Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[leroy]

You also did that. It's baked into the term "fine tuning."

Well can you quote any definition ether mine or form my sources, where I “baked” design into the definition?

E]That's a bit of a funky way to phrase it, but what you're doing is assigning special significance to the existence of life.

Without this, the "fine tuning" argument falls apart. It doesn't matter how unlikely the conditions for life are: even if there were 10^1000000 possibilities and only a handful of them would have allowed for life, one of those 10^1000000 possibilities had to have happened; this one would have been as likely as any other.

Basically, the fact that our universe has the conditions that allow for life is only a significant thing that needs an explanation if you assume that the universe had to allow for life. Otherwise, all you've got is that an unlikely thing happened... but unlikely things happen all the time, and this outcome was as likely as any other outcome.

Well if we play poker and I get 100 royal flushes in a row…what would you conclude

1 Obviously I am cheating (design)

2 well that is as unlikely as any other combination of cards , so no problem…

(obviously you would conclude 1)

Nobody is saying “unlikely” therefore design

The argument is “unlikely” + “a pattern that can’t be explained by chance nor necessity” therefore design.


This is how we always identify design in our daily lifes, and in some sciences like archeology, forensic science cryptography etc……………….why making an arbitrary exception in the cases where you don’t like the theological implications?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well can you quote any definition ether mine or form my sources, where I “baked” design into the definition?

His point is that you did not do that purposefully, it was already there.

Well if we play poker and I get 100 royal flushes in a row…what would you conclude

1 Obviously I am cheating (design)

2 well that is as unlikely as any other combination of cards , so no problem…

(obviously you would conclude 1)

Nobody is saying “unlikely” therefore design

The argument is “unlikely” + “a pattern that can’t be explained by chance nor necessity” therefore design.


This is how we always identify design in our daily lifes, and in some sciences like archeology, forensic science cryptography etc……………….why making an arbitrary exception in the cases where you don’t like the theological implications?

The problem is that the "fine tuning" that we observe is nothing like that. It is more like getting a pair of twos in one hand and an ace high in the next. They are potentially winning hands but not amazingly so. In fact if one bases it on location most of the time you would simply lose since very very very little of our universe is hospitable to life. The problem with the so called fining tuning is that it is not all that fine.

 

[Heyo]

Thats out if topic it seems to me...... All i am saying is that oberverses that kive in univereses with few stars woukd be more abundant than observers that live in universes with trillions if stars....... Any disagreement?

It is on topic as you try to use entropy as an argument for your "small universes are more abundant" hypothesis. I think that backfires as small universes can't, over their lifetime, have the same amount of entropy as big universes.
And even if we disregard entropy, the chance of life popping up in one corner of a big universe is bigger than it being in a small universe.
When your chance of rolling "life" is only one in 100 billion but you have 100 billion dice to roll, you'll get it eventually.

 

[Heyo]

Its not clear where hiw dud yiu git the 1/4 probability? Why is behe relevant? Are we still talking about the FT of the universe?

We are talking about the "design" possibility being an explanation for the FT of the universe.
"Design" has been brought forth as an explanation many times. I choose Behe as a prominent example with the most scientific and credible attempts. (I don't cling to that example.)
1/4 is the most generous upper bound for the chance of "design" being the correct answer for FT based on past performances of "design" as an explanation.

 

[joelr]

I am confused, Carol claims over tuned =no design……….he basically asks “why would God create a universe that would later evolve in to a universe with billions of stars (low entropy) if 1 star would have been enough. (Relatively high entropy)

Do you think this is a good objection to the FT argument? If not then we can move to a different objection

If yes, then lets stick to this particular objection

Your version of the argument doesn't make sense. Entropy is disorder. 1 star is not high entropy? The more complex the universe became the more entropy increased. A universe with low entropy, in our case, had no building blocks to create life. Antimatter could have wiped out all matter. There is no way to know how a new universe is going to evolve? Maybe everything will form a giant black hole? During the big bang all forces were unified into one single force. You cannot create life with one super-energetic super dense force. This is not a reliable way to end up with solar systems hat could produce life.
That is just one observation. All of them together is his argument.

However since God can do whatever why not just create one solar system and start life? If life was an actual goal for some God? Why not just do that? What we actually see looks more like a universe created by natural processes that has no intention or goal.

 

[joelr]

Well I am still confused.... Sean Carols point and main argument against the FT argument is that the universe is more FT than the minimal requirement to have life....

"why having trillions of stars, if one (or few stars would be enough,"

Obviously you dont have to agree with Carol.... But its simoly not clear for me if you agree or disagree with him.

As for your comment, there are possible universes with few stars and with theelements needed for life....observers that life in these universes would be more abundant than observers in complex universes like ours....... Any disagreement?

I think he is saying why doesn't God just create life, 1 solar system, and work it out. Why an entire universe, since God can do anything?
But no, things happen in the universe by probability right now. There are no magic Gods and having only a few stars would not likely create life because there are many factors that have to fall into place. Having an entire galaxy allows more chances that things will fall into place.
It's just one observation. The universe started out very simple, low entropy, intense energy, and when it got going, giant black holes at the center of galaxies creating massive radiation. No chance for life for billions of years. Then things evolved in a way that worked out for us. But it could have failed. The universe does not appear to be created for life any more than it was created for stars. Meaning it was created for neither, it's just a natural process. There are still 8 other points on his list?

 

[paarsurrey]

I think he is saying why doesn't God just create life, 1 solar system, and work it out. Why an entire universe, since God can do anything?
But no, things happen in the universe by probability right now. There are no magic Gods and having only a few stars would not likely create life because there are many factors that have to fall into place. Having an entire galaxy allows more chances that things will fall into place.
It's just one observation. The universe started out very simple, low entropy, intense energy, and when it got going, giant black holes at the center of galaxies creating massive radiation. No chance for life for billions of years. Then things evolved in a way that worked out for us. But it could have failed. The universe does not appear to be created for life any more than it was created for stars. Meaning it was created for neither, it's just a natural process. There are still 8 other points on his list?

" But no, things happen in the universe by probability right now. "

How does one know that, please? Please quote one's source . Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Did one seek evidence of one's father and mother? One identified them without evidence, please? How did one recognize them as one's father and mother, please? Right, please?
Subduction Zone said: ↑
No, the evidence is there. So wrong, as usual.

What evidence was there, please?

Anybody else , please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[leroy]

It is on topic as you try to use entropy as an argument for your "small universes are more abundant" hypothesis. I think that backfires as small universes can't, over their lifetime, have the same amount of entropy as big universes.
And even if we disregard entropy, the chance of life popping up in one corner of a big universe is bigger than it being in a small universe.

I apologize if i ever said "small universe" these universes are not necessarily small, they could be big universes with a small bubble of order with 1 star and 1 planet........ These universes would be far more abundant than universes like ours...... Therefore the most common type of observer would be those who live in universes with 1 star.

Any disagreement,?

 

[leroy]

We are talking about the "design" possibility being an explanation for the FT of the universe.
"Design" has been brought forth as an explanation many times. I choose Behe as a prominent example with the most scientific and credible attempts. (I don't cling to that example.)
1/4 is the most generous upper bound for the chance of "design" being the correct answer for FT based on past performances of "design" as an explanation.

I still dont understand.... Whether if Behe succeeded or not seems irrelevant for this argument

 

[leroy]

Your version of the argument doesn't make sense. Entropy is disorder. 1 star is not high entropy? The more complex the universe became the more entropy increased. A universe with low entropy, in our case, had no building blocks to create life. Antimatter could have wiped out all matter. There is no way to know how a new universe is going to evolve? Maybe everything will form a giant black hole? During the big bang all forces were unified into one single force. You cannot create life with one super-energetic super dense force. This is not a reliable way to end up with solar systems hat could produce life.
That is just one observation. All of them together is his argument.

In order to have a universe that started with a big bang, and later evolved in to a universe with many stars, the initial entropy would have had to be very low

Carol's point is, "we only need 1 star" the initial entropy didn't had to be that low. (therefore no design)

Do you find this argument compelling?

However since God can do whatever why not just create one solar system and start life? If life was an actual goal for some God? Why not just do that? What we actually see looks more like a universe created by natural processes that has no intention or goal.

Well develop your argument...... Up to this point i don't find it compelling

How do you go from

1 god could have created a simpler universe....

To

Therefore no design?

You are obviously missing some premises... So plese develop an argument

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well can you quote any definition ether mine or form my sources, where I “baked” design into the definition?

AFAICT, you haven't defined it explicitly, so we're working off of the normal usage: fine tuning is tuning (i.e. adjustment to ensure proper functioning) that is finely done (i.e. precise).

As for other sources... the last time I brought up Craig's arguments - you know: the ones that you linked to and said represent your views - you called them "irrelevant." At this point, I'm not 100% sure that you've even read them, but I'm satisfied that you don't necessarily agree with them. This means that defending your position is entirely up to you

Well if we play poker and I get 100 royal flushes in a row…what would you conclude

1 Obviously I am cheating (design)

2 well that is as unlikely as any other combination of cards , so no problem…

(obviously you would conclude 1)

You're inswrting your own values into the analogy. It would only be human arrogance that would consider it a "royal flush" for the universe when some parameter of the universe falls in the range consistent with life.

A better analogy would be that in that unthinkably long series of hands, at tye hands you especially care about - which probably aren't most of the hands - you drew cards that you thought were especially meaningful.

Nobody is saying “unlikely” therefore design

The argument is “unlikely” + “a pattern that can’t be explained by chance nor necessity” therefore design.

I know that's what you're trying to do, but you haven't actually done it.

This is how we always identify design in our daily lifes, and in some sciences like archeology, forensic science cryptography etc……………….why making an arbitrary exception in the cases where you don’t like the theological implications?

No, you aren't using our "daily life" ways for identifying design.

Every day, we use those heuristics to identify lots of things around us that are undesigned. You're asking us to set aside our normal heuristics for design and instead assume that absolutely everything is designed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The problem is that the "fine tuning" that we observe is nothing like that. It is more like getting a pair of twos in one hand and an ace high in the next.

It is nothing at all like this. It is, rather, so vastly improbable, so unnaturally artificial and contrived that it is the primary reason so many cosmologists and theoretical physics justify and defend multiverse cosmologies and similar mainly metaphysical speculation they argue to be scientifically warranted:


"Suppose there was only one universe. Then it would be very difficult to explain miraculous features of our universe, such as the structure of elementary particles and the value of the vacuum energy, without resorting to some sort of creator. In the multiverse picture, however, there are an enormous number (10^500 or more) of different universes, so some of them possess these miraculous features that lead to intelligent life, without a help of any creator. This, of course, does not prove that there is no such creator, but given that a goal of science is to try to understand our physical nature as much as possible without relying on such an almighty person, the approach of the multiverse is exactly that of science."

Nomura, Y. (2018). Demystifying the Multiverse. In Y. Nomura, B. Poirier, & J. Terning (Eds.). Quantum Physics, Mini Black Holes, and the Multiverse: Debunking Common Misconceptions in Theoretical Physics (Multiversal Journeys). Springer.


I quote the above not because it is particularly noteworthy in and of itself. Far from it. Rather, as a general sentiment one can find almost precisely the same echoed in conferences on BSM physics and cosmology, journals and other technical literature, and even in tutorials for post-graduates and post-docs at relevant symposia/conferences held more-or-less annually. The above is unique, rather, in expressing clearly and concisely such a widely held sentiment in a source that, while intended for the layperson, is part of an edited volume itself part of an academic series with an editorial board just like those peer-reviewed journals possess and for the same reasons. Even more spectacular (and more important) is that the whole point of this particular volume is to correct popular misconceptions due to popular/sensationalist “science” accounts, to provide instead accounts by specialists intended to “demystify” for the public issues that are routinely misunderstood.

 

[Heyo]

I still dont understand.... Whether if Behe succeeded or not seems irrelevant for this argument

It was my attempt at estimating the probability of the creator hypothesis to be true. Probability = # hits / # of possibilities.
Do you have a better way for estimating a probability for the creator hypothesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is nothing at all like this. It is, rather, so vastly improbable, so unnaturally artificial and contrived that it is the primary reason so many cosmologists and theoretical physics justify and defend multiverse cosmologies and similar mainly metaphysical speculation they argue to be scientifically warranted:

What is improbable? The problem with many of the claims of improbability is that upon examination they are not there. By the way, the multiverse concept is not used as a justification. Nor is it a metaphysical speculation. It arises from the mathematics of physics.

"Suppose there was only one universe. Then it would be very difficult to explain miraculous features of our universe, such as the structure of elementary particles and the value of the vacuum energy, without resorting to some sort of creator. In the multiverse picture, however, there are an enormous number (10^500 or more) of different universes, so some of them possess these miraculous features that lead to intelligent life, without a help of any creator. This, of course, does not prove that there is no such creator, but given that a goal of science is to try to understand our physical nature as much as possible without relying on such an almighty person, the approach of the multiverse is exactly that of science."

Nomura, Y. (2018). Demystifying the Multiverse. In Y. Nomura, B. Poirier, & J. Terning (Eds.). Quantum Physics, Mini Black Holes, and the Multiverse: Debunking Common Misconceptions in Theoretical Physics (Multiversal Journeys). Springer.

Like I said, when examined the improbabilities are not there.

I quote the above not because it is particularly noteworthy in and of itself. Far from it. Rather, as a general sentiment one can find almost precisely the same echoed in conferences on BSM physics and cosmology, journals and other technical literature, and even in tutorials for post-graduates and post-docs at relevant symposia/conferences held more-or-less annually. The above is unique, rather, in expressing clearly and concisely such a widely held sentiment in a source that, while intended for the layperson, is part of an edited volume itself part of an academic series with an editorial board just like those peer-reviewed journals possess and for the same reasons. Even more spectacular (and more important) is that the whole point of this particular volume is to correct popular misconceptions due to popular/sensationalist “science” accounts, to provide instead accounts by specialists intended to “demystify” for the public issues that are routinely misunderstood.

Yes, lay people will misinterpret the sciences so that it supports their personal beliefs at times. The big problem with the FT argument is that it will always be an argument from ignorance. It is based upon a logical fallacy.

 

[tas8831]

Sean Carroll
@seanmcarroll

The more you think about it, fine tuning is an excellent argument against theism. God could make life no matter what the laws of physics were. Fine tuning is only necessary if life is purely physical and God doesn’t exist.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sean Carroll
@seanmcarroll

The more you think about it, fine tuning is an excellent argument against theism. God could make life no matter what the laws of physics were. Fine tuning is only necessary if life is purely physical and God doesn’t exist.

tas8831 wrote, "Fine tuning is only necessary if life is purely physical and God doesn’t exist"

Is it from Science/Scientific Method, please?
Regards

 

[joelr]

" But no, things happen in the universe by probability right now. "

How does one know that, please? Please quote one's source . Right, please?

Regards

The building blocks of the universe obey the laws of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows only a limited amount of information about any quantum object to be known. The more you measure momentum the less you know about the position of any particle. This quality is always conserved. So when a specific particle will decay, it's position, momentum, any behavior in spacetime cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy.
We can only make predictions using probability. This also applies to macroscopic objects and events. Determinism was an idea that came from the Newtonian mechanistic era. The universe was believed to be a machine. If you knew the exact position of every moving part you could predict the future with mathematical precision.
Quantum mechanics puts a strict limit on this which shows the universe is indeterministic.

 

[joelr]

In order to have a universe that started with a big bang, and later evolved in to a universe with many stars, the initial entropy would have had to be very low

Carol's point is, "we only need 1 star" the initial entropy didn't had to be that low. (therefore no design)

Do you find this argument compelling?

No he's saying the entropy didn't need be as low as it was. He isn't saying it means no designer he's saying it doesn't look like a designer made the universe for life.
His "1 star" argument is along the lines of if a God wanted to create life why not just create a small solar system using God-power. Why create a universe that large. It doesn't support the idea it was created for us.

Well develop your argument...... Up to this point i don't find it compelling

How do you go from

1 god could have created a simpler universe....

To

Therefore no design?

You are obviously missing some premises... So plese develop an argument

A God could have created a small pocket universe with a sun and planets if he just wanted us, why not? But there is a gigantic universe. The low entropy is in regards to the universe started out very simple. Far too simple for life as we know it.
Many things had to line up to get to this point. Quantum mechanics only allows for probabilities. So that doesn't look like a universe designed for humans.
He isn't saying it means "no design"? He's saying if the universe was designed there would likely be clues and observations. If the universe arose naturally there would also be clues.
These observations favor a natural universe.
Again, if you were a God and wanted a chair would you create a big bang? The universe was not only far too simple but it's not great at sustaining life even when a planet actually lines up in the right spot around the right star and the correct elements have been created and all that. Climate change, pandemics, natural disasters and space disasters wipe out life often. None of this looks designed for life. It looks much more like a natural phenomenon. Just the formation of matter/antimatter pairs when the universe cooled enough to create matter could have wiped out all matter immediately. That looks exactly like what you would expect if the universe came about naturally without the intention to create humans.

It's believed in astrophysics that the solar system dips into an area of the galaxy with a high density of asteroids every 60 million years or so. We have extinction impacts that match this observation. Not a design you would expect from a God who created this for human creation.

There are no premises missing. That's it. So what you do is move to the next observation.

 

[paarsurrey]

The building blocks of the universe obey the laws of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows only a limited amount of information about any quantum object to be known. The more you measure momentum the less you know about the position of any particle. This quality is always conserved. So when a specific particle will decay, it's position, momentum, any behavior in spacetime cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy.
We can only make predictions using probability. This also applies to macroscopic objects and events. Determinism was an idea that came from the Newtonian mechanistic era. The universe was believed to be a machine. If you knew the exact position of every moving part you could predict the future with mathematical precision.
Quantum mechanics puts a strict limit on this which shows the universe is indeterministic.

joelr wrote," The building blocks of the universe obey the laws of quantum mechanics."

Do the building blocks of the Universe even know that there are laws of quantum mechanic it has to obey, please? Right, please?

Regards