Fallacies in the Fine Tuning argument (challenge)

[leroy]

Really that is your reaction? You don't want to learn why you are wrong? .... Well that is a typical thing that atheist do

Yes, it's absolutely wrong. The fallacy is that, with God, Anything can be life permitting. God can even make stones or stars or space-time itself, a living being with a soul and awareness. Hence you cannot even calculate the probabilities of a life permitting universe given God. Hence no comparison can be made.

Grate .... the good news is that the author of the paper in the OP also note that problem...and is not even trying to calculate the probability of a life permitting universe given the existence of God.

 

[Koldo]

That anything exists at all is an astonishing feat in that it requires an extraordinary interjection of limitation into the limitless nothingness that must otherwise logically reign supreme. And whatever it was/is that interjects these limitations is being rightfully labeled "God".

To say that the limitless nothingness would otherwise reign supreme is to say that the limitless nothingness would exist, but that which does not exist can not reign supreme. And obviously the limitless nothing by definition can not possibly exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Grate .... the good news is that the author of the paper in the OP also note that problem...and is not even trying to calculate the probability of a life permitting universe given the existence of God.

Just wondering.

Considering we don't know how the universe originated (naturalistically or otherwise), how then could one ever calculate the probability of a life permitting universe in either case?

You mentioned several times that the article supposedly is all about how a naturalistic life permitting universe is "improbable".
Wouldn't you have to know how a natural universe originates in order to be able to calculate the probability of any potential universe resulting from that process?

 

[leroy]

How does it "conclude" that? What is the evidence in support of this claim?

Good question... but first answer my y question then we can change the topic and move to a different question

FT and other modern arguments" are themselves cesspools of logical fallacies

Please give an example of a logical fallacy made by the author of the article

1 quote his words

2 explain why is that a logical fallacy


You made a radical claim which entails a burden proof... You said that you would answer if I open a new thread.... So please go ahead..........or do you admit that you made that claim up? Or perhaps you are repeating like a parrot what your favorite atheist YouTuber said?

My point is that you don't have the intellectual right to dismiss the work of scholars and call it fallacious without any justification

 

[leroy]

Human brains didn't evolve to build microscopes.
The ability to built microscopes is a side effect.

Increased intelligence and tool-building in general, was very much a selective advantage of our social ancestors.

The problem is our ability to wonder about deep stuff .... Why do we care about tiny things and build microscopes, why do we care about distant planets and build telescopes ? Why do we wonder about the meaning of life and invent gods,?


The ability to wonder about deep stuff requires an extra layer of complexity in the brain and such extra complexity has no selective benefits.... So under naturalism this extra layer of complexity is hard to explain and unexpected

 

[viole]

@TagliatelliMonster made the following claim:


So I decided to challenge him and anyone who agrees with him to support the assertion.

The challenge is

1 read this article that describes a version of the FT argument

A Reasonable Little Question: A Formulation of the Fine-Tuning Argument

2 quote (copy paste) one logical fallacy or mistake or flaw in the argument

3 explain why you think that is a logical fallacy mistake or flaw






Well above you have an argument against naturalism, care to explain what it wrong with it? Please refute the actual argument presented in the article, not your straw man version of it


The article concludes, that naturalism predicts a non-life permitting universe………………so where did the author failed? If you think that he made 100 mistakes , then pick one (the biggest mistake) and explain why is it a mistake

The easiest way is to postulate, as a logical possibility, that there are infinite universes, each with its own tuning and natural laws, and that therefore it is to be expected that some (actually infinite of them) have the tuning required for life.

Therefore, as long as this possibility exists, the God conclusion is a non sequitur.

And this is only one example of many possible alternative naturalistic explanations. Assuming that the existence of life really needs to be explained, which might be question begging anyway. For any law of nature is fine tuned for what it produces.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@TagliatelliMonster made the following claim:


So I decided to challenge him and anyone who agrees with him to support the assertion.

The challenge is

1 read this article that describes a version of the FT argument

A Reasonable Little Question: A Formulation of the Fine-Tuning Argument

2 quote (copy paste) one logical fallacy or mistake or flaw in the argument

3 explain why you think that is a logical fallacy mistake or flaw






Well above you have an argument against naturalism, care to explain what it wrong with it? Please refute the actual argument presented in the article, not your straw man version of it


The article concludes, that naturalism predicts a non-life permitting universe………………so where did the author failed? If you think that he made 100 mistakes , then pick one (the biggest mistake) and explain why is it a mistake

As far as I can tell, the article never actually explains what "fine tuned" means or explains how we could come to the conclusion that the universe is "fine tuned," so the starting point ends up being a tautology: "the universe is exactly as it is, and if it were different, it would be different."

Tautologies are useless as the basis for logical arguments.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Granted, FT doesn’t require a designer *necessarily* the argument is that design is the best explanation not that it is *necessarily* the correct explanation.

In my opinion, the proper position is that neither the naturalistic nor the theistic explanations for fine tuning can be ruled in or out, so neither should be declared correct or incorrect, which is close to what you wrote. Of the two possibilities, intelligent design is NOT the best explanation. I already made the parsimony argument a few posts back, but you didn't comment on it, and here I see that you either didn't understand it or rejected it out of hand without counter argument.

In any event, I won't repeat it. You get one chance to comment when you see such claims and arguments, and another if you are told it was posted as you have been now and you are willing to go look for it. Or, if you can remember what was written fully and correctly, you can answer what you remember.

From the fact that God created a FT universe it doesn’t follow that God is constrained by the laws of nature

If a god could have made a universe fit for material, biological, and psychological evolution setting those parameters at other values, they can't be called fine-tuned.

You can't have it both ways, where first one points out how unlikely this universe is because if gravity were just a tad stronger or weaker, the universe could not have supported life and mind and then say that an intelligent designer wasn't constrained by that fact as well.

do you see why your objection is based on a straw man? Do you see how your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises?

No. State them both explicitly and then make your argument for why you said what you said.

You left somebody else's argument again after I just explained why I need you to summarize that argument yourself with or without including the supporting link.

Did you see those reasons and if so, do you recall them? There is no evidence in your subsequent posting that you did, but evidence that you didn't. You did it again. Spoiler, and last time I will repeat this: I'm not going to guess just which words you were interested in or how you understood them.

If you want to notice and assimilate that idea now, that would be a step in the right direction.

Or you can just let it go by unheeded and one day tell me that I never gave you such reasons, at which time I will disagree, you will ask me to reproduce it a third or fourth time, I'll refuse, and you will accuse me of trolling you (bad faith posting). We've gone down that road at least twice before, but you can do your part NOW to prevent that, or not.

Aren’t you asking me to ignore everything except for the thing that interests you?

That was in response to, "If the past predicts the future, I'm guessing that you'll ignore most of this post's claims, arguments, and questions" which, of course, you have done since I wrote that. You left a reference to somebody else's argument without making one yourself.

That was a nonresponsive reply; it doesn't address what I wrote.

Maybe you were referring to my disinterest in going down rabbit holes with you. If so, perhaps you should have quoted that instead.

I'm not dictating what you must and must not discuss with me. I'm telling you that our discussions need to be topics of interest to us both. If you enjoy discussing A, B, C, and D and I enjoy C, D, E, and F, then our discussions should be limited to C and D.

I don't know just which of the areas of interest to me are also of interest to you, but if we can find common ground, we have the basis for a discussion. If it's discussion that only one of us is willing to have, then we don't have it. It's democratic, not dictatorial.

The problem is our ability to wonder about deep stuff .... Why do we care about tiny things and build microscopes, why do we care about distant planets and build telescopes ? Why do we wonder about the meaning of life and invent gods,?

Those aren't difficult questions given the gifts that evolution has conferred upon man. We have curiosity just like the other apes, but unlike them, we possess the ability to reason and communicate in words leading to cities, complex machines, and libraries. It was inevitable that man would develop science and technology given those gifts and the gifts of nature like the possibility of harnessing electricity.

The ability to wonder about deep stuff requires an extra layer of complexity in the brain and such extra complexity has no selective benefits.

Disagree. Those abilities have given man dominion over and protection from the beasts, and have allowed him to live longer (reduced infant and maternal mortality, vaccines, nutrition, public health, pacemakers, medications, etc.) and made his life more functional (eyeglasses, large joint replacements). These are selective benefits.

 

[PureX]

To say that the limitless nothingness would otherwise reign supreme is to say that the limitless nothingness would exist, but that which does not exist can not reign supreme. And obviously the limitless nothing by definition can not possibly exist.

As far as I can tell, the article never actually explains what "fine tuned" means or explains how we could come to the conclusion that the universe is "fine tuned," so the starting point ends up being a tautology: "the universe is exactly as it is, and if it were different, it would be different."

Tautologies are useless as the basis for logical arguments.

The fundamental alternatives are 'something', or 'nothing'. Nothing requires nothing, and is perpetual. Something requires "tuning" the nothingness. It requires that the nothingness be limited to enable something to occur. And if the something that occers is complex and organized, those limitations have to be very specific.

If you look around yourself (or within yourself) you will see that something is occurring, and that it is very complex and highly organized. Which then requires some very specific limitations to be imposed the endless nothingness that would otherwise be the alternative. And these limitations are what are being called "tuning". The "fineness" of this tuning is irrelevant, I think, as compared to the fact that it is occurring, and that existence as we experience it is the result.

And why would we logically not EXPECT the most fundamental aspects of the phenomenon of existence to be tautological? How could they NOT be?

 

[Koldo]

The alternatives are 'something', or 'nothing'.

Alternatives for what?

Nothing requires nothing. Something requires "tuning" the nothingness. It requires that the nothingness be limited to enable something to occur.

Nothingness can not be tuned, nor limited. Nothingness can not be, by definition, interacted with.

 

[PureX]

Alternatives for what?

To the question of being.

Nothingness can not be tuned, nor limited. Nothingness can not be, by definition, interacted with.

That's why it has to be limited for ANYTHING to occur. And whatever imposes that limiting has to come from beyond it, and possess abilities beyond our comprehension. This is not something that we can envision or understand. It's why we call it "God".

But our not being able to comprehend it does not make the necessity of it go away. Because SOMETHING is occurring. Nothingness has been limited. And it has been limited in very specific ways. BY SOMETHING ELSE. And existence as we experience it is the result.

 

[Koldo]

To the question of being.

What question of being?

That's why it has to be limited for ANYTHING to occur. And whatever imposes that limiting has to come from beyond it, and possess abilities beyond our comprehension. It's why we call it "God".

To say that nothingness has to be limited for anything to occur means that nothingness exist(ed) and then someone/something limited it. But that doesn't make sense because nothingness couldn't possibly exist, else it would be something, and that which does not exist can not be limited.

 

[PureX]

What question of being?

If you can't follow the discussion, then just stop trying.

To say that nothingness has to be limited for anything to occur means that nothingness exist(ed) and then someone/something limited it.

I did not say that. You did. Because it serves your desire to reject any inference of God.

But that doesn't make sense because nothingness couldn't possibly exist, else it would be something, and that which does not exist can not be limited.

Congratulations, you successfully recognized the impenetrable paradox of existence. (And why it requires a transcendent "other".)

 

[Koldo]

If you can't follow the discussion, then just stop trying.

The discussion is the fine tuning problem.
You are the one bringing up the 'question of being'.

I did not say that. You did. Because it serves your desire to reject any inference of God.

You did not say what? That nothingness has to be limited for anything to occur? You just did in your former post.

Congratulations, you successfully recognized the impenetrable paradox of existence. (And why it requires a transcendent "other".)

It is a paradox of your making that only exists in your mind though. Nothingness being limited is not a requirement for something to exist.

 

[wellwisher]

What makes you think we aren't?

You make no sense. Our tools are just as natural as we are.
A microscope is not some supernatural magical thing.

Hogwash.
When we look at microbes through a microscope, we don't require "faith" to accept what we see.
Likewise, when we look at the surface of the moon through a telescope, we don't require "faith" to accept what we see either.
What preposterous things to say....

This makes no sense.
A microscope doesn't break any laws of physics.
Au contraire. It makes use of the laws of physics (optics) to allow us to see things at microscopic level, to zoom in on things that our eyes can't zoom in on.
There is nothing "unnatural" about that.

I for one, have never seen DNA under a microscope. It is not a direct sensory experience to me, based on me verifying this with my natural five senses. I have to take your word for it, with faith, since I could use AI and photoshop and create a similar photo as seen in publications. I can even show the fake to others and they will think it is reasonable, and also have faith. Going to a lab and seeing the slide prepared and then the image for myself, would dispel the faith, I initially required. All laymen connected to any specialty, are in the same boat and need some faith in the expert's knowledge of what they saw and how it is explained. Memorizing without seeing for yourself is not the same.

Science tools, like the microscope, do not form naturally on earth, like what is assumed for chemical, biological or geological evolution. Tool trees never evolved that have giant pods with electron microscopes, inside. These do not form from the natural materialism that science says formed life and mountains. These tools appear on earth only because of humans. They all start in the imagination as a visual or a hunch. Their beginning is not yet part of physical or tangible reality. Often materialists make fun of these early images. If man was meant to fly he would have wings; materialist evolution only. It is only after development, that the tools become material, tangible and now are connected to the five senses, helping to enhance our senses. Now everyone sees it as material, as though it grew on a tree or was found under a rock. Conception was more like the movement of information without material form.

The fives senses of many animals, are way more advanced than human senses; eagle eyes, dog's sense of smell, etc. If they, hypothetically, had an urge to investigate the material world to form their own science or philosophy theory of materialism, their better natural tools would give better and deeper data, than our human senses. Instead, they remain integrated with natural materialism, with their natural tools ideally suited and evolved for their role in the natural order of natural materialism. Humans have lost that connection; fall from paradise, and now we have to invent and modify reality to create our own state of faux materials, that are not natural, but in some way better than natural, to help compensate.

The point I was making is, natural materialism has a stopping point. It shift gears when humans began to add unnatural materials and tools, to enhance their senses, in a way that would not naturally appear. There is another layer of potential that can generate potential materialism, that lies beyond natural, and is connected to human consciousness. The God intuition is an intuition of this extra layer, that can not easily be define with only the natural materialism of science. Theory, itself, is often a tool that is not natural, since theory comes from the same place as tools; where natural materialism ends. Science never reaches steady state since it has legs on either side of the divide but is not aware of the divide, since consciousness calibration remains elusive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because what exists is spectacularly organized and complex.

That is not evidence. It is merely an observation. You need a rational testable explanation to even have evidence in the sciences.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That analogy is known to be false //

Ummm, nope.

Care to explain?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good question... but first answer my y question then we can change the topic and move to a different question

What question?

Please give an example of a logical fallacy made by the author of the article

1 quote his words

2 explain why is that a logical fallacy


You made a radical claim which entails a burden proof... You said that you would answer if I open a new thread.... So please go ahead..........or do you admit that you made that claim up? Or perhaps you are repeating like a parrot what your favorite atheist YouTuber said?

My point is that you don't have the intellectual right to dismiss the work of scholars and call it fallacious without any justification

No. I'm not going to hunt down in the article which talks about a whole lot of stuff. Another post here already gave a good explanation for why that is an exercise in futility. This is a discussion forum. Make your own argument. I'm not interested in you posting a link to a long tedious article and then having me go hunt for the relevant bits.

By all means, post the link as a reference, but make your own argument.

Having said that, plenty of people here have already pointed out several problems with it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is our ability to wonder about deep stuff

Why is that a "problem"?
We evolved intelligence for very good survival reasons.
That enabled us to think about "deep stuff". What's the issue?

.... Why do we care about tiny things and build microscopes, why do we care about distant planets and build telescopes ? Why do we wonder about the meaning of life and invent gods,?

All these things actually very much helped our ability to survive and reproduce.

The ability to wonder about deep stuff requires an extra layer of complexity in the brain and such extra complexity has no selective benefits....

Does it? How did you conclude that?

So under naturalism this extra layer of complexity is hard to explain and unexpected

You have yet to demonstrate that it even requires some mysterious "extra layer".

 

[Subduction Zone]

What question?


No. I'm not going to hunt down in the article which talks about a whole lot of stuff. Another post here already gave a good explanation for why that is an exercise in futility. This is a discussion forum. Make your own argument. I'm not interested in you posting a link to a long tedious article and then having me go hunt for the relevant bits.

By all means, post the link as a reference, but make your own argument.

Having said that, plenty of people here have already pointed out several problems with it.

That is one of his favorite games. I do not play the "wayback game" with him either. Most of the time I put him into corrections only mode. I will correct him but will ignore demands to show how he is wrong for the twentieth time or more.