists on the app study analytic So you'll have to adopt this language model when he can already adopt yours So the first premise is just a very standard sort of Bayesian theory comparison Where it's just that if some evidence is sort of, you know, radically unlikely on theory one in conjunction with background information Right it's radically more likely on that view than on theory two, which is just in conjunction with background information Of course, then that just it serves as evidence for theory one over theory two, right? That's that's premise one Right premise two is just That it's true of theism that theism that the life-ridden conditions are radically more expected on theism than on the Universe naturalism or naturalism's look at her right and it just follows from that that It serves as strong evidence for theism And I'm gonna be honest if you can actually justify the top line. I Relatively be convinced of theism. It's just though as I'm not sure you can see like the second line I think you can't know if it's I understand that if the top line is like to be the case If that's genuinely what the nomological constants are and like that's if that's actually how vanishingly rare the nomological constants are I would I would I just can see the argument. I generally be convinced of theism until I would see an argument against you Can I get it to make that justified then the argument 100% goes through But I'm just saying I need a justification why the um the second line couldn't be the case So is the question just why why couldn't it be that life there are a bunch of life-ridden conditions and it's yeah It's just like why is the density under the like the quote-unquote line in range of Nommological presets is very likely because I'm a be honest. I'm probably gonna consider Like you're gonna be good. Oh, well, I'm just gonna look into the argument after you see him Good, good faith interlock. I do that. That's just my question. Yeah, yeah, yeah So the idea there is I mean this is just what the sort of cosmologists to talk about this try to show I mean So so and there you can just sort of go down the constants for example I mean there's like an SEP entry on this and I but you know the first one they talk about is the strength of gravity When measured against the strength of the like for magnetism it seems fine too and if gravity was like, you know Absent or super are way weaker galaxies stars planets and and the like wouldn't have formed in the first place If it had been only underpersigning bit weaker Main sequence stars like the Sun would have been way colder and not explode and supernova and stuff like that And you can just sort of go down these you know the the SCP the physicists that I've spoken to are red There's not much disagreement that if the constants were different. It's not just like we would have different planets It's not just like we would have like you know different matter. It's like at least in terms of values of the constants We would we wouldn't have planets in the first place, right? I'm I'm not disagreeing with that by the way Like I've I've completely accept that without it out not even like pretending to question And then is the question why couldn't there be other sorts of life? Yeah, it's just that theoretical cosmologists do build models of how the universe would look if these constants were different and At least for a lot of the Things that the fine tuning proponents care about It it it's not just again. It's it's that like the universe would be the sort of random chaos where we wouldn't have these the ability for these complex structures to arise Right, so like for example in terms of fine tuning for low entropy The the universe would not be ordered, right in the way that I would imagine we want to say there It seems like the universe has to be sort of in some way ordered in order for complex structures to arise It seems like the models we have for when when theoretical cosmologists, you know, do the relevant modeling See, it's it's not just it's it's that there just isn't really the ability for complex structures to form If the values were different by these these sort of tiny tiny fractions, right? So Luke Barnes has done a lot of work on this I found he had to say fairly responsive. I mean it seems like Seems like there's at least some consensus that yeah, I like if you that when the these cosmologists do these sorts of models They're not just sort of crazy, right? They're yeah, you know, they're smart. You're you're not referencing that you're you're giving good credit Both already. I'm not attacking the source. You're correct Yeah, not gonna talk to Constantine anymore and also let's see KP Crusader