hopefulLandlord:


It appears to me that your arguments aren't yours but one you read somewhere. Nothing wrong with that but it seems your understanding of it is shallow

Look at it this way

You: look at the constants of the universe. If it were any different we wouldn't be here so it must've been a creator involved"

Me: That's one way to look at it but what if it were different and another "type" of us were here instead? Like when there are harmful bacteria in the body then you take antibiotics and those are eliminated meaning the constants of the body changed by addition of this antibiotics and anytime those bacteria starts giving issues again you call on the antibiotics to come and do the usual again only to discover one day that you're taking the drugs but the bacterias aren't dying anymore but are now resistant to the drugs. The constant of the body changed but the bugs evolved anyways despite the unfavorable constants

jaephoenix:

First u have to bring evidence about the existence of the metaphysical before we tango

hopefulLandlord:


Okay, but aren't you just moving from conclusion to evidence though. Your point is like changing upon a civilisation of dwarves in a very distant land through a powerful binocular. This tribe have their houses very small so you conclude the houses being small is why they're short. You'd agree that if they were taller you'd have been seeing taller houses, right? This is similar in ways to what yours saying. We are here and the universal constants support us being here so the universal constants were maden for us to be here. That's very circular

I’d be a lot more accepting of the “fine tuning” argument if modern physics showed that it was impossible for the universe to exist given the values of the fundamental physical constants it has discovered.
In that situation some variation of God’s Sustaining Hand™ would become more plausible.
This is largely Dr Sean Carroll's argument. He says that the constants could be anything and God could still create life. He's magic, after all. That we do indeed have life-supporting constants says that we don't need God to sustain life.

FxMasterz:


Or, let me answer you from another perspective if my precious response does not really address your concerns.

Let me break down your counter-argument as follows:

1. Circular reasoning: if I understand you well, you argue that the fine-tuning argument is circular, as I'm concluding that the universe is fine-tuned because we exist, and we exist because the universe is fine-tuned. However, this criticism misunderstands the argument. The fine-tuning argument is based on the observation that the fundamental physical constants have precise values, allowing for life's existence. This observation is independent of our existence.

2. Dwarves analogy: The analogy is creative but flawed. The size of the dwarves' houses is not a fundamental property of the universe, unlike the physical constants. The fine-tuning argument focuses on the precise calibration of these constants, and the consequences of their values.

3. Dr. Sean Carroll's argument: Dr. Carroll suggests that God could create life regardless of the constants' values, making fine-tuning unnecessary. However, this argument assumes a magical or supernatural God, which isn't the focus of the fine-tuning argument. The argument is about the evidence for a Creator based on the universe's design, not God's hypothetical abilities.

4. Impossibility of the universe's existence: You have demanded that modern physics show it's impossible for the universe to exist with different constant values. However, this is a misunderstanding of the fine-tuning argument. The argument is about the improbability or unlikeliness of the universe's existence with life-supporting constants, not impossibility. Hence, as long as there are values, the argument for a Creator remains even if the values change. A suitable method can be adopted to make new values workable. New values don't eliminate the proof of a Creator.

5. God's role in fine-tuning: You have argued that if God exists, He could create life regardless of the constants. This misses the point. The fine-tuning argument suggests that the universe's design, as evidenced by the precise constants, points to a Creator. It's not about God's ability to create life in any circumstances.

In summary, while your counter-argument misunderstands the fine-tuning argument's focus on the universe's design and the evidence for a Creator. The argument is not circular, and the your demands for impossibility or God's hypothetical abilities miss the point of the fine-tuning argument.

FxMasturbator the lying cunt who has developed an unholy romance with AI is back again .

You remind me of unadulterated lunacy. Everything about you is anticlockwise. And the fact that you have to rely on AI to even be functional human in society is the very definition of tragic . You are organically retardéd .

The next time you want to copy answers from ChatGPT, try formatting your posts in a way that will seem more natural. You're not fooling anybody here, you bedazzled dweeb !

Judas1X:

FxMasturbator the lying cunt who has developed an unholy romance with AI is back again .

You remind me of unadulterated lunacy. Everything about you is anticlockwise. And the fact that you have to rely on AI to even be functional human in society is the very definition of tragic . You are organically retardéd .

The next time you want to copy answers from ChatGPT, try formatting your posts in a way that will seem more natural. You're not fooling anybody here, you bedazzled dweeb !

cc: hopefulLandlord

FxMasterz:


I didn't know that your foolishness is on a very high level.

Even if it's AI, counter it. An argument is an argument and a counter is a counter. Counter it my friend if you can and don't run away using AI as an excuse.

Please! Don't give me that "an argument is an argument" crap . If I wanted to argue with AI, I'd go argue with AI, not a low rent apologist poser pretending to have a clue about what he's talking about .

You're what I term a text-book student . People who are confined to the basic rendition of rules. People who can't explore and go an extra mile to be creative because their brains are wired to follow and never to lead. People who are confined to the basics.

This is the fundamental reason why you cling to AI for arguments like a prostitute gripping the balls of her client tenaciously. I'd even have more respect for you if you had the candour to reference the AI in that particular post, but no, you personalized it like it all came from your head . You're just a copy and paste human photocopy machine without a sense of originality. Bwahahahahaaa .

Judas1X:

FxMasturbator the lying cunt who has developed an unholy romance with AI is back again .

You remind me of unadulterated lunacy. Everything about you is anticlockwise. And the fact that you have to rely on AI to even be functional human in society is the very definition of tragic . You are organically retardéd .

The next time you want to copy answers from ChatGPT, try formatting your posts in a way that will seem more natural. You're not fooling anybody here, you bedazzled dweeb !

cc: hopefulLandlord

hopefulLandlord:


Holy shit! I already had the inkling that he copied his argument somewhere and doesn't know exactly how to buttress it. This I alluded to in my last reply to him. So he then went to a robot to get even more replies. Thanks for the exposure. I was already typing a long reply to his last post but saw yours before I could finish. Imagine debating someone who is using a robot to reply

Lol! They're all frauds in this religion section. For all their blabber about morality and integrity, they don't have a single bone of honesty in them .

FxMasturbator is just another student in this clown school of degenerates and reprobates that continuously suffer the religion section with terrible rhetorics and arguments! Have you met StillDTruth, or as I prefer to call him: StillDFool ?

Judas1X:


Please! Don't give me that "an argument is an argument" crap . If I wanted to argue with AI, I'd go argue with AI, not a low rent apologist poser pretending to have a clue about what he's talking about .

You're what I term a text-book student . People who are confined to the basic rendition of rules. People who can't explore and go an extra mile to be creative because their brains are wired to follow and never to lead. People who are confined to the basics.

This is the fundamental reason why you cling to AI for arguments like a prostitute gripping the balls of her client tenaciously. I'd even have more respect for you if you had the candour to reference the AI in that particular post, but no, you personalized it like it all came from your head . You're just a copy and paste human photocopy machine without a sense of originality. Bwahahahahaaa .

Judas1X:


Lol! They're all frauds in this religion section. For all their blabber about morality and integrity, they don't have a single bone of honesty in them .

FxMasturbator is just another student in this clown school of degenerates and reprobates that continuously suffer the religion section with terrible rhetorics and arguments! Have you met StillDTruth, or as I prefer to call him: StillDFool ?

FxMasterz:


Go and sit down if you don't have anything to say to boy counter. The thoughts are my origin thoughts. The arguments are my original arguments. The counter arguments are mine.

Bitch be quiet! Your schlong is so far deep inside ChatGPT's ass, you can't even see straight. You keep proving my point that you lack originality. Look at hopefulLandlord, Jaephoenix, kingxsamz et al. They've been debating you on this thread using their very own words and logic. How come you're the only one relying on AI here? You're pathologically dishonest and a piece of shit to boot. Pull out of ChatGPT's ass and let it breath for fúck sake .

We live in a modern world where things are no longer done mechanically. I can use anything to fine-tune my argument and make it more presentable. The thoughts are still mine motherless.

Again, the reason you rely on these mechanical means you allude to is because you lack originality and coherence. You haven't disputed anything I said. You keep making my argument for me . You were born with a brain like everyone else. But yours is only meant to copy and paste what others have created . You were never destined to compete with your peers at optimal level.

And you have the nerve to talk about mothers when your mother was the OG Jayjay Okocha with the way she dribbled your father with other men. Are you sure you know your real dad ?

Judas1X:


Bitch be quiet! Your schlong is so far deep inside ChatGPT's ass, you can't even see straight. You keep proving my point that you lack originality. Look at hopefulLandlord, Jaephoenix, kingxsamz et al. They've been debating you on this thread using their very own words and logic. How come you're the only one relying on AI here? You're pathologically dishonest and a piece of shit to boot. Pull out of ChatGPT's ass and let it breath for fúck sake .



Again, the reason you rely on these mechanical means you allude to is because you lack originality and coherence. You haven't disputed anything I said. You keep making my argument for me . You were born with a brain like everyone else. But yours is only meant to copy and paste what others have created . You were never destined to compete with your peers at optimal level.

And you have the nerve to talk about mothers when your mother was the OG Jayjay Okocha with the way she dribbled your father with other men. Are you sure you know your real dad ?

hopefulLandlord:



I actually find copying main arguments from other sources not to be a bad idea. What I find puzzling however is looking for what to copy to counter replies to your argument. That borders on abject level of intelligence.

I mean I could copy and argument somewhere because it's something I agree with but you can be sure that if you counter my argument I'd create a counter to your counter on my own

FxMasterz:


And I've been debating them using my very own words too.

It's time to stop responding to you. Since you don't even have enough sense to debate anything on this thread. You're only here to throw tantrums.

I'll never debate with an intellectually impoverished subhuman who is clearly beneath me. Deal with your maladies yourself .

Judas1X:


I get what you're saying. That's why I'm shellacking him so hard. And to make matters worse, he doesn't even format his posts well making it obvious to people who use AI routinely to easily notice it's use in his some posts.

Judas1X:


I get what you're saying. That's why I'm shellacking him so hard. And to make matters worse, he doesn't even format his posts well making it obvious to people who use AI routinely to easily notice it's use in his some posts.

Judas1X:


I'll never debate with an intellectually impoverished subhuman who is clearly beneath me. Deal with your maladies yourself .

hopefulLandlord:

His second post is too

Nawa oo .

Jokes aside though, I wouldn't mind if he used AI to generate his comments, as long as he owned up to the fact from the start and was being honest. But he fronts as if he owns these arguments and then tries to debate atheists knowing that he has a trump card. He even mocked someone in his OP and claimed he made him run away from a debate. He knows exactly what he's doing, that little piece of shit .

FxMasterz:


Is that your alibi? The truth is that you do not have the mental capacity to enter the debate. Bye!

Coming from an established invalid and plagiarist who has become alien to all manifestations of shame .

Lol oga just hide your face and fúck off already. You're so pathetic, I'm even starting to pity you.

Judas1X:


Coming from an established invalid and plagiarist who has become alien to all manifestations of shame .

Lol oga just hide your face and fúck off already. You're so pathetic, I'm even starting to pity you.

FxMasterz:


Shame on you.

Can you prove I plagiarized? Even if I plagiarized, this is a debate and not a thesis. Debate it if you can.

Come, is your eye paining you that you can't see the screenshots that I and hopefulLandlord uploaded? When will you stop being a deceitful twát? A good number of your posts here were AI generated! No, please... explain yourself! Define plagiarism for me. Olodo .

Judas1X:


Come, is your eye paining you that you can't see the screenshots that I and hopefulLandlord uploaded? When will you stop being a deceitful twát? A good number of your posts here were AI generated! No, please... explain yourself! Define plagiarism for me. Olodo .

FxMasterz:


Olodo. That's not plagiarism. We're not writing these. That I asked AI to make my submission presentable does not mean anything. The thoughts are still mine nonetheless!

You can't find my argument anywhere online. Prove me wrong.

Oga, you don't have the cognitive competence to construct a coherent argument yourself, that's why you need an AI to "make your submissions presentable". The thoughts may be yours, but the words aren't. It's really that simple .

This is the first time I've seen someone outrightly defending his intellectual poverty. Your facade is poorly costumed, it can't stand the rays of truth - that your brain is subpar in every ramifications .

Judas1X:


Oga, you don't have the cognitive competence to construct a coherent argument yourself, that's why you need an AI to "make your submissions presentable". The thoughts may be yours, but the words aren't. It's really that simple .

This is the first time I've seen someone outrightly defending his intellectual poverty. Your facade is poorly costumed, it can't stand the rays of truth - that your brain is subpar in every ramifications .

FxMasterz:

The cognition is mine while the fine-tuning is AI. Have you found any similar argument online? Wait till I hit YouTube with this argument.

Everyday247:
Abeg boss, no go YouTube with this. YouTube is more brutal than Nairaland.

FxMasterz:


You can go through all my arguments, woman. I'm not your mate when it comes to cognitive competence. It was my competence that gave me the argument points in the first place. I asked AI to fine-tune my texts, proofread, make edits and crosscheck me for any fallacy, what is wrong with that?

The cognition is mine while the fine-tuning is AI. Have you found any similar argument online? Wait till I hit YouTube with this argument. You're just ranting any childish thing your head tells you.

See excuses . You go really explain tire . Copy and paste warrior who can't even write his own words without AI looking over his shoulder .

Judas1X:


See excuses . You go really explain tire . Copy and paste warrior who can't even write his own words without AI looking over his shoulder .

FxMasterz:


Except you can produce the thoughts as that of another man, please keep shut.

I didn't steal anyone's debate or words!

Of course, you didn't steal the words of a human, but you stole the words of a robot. AI has never been so raped repeatedly by a brain-dead gnat such as yourself .

Judas1X:


Of course, you didn't steal the words of a human, but you stole the words of a robot. AI has never been so raped repeatedly by a brain-dead gnat such as yourself .

FxMasterz:


You can go through all my arguments, woman. I'm not your mate when it comes to cognitive competence. It was my competence that gave me the argument points in the first place. I asked AI to fine-tune my texts, proofread, make edits and crosscheck me for any fallacy, what is wrong with that?

The cognition is mine while the fine-tuning is AI. Have you found any similar argument online? Wait till I hit YouTube with this argument. You're just ranting any childish thing your head tells you.

Judas1X:


Of course, you didn't steal the words of a human, but you stole the words of a robot. AI has never been so raped repeatedly by a brain-dead gnat such as yourself .